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.

AbstractIn 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.

Objective. Though constituent reference groups have been shown to impact clergy political behavior, studies have largely cast group influence as a fixed effect. In an update of how specific constituent groups may affect clergy political speech, I assess whether clergy intentionally select cues from specific constituencies in determining whether to sermonize on an issue of political controversy.Method. Data were collected from a 2006 survey of clergy in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). I use a series of maximum likelihood models to determine the effect of group cues on clergy behavior.Results. Results show that clergy look to cues from both their congregations and denominational leaders when electing to deliver a sermon. What is more, clergy report feeling pressure from their congregational constituencies to behave in ways that they do not prefer. This pressure also impacts their decision to sermonize.Conclusion. Taken together, these findings suggest that clergy, who are beginning to receive systematic attention for their role as framers and motivators of political deliberation among their followers, are subject to the influence of varied constituencies in exercising this deliberative role.

I use two maximum likelihood models to assess whether the density of Roman Catholics & white evangelicals in state legislative districts significantly increases the likelihood that state House representatives hold the "pro-life" position on abortion. As hypothesized, the relative district density of both Catholic parishes & white evangelical adherents is found to be a significant "pro-life" influence. These are provocative findings. They suggest that not only is officeholder polarization the product of machinations by political elites (Fiorina et al. 2006), but that interested publics representing essentially non-political institutions & constituent blocs also contribute to such polarization, at least in regard to State abortion politics. Tables, Appendixes, References. Adapted from the source document.