Suchergebnisse

We present a group-based approach to the study of deliberation. Deliberation occurs in groups, yet many studies of deliberation do not take the group as a unit of analysis. We argue that group composition and the attendant social dynamics to which they give rise are an important aspect of deliberation. We offer several examples of ways to study these effects, including the interaction of gender composition and the group's decision rule in the context of an experimental study of decisions about justice, the effect of racial composition in simulated juries, and the effect of ideological composition in local meetings. We examine the consequences of these factors on a variety of outcomes, including individuals' private opinion, individuals' behaviour, and group decisions. In conclusion we discuss the implications that group effects have for empirical and normative theories of deliberation. Adapted from the source document.

Can stereotypes of ethnic groups have an indirect impact on voters' judgments even if voters reject them? We examine the case of Jewish leaders and hypothesize that acceptable political stereotypes (Jews are liberal) are linked in voters' minds to unacceptable social stereotypes (Jews are shady); consequently, a cue to the candidate's shadiness works indirectly by increasing the perception that the candidate is liberal, even as the shady cue is rejected. Using three national survey‐experiments we randomly varied a candidate's Jewish identity, ideology, and shadiness. The cue to the rejected social stereotype indeed activates the more legitimate political stereotype. Moreover, voters give more weight to the candidate's perceived liberalism in their evaluation. Consequently, the candidate's support suffers. However, when the candidate takes a more extreme ideological position on issues, the effects disappear. The indirect influence of discredited stereotypes and the limits of those stereotypes have implications for our understanding of voting and of the legacies of discrimination.

Most research on the environmental determinants of whites' racial attitudes focuses on the "threat" hypothesis, ie, that white racism increases with the competition posed by a larger black population. We argue that in the segregated US contextual effects are more complicated than this, involving both race & socioeconomic status. Cross-level data on individual racial attitudes & the environment's racial & education composition, constructed from the 1991 Race & Politics Survey & the 1990 Census, support this assertion. Living among more uneducated whites has a greater impact on whites' racial attitudes than does living among more blacks. Further analysis shows that the sources of this effect come less from interracial competition & more from a psychological response of outgroup hostility generated by low status contexts. We also find that whites' views on racially targeted policies are shaped by racial contexts but only where the contextual parameter coincides with the policy outcome. Our findings suggest specific limitations to the threat thesis & highlight other ways that social contexts shape racial attitudes. 4 Tables, 1 Figure, 1 Appendix, 42 References. Adapted from the source document.

Examines the effect of racial isolation on the extent of prejudice expressed in the opinions of White Americans on racial policy; based on the General Social Survey, 1990.