Suchergebnisse

AbstractIncreasingly, experimental research is being conducted on the Internet in addition to the laboratory. Online experiments are more convenient for subjects and researchers, but we know little about how the choice of study location affects data quality. To investigate whether respondent behavior differs across study location, we randomly assign subjects to participate in a study in a laboratory or in an online setting. Contrary to our expectations, we find few differences between participants in terms of the level of attention and socially desirable responding. However, we find significant differences in two areas: the degree of self-reported distractions while completing the questionnaire and the tendency to consult outside sources for answers to political knowledge questions. We conclude that when the greater convenience (and higher response rates) of online experiments outweighs these disadvantages, Internet administration of randomized experiments represent an alternative to laboratory administration.

The Internet has changed the political world, but its effect on media usage patterns is not well understood. In particular, previous research suggests no clear answer to the question of whether the Internet is a substitute for or a complement to traditional media outlets. We contribute to this literature by applying theories from ecology—namely, the theory of the niche—to examine competition between new and older media. Our study is the first to test hypotheses derived from this theory on a large, national sample. The analysis indicates that people are replacing traditional outlets, especially newspapers, with the Internet. At the same time, however, replacement is not a widespread phenomenon as yet. We find important replacement differences across newspapers and radio on the one hand and television on the other. We also report some of the first evidence regarding the attitudinal consequences of replacement behavior.

Researchers use survey experiments to establish causal effects in descriptively representative samples, but concerns remain regarding the strength of the stimuli and the lack of realism in experimental settings. We explore these issues by comparing three national survey experiments on Medicare and immigration with contemporaneous natural experiments on the same topics. The survey experiments reveal that providing information increases political knowledge and alters attitudes. In contrast, two real-world government announcements had no discernable effects, except among people who were exposed to the same facts publicized in the mass media. Even among this exposed subsample, treatment effects were smaller and sometimes pointed in the opposite direction. Methodologically, our results suggest the need for caution when extrapolating from survey experiments. Substantively, we find that many citizens are able to recall factual information appearing in the news but may not adjust their beliefs and opinions in response to this information.

Policy facts are among the most relevant forms of knowledge in a democracy. Although the mass media seem like an obvious source of policy‐specific information, past research in this area has been plagued by design and methodological problems that have hindered causal inferences. Moreover, few studies include measures of media content, preventing researchers from being able to say what it is about media coverage that influences learning. We advance the literature by employing a simple but underutilized approach for estimating the causal effects of news coverage. Drawing upon a unique collection of cross‐sectional survey data, we make within‐survey/within‐subjects comparisons under conditions of high and low media coverage. We show how the volume, breadth, and prominence of news media coverage increase policy‐specific knowledge above and beyond common demographic factors.

AbstractHow do traditional redistricting principles—contiguity, communities of interest, political subdivisions, incumbent protection, Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, preservation of district core, and compactness—affect racial minority representation in congressional districts? Using data from the 2001-02 redistricting process, we find that compactness is the only principle that significantly affects minority representation, both in terms of majority-minority districts and minority influence districts, but these effects are contingent on the size of the minority community and extent of racial segregation in a state. Two other principles, Section 5 pre-clearance and protecting political subdivisions, improve minority representation in a more limited way. Thus, race-neutral redistricting criteria like the compactness principle, can dramatically affect the racial composition of the resulting districts and, thereby, affect minority representation.