Suchergebnisse

Introducing gender differences in public opinion -- Theoretical approach : values as an explanation -- Gender gap on the use of force -- Gender gap on environmental attitudes -- Gender gap on equal rights -- Gender gap on social welfare issues -- Political consequences of gender differences and conclusions.

"Attitudes Toward Women and the Influence of Gender on Political Decision Making" published on by Oxford University Press.

AbstractA defining feature of American politics, including party identification, is the question of the proper role of government. Partisanship is a prevailing way that individuals organize their attitudes. Democrats should take the Democratic Party's positions, and Republicans should take the Republican Party's positions. Instead, people have conflicting considerations that shape their opinions. Given that gender is integral in structuring individuals' positions in society, it is reasonable to expect that gender differences might produce intraparty differences. This article establishes a gender gap in scope of government that transcends partisanship. Using the cumulative American National Election Study Data 1994–2008, I find strong evidence that for a number of issue areas, women are more supportive of an activist government than men of the same party. Preferences regarding the scope of government provide a coherent explanation for these observed gaps.

Gender is an important source of influence on foreign policy attitudes but has received less research attention than it deserves. In the United States, gender differences on support for military interventions average around 8 percent, with women less likely than men to support the use of force. This gap has surfaced in many conflicts, including World War II, the Korean and Vietnam wars, through to the Gulf War and the conflict in Iraq. The existence of a modest though persistent gender difference in support of the use of military force thus arouses considerable interest among political researchers. This piece critically discusses four explanations, the empirical evidence to date, and future directions for studying and testing the origins of this gender gap. The four explanations are economic/political marginalization, feminist identity, Social Role Theory, and value differences.

Gender differences regarding support for the use of force average around 8 percent and are twice the size of differences on non-force issues. This article investigates a related gender gap in support for the use of torture. I investigate threat perceptions as a possible explanation for the gap and find strong support for this hypothesis. Specifically, increased threat perceptions lead men but not women to be more likely to support the use of torture. In addition to providing an explanation for the gender gap in support for torture, this extends prior work that finds increased threat perceptions with respect to terrorism lead to greater support for aggressive policies.

AbstractThere is a stereotype of libertarians being young, college educated, white men and that the Libertarian Party lacks appeal among women and individuals of color. There is a great deal of research investigating gender differences in public opinion on a number of issues including the provision of government resources and government spending (Barnes and Cassese; Howell and Day). Nevertheless, there is no work specifically investigating why women and nonwhites do not find libertarianism appealing. We test several hypotheses using 2016 American National Election Study data and 2013 PRRI data. We find a sizeable and significant gender gap and race gap in support for libertarian principles. We investigate several explanations for these gaps finding moderate support for self‐interest, racial attitudes, and egalitarianism as reasons for women and African Americans being less supportive of Libertarian Principles. We believe that the modest success of and media attention garnered by Ron Paul and Rand Paul in recent years along with the success of the Libertarian Party presidential ticket in 2016 highlights the need to understand who is drawn to libertarianism and why.1

Der Beitrag untersucht die kognitiven Verarbeitungsstile von Individuen während emotionaler Phasen und stellt eine Verknüpfung her zu der Art und Weise, wie Politikwissenschaft üblicherweise mit der Messung und Bewertung von Emotionen umgeht. Zunächst widmet sich der Beitrag der Unterscheidung zwischen Emotion und Affekt sowie den Modellen der Informationsverarbeitung. Anschließend geht es um den direkten Einfluss positiver und negativer affektiver Zustände auf das Verhalten und auf Beurteilungen. Konzepte und Modelle zu den Einflüssen von Affekten und Emotionen werden vorgestellt und schließlich auf die Messung und die politikwissenschaftliche Forschung in Bezug auf Emotionen eingegangen. (ICB2).