Suchergebnisse

ObjectivesThis analysis seeks to assess the findings of previous research that "unhyphenated Americans" have distinct voting patterns. This analysis also provides an empirical test for various hypotheses about the determinants of unhyphenated self‐identification that have previously been advanced, but not definitely tested, by scholars.MethodsMultivariate quantitative analysis of a nationally representative public opinion survey fielded in 2015.ResultsThe results of previous research are not confirmed. Unhyphenated Americans are no more or less likely to vote for either Obama in 2012 or Democratic congressional candidates in 2014 once important demographic and political control variables are accounted for. Also, contrary to most previous research, unhyphenated self‐identification is driven to a large extent by race‐related factors.ConclusionUnhyphenated Americans appear to have distinct political voting patterns at the aggregate level, but this pattern disappears at the individual level of analysis. Further research is called for to better understand the behavior of unhyphenated Americans.

ABSTRACTUndergraduate research (UGR) is a "high-impact practice" that has been consistently shown to effectively promote desirable student-learning outcomes (SLOs) including critical thinking, logic, written and oral communication, problem solving, and interpretation of evidence, especially among minority and disadvantaged students. Mentoring quality UGR experiences in regular upper-level political science courses, however, is a difficult and time-consuming activity. This article describes an attempt to provide an intensive, semester-long, and group-based UGR experience in an upper-level American politics course. It discusses how this experience was designed to deliberately foster specific institutional UGR SLOs and summarizes student perceptions of the overall effectiveness of the experience.

While previous research on immigration attitudes among the American public has focused on factors such as economic threat, social context, and racial prejudice, fewer studies have examined the psychological determinants of immigration policy preferences. This study analyzes the results of an implicit association test (IAT) procedure that measures automatic nativist preferences for a traditional American culture versus a Latino-American culture {i.e., implicit nativist attitudes). In brief, this study demonstrates that implicit nativist attitudes are fairly common, that they are an independent predictor of immigration policy attitudes, and that they affect those who are not explicitly nativist but who still hold restrictionist policy views.

AbstractGiven that students often express a desire for course content to be more "relevant"
and applicable to their lives, I describe one method for effectively addressing this
concern through the organization of the course syllabus. The content of empirically
driven courses can be framed within the context of philosophically driven normative
questions. In other words, instructors can explicitly construct course narratives
that frame the empirically based course content as an attempt to answer (or, at
least, shed new light on) important, relevant, and on-going questions raised by
political philosophy. I offer examples from two of my own courses, Political
Psychology and Local Politics, and discuss the various pedagogical and instructional
advantages of such a method.

ObjectiveThis study develops and tests a model of anti‐immigrant nativism among Latino Americans in the United States.MethodsSeveral variables unique to Latinos (e.g. ancestral country of origin, panethnicity, and American assimilation) are incorporated into a model of Latino‐American anti‐immigrant nativism.ResultsIn brief, Latino nativism is driven largely by American cultural assimilation and geographic proximity to other Latino Americans.ConclusionThese results suggest that as the Latino‐American population in the United States continues to grow and assimilate, the pro‐immigrant bias of the Latino population will decline and perhaps eventually disappear altogether.

This study develops and tests a model of anti-immigrant nativism among Latino Americans in the United States. Several variables unique to Latinos (e.g. ancestral country of origin, panethnicity, and American assimilation) are incorporated into a model of Latino-American anti-immigrant nativism. In brief, Latino nativism is driven largely by American cultural assimilation and geographic proximity to other Latino Americans. These results suggest that as the Latino-American population in the United States continues to grow and assimilate, the pro-immigrant bias of the Latino population will decline and perhaps eventually disappear altogether. Adapted from the source document.

Objectives. This study updates and extends research on substantive Latino representation in the U.S. Congress. An improved method of measuring "Latino interests" is proposed.Methods. Using a scorecard from the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda as the dependent variable, standard OLS regression is employed to determine the variables that best predict how members of the 108th Congress vote on issues that are salient to the Latino community.Results. The findings indicate that Latinos are substantively represented overwhelmingly by Democrats and those from majority‐Democratic districts or states, while religion and level of constituency poverty also play a notable role.Conclusion. This study adds strong support to the "party as a substantive representative" model of minority representation. It also shows that Latinos are not more likely to be substantively represented by fellow Latinos, nor do larger Latino constituencies affect a lawmaker's propensity to vote in favor of Latino interests.