Changing minds or changing channels?: partisan news in an age of choice
In: Chicago studies in American politics
129 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Chicago studies in American politics
In: Politics and the life sciences: PLS ; a journal of political behavior, ethics, and policy, Band 39, Heft 1, S. 4-8
ISSN: 1471-5457
My interest in biopolitics took a circuitous route. My guiding interest in studying politics is the study of democratic representation. Democracy is a special institution. It holds out the hope that we can resolve our differences in a peaceful way by letting the governed govern themselves. As a graduate student, I was immediately taken by Anthony Down's (1957) theory of democracy. It just made so much sense. People hold preferences that are ordered and coherent. They derive utility from outcomes. Government policy should, therefore, reflect the distribution of policy preferences that maximizes the utility of the most people. Easy peasy, right?
In: Journal of experimental political science: JEPS, Band 4, Heft 1, S. 68-80
ISSN: 2052-2649
AbstractSubstantial research concludes that favoritism toward members of people's ingroup, or ingroup bias, motivates people to oppose public programs that assist needy outgroup individuals. I argue that a gap in the empathic capacity for ingroup and outgroup members motivates and maintains ingroup bias in helping behavior and is sensitive to contextual cues that trigger anxiety. Using a novel experimental design, Study 1 demonstrates that anxiety exacerbates the outgroup empathy gap. Study 2 replicates these findings with an explicit measure of outgroup empathy. Study 3 shows that the outgroup empathy gap causes individuals to become less supportive of helping needy outgroup members. These studies suggest that opposition to welfare programs may go beyond simple prejudice.
In: American journal of political science, Band 56, Heft 2, S. 271-285
ISSN: 1540-5907
Competition in political debate is not always sufficient to neutralize the effects of political rhetoric on public opinion. Yet little is known about the factors that shape the persuasiveness of political arguments. In this article, I consider whether cognitive biases influence the perceived strength of political arguments, making some arguments more persuasive than others. Lessons from neurobiology and recent political psychology research on emotion lead to the expectation that individuals are more likely to be persuaded by political arguments that evoke loss aversion via a fearful response—even in the face of a counterargument. Evidence from two experiments corroborates this expectation. I consider the normative implications of these empirical findings and potential avenues for future research.
In: Public opinion quarterly: journal of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, Band 76, Heft 2, S. 391-391
ISSN: 0033-362X
In: Public opinion quarterly: journal of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, Band 76, Heft 2, S. 391-394
ISSN: 0033-362X
In: American journal of political science: AJPS, Band 56, Heft 2, S. 271-286
ISSN: 0092-5853
In: Political communication: an international journal, Band 28, Heft 4, S. 466-468
ISSN: 1091-7675
In: Political communication, Band 28, Heft 4, S. 466-469
ISSN: 1058-4609
In: The annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Band 628, Heft 1, S. 209-212
ISSN: 1552-3349
In: Political communication: an international journal, Band 27, Heft 2, S. 199-215
ISSN: 1091-7675
In: Political communication, Band 27, Heft 2, S. 199-216
ISSN: 1058-4609
In: Publius: the journal of federalism, Band 35, Heft 2, S. 297-297
ISSN: 0048-5950
In: The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Band 60, Heft 1, S. 169-179
SSRN
In: Quarterly Journal of Political Science, Band 2, Heft 1, S. 43-65
SSRN