Suchergebnisse

"Dynamic Process Tracing Methods in the Study of Political Decision Making" published on by Oxford University Press.

Public trust and perceptions of institutional legitimacy are vital to the functioning of the federal court system, and recent work challenges the long-standing belief that these attitudes are relatively stable in the populace. We posit that one threat to perceptions of trust and legitimacy is the lack of representation for women in the federal judiciary. Using a series of experiments, we show that, while women desire descriptive representation, this is an insufficient condition for preserving support for the institution. Substantive representation on issues critical to women leads to significantly increased trust and legitimacy and lowered perceptions of institutional bias among women. While female judges may bring their own social identities to bear in their decision-making, our work suggests that efforts to diversify the federal judiciary, while important, are unlikely to bolster public support for the courts if the new judges and justices fail to substantively represent the communities of interest.

Disproportionate rates of congressional representation based on gender and race are especially stark considering the symbolic and substantive meaning derived from descriptive representation (Mansbridge 1999). Using an original data set consisting of candidate demographics, district characteristics, and campaign finance reports, we analyze an understudied barrier to representation: unequal access to campaign receipts. We argue that it is the simultaneous gendering and racialization of the campaign finance system that produces gaps in campaign fundraising and representation (Crenshaw 1989). Our results underscore the limitations of unitary approaches which conclude that women no longer face a disadvantage in campaign fundraising. Unequal access to campaign receipts serve as a barrier to the descriptive representation of women of color. By analyzing the interaction of both race and gender on campaign receipt totals in U.S. House elections from 2010 to 2018, we assert the path to representation is not equal for all.

AbstractGrowing research shows a correlation between gender, benevolent sexism, partisanship, and COVID-19 public health compliance. We show first that women are more likely than men to engage in protective behaviors to slow the spread of COVID-19. We also find that while Republicans and Independents are less likely to comply with these measures, benevolent sexism moderates the effect of partisanship and can increase compliance. These results suggest that framing public health directives in terms of chivalry and protection activates benevolent sexism, potentially offsetting patterns of noncompliance associated with partisanship. We discuss the negative consequences of these results and posit a need for bipartisan messages to reduce reliance on benevolent sexism in the future.

As national and international health agencies rushed to respond to the global spread of a novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2, commonly known as COVID-19), one challenge these organizations faced was the spread of misinformation and conspiracy theories about the virus. Troublingly, much of the misinformation was couched in racialized language, particularly regarding the source of the virus and responsibility for its spread, fostering the development of related conspiracy theories. Media coverage of these conspiracy theories, particularly early on in the pandemic, had negative impacts on individuals' engagement in protective behaviors and concern with the spread of COVID-19. From extant work, racial resentment and white identity have been shown to be deeply woven into the fabric of contemporary American politics, affecting perceptions of public opinion even after accounting for social and political identities. While racial attitudes have been less studied in relation to conspiracy theory belief, we expect racial resentment and white identity to affect compliance with public health behaviors and COVID-19 conspiracy theory belief. Using observational and experimental survey data (N= 1,045), quota-sampled through Lucid Theorem (LT) in the spring of 2020, we demonstrate that framing the virus in racialized language alters endorsement of COVID-19 conspiracy theories, contingent upon levels of racial resentment and white identity and find that higher levels of conspiracy theory belief decreased compliance with preventative measures.

Personality traits are one piece in the larger puzzle of political participation, but most studies focus on the Five-Factor Model of personality. We argue that the normative implications of the influence of personality on politics are increased when the personality traits being studied correlate with negative social behaviors. We investigate the role of the Dark Triad on political participation as mediated through political beliefs such as interest and knowledge. We find that Psychopathy and Narcissism are positively associated with political interest, but Narcissism is also negatively associated with political knowledge. In addition, both Psychopathy and Narcissism exert a direct, positive influence on participation. Our results imply that individuals exhibiting higher levels of Narcissism are not only less knowledgeable but also more interested in politics and more likely to participate when given the opportunity.

Although long privileged by scholarship in psychology, personality has only recently been considered as an influential factor for political orientations and actions. In this article, we consider personality's influence on another important tendency: the proclivity to engage in stereotyping and prejudicial thinking. Using a personality battery included for the first time on the 2012 American National Election Study (ANES), we examine the tendencies of particular personality types to stereotype. Results suggest that the two most politically relevant traits (Openness to Experience and Conscientiousness) are consistent predictors of authoritarian tendencies, which, in turn, produce indirect effects of personality on group-centric policy positions, over and above the effects through political predispositions such as partisanship. Our findings demonstrate the important role of group stereotyping in mediating the effects of personality on policy support.

AbstractThis study explores the relationship between individuals' racial attitudes, exposure to information cuing them to think about President Obama, and evaluations of the government's response to Hurricane Sandy. Using a split ballot experiment embedded in a large internet panel fielded during the 2012 presidential election, we show that respondents' evaluations of President Obama's response to Hurricane Sandy were based on their racial attitudes. We next examined the possibility for racial attitudes to "spill over" into how people evaluate governmental institutions and organizations associated with President Obama. We found evidence that respondents who were cued to think about President Obama and were impacted by Hurricane Sandy were more likely to base their evaluations of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's response to the disaster on their racial attitudes. In short, linking President Obama to Hurricane Sandy led people to ground their evaluations of an organization tasked with coordinating the response to Hurricane Sandy in their racial attitudes. Our research suggests that racial attitudes are important predictors of how individuals perceive President Obama's effectiveness as well as the efficacy of related government organizations.

Conventional wisdom suggests that partisanship is the "unmoved mover" in the minds of American voters. Revisionist theories hold that party updating is conditional on individual/contextual factors. By delimiting the scope conditions of the Michigan model, revisionist models do not fundamentally challenge the classic view. This paper proffers an unconditional model of party revision. We theorize that beliefs about government activism—operational ideology—are widely available and heuristically efficacious, and easily map onto party labels. Hence, operational ideology should drive party updating. Using data from seven panel studies covering 1990–2012, we demonstrate that (1) party shapes operational ideology, (2) operational ideology shapes party, (3) the ideology-to-party effects are as large as the party-to-ideology effects, and (4) neither sophistication nor education or elite polarization condition these relationships. These results push the revisionist model of party farther than it has gone before and suggest that operational ideology is a core predisposition in mass belief systems.