Suchergebnisse

ABSTRACTAccusations of conspiracy are nothing new in American politics, but examples in which the government—usually cast as a key player in conspiracy theories—goes on record to corroborate that a conspiracy occurred are rare. I leveraged an experiment that randomly exposes both college-student and general-public subject pools to information about the 1979 House Select Committee on Assassination report of a probable conspiracy in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. I find that those exposed to government corroboration of a conspiracy (1) are more prone to anger in response to the government report; (2) engage in an increased search of available media information about the assassination; and (3) are more likely to agree with the conclusion of a conspiracy in Kennedy's murder. Implications for additional research about government pronouncements on controversial issues and follow-on public reaction also are discussed.

ABSTRACTThe use of field experiments in political science has become extensive, but the promise of conducting a randomized intervention in a "real world" setting also raises perils for researchers. Partnering with organizations to deliver a randomized intervention may be a cost effective route to data collection, but a long-distance partnership presents certain challenges. In particular, the researcher needs to be especially vigilant about treatment application given the potential for noncompliance with the random assignment schedule. I provide an evaluation of a field intervention's effectiveness where the long-distance partner organization inadvertently violated the random assignment of voter precincts in a canvassing effort prior to a citizen vote to repeal a non-discrimination housing ordinance protecting LGBT residents of a Midwestern city. I then provide recommendations for researchers to help mitigate treatment noncompliance when they cannot be present during treatment delivery.

In this article, I examine whether a constituency's political brand-defined here as the reputation that white evangelicals and Catholics have for "pro-life" abortion policy-influences the public abortion position taken by members in six U.S. state Houses of Representatives. At issue is whether constituent political brand functions as a non-interest group influence on state legislators. A fitting of the brand literature to the state politics domain suggests that the effect of political brand might be dependent on constituent presence in a state House district-be it the relative size of the constituency or its organizational (church-based) cohesion. Results confirm the influence of constituent political brand and point to white evangelicals as having an influence on a member's abortion position based on the size and homogeneity of their constituency. Catholics possess brand influence as well, but theirs is powered by the church's organizational-parish-presence and cohesion in U.S. state House districts. These findings suggest that the two major "pro-life" constituencies in American politics are able to leverage brand in the political realm in ways that the literature has not previously considered. Adapted from the source document.