Suchergebnisse

How do competing social influences shape individual partisanship over the course of the life cycle? People enter and exit a host of environments over the course of the lifespan, and these environments provide social pressures that can conflict or reinforce early socialized attitudes. Socialization could be an agent for either opinion change or opinion stability. Using the Youth‐Parent Socialization Study and constructing partisan environmental measures at the county level, I explore this question. The findings demonstrate that environments exert significant socializing influence over the lifespan, moderating the persistence of early forces. This helps us understand when early socialized pressures persist and when they do not. When environments throughout life provide reinforcing social pressures, parental influence endures over time. However, when early socialized influence is challenged over time by the political environment that citizens reside in, the influence of early parental socialization is offset and nullified.

Do the social pressures individuals encounter from the political environments they reside in affect the stability of their partisanship? Are some citizens able to insulate themselves from such pressure through the composition of their discussion networks? While partisanship is widely regarded as stable, I consider whether it is influenced by such factors. I use panel data from the 1992-1996 and 2000-2004 American National Election Studies to address this, constructing a measure of partisan context at the county level. I find that those residing in a partisan minority county are more likely to change their party identification and that as the degree of incongruence rises, individuals become increasingly likely to change their identification across panel waves. These findings demonstrate the powerful effect of contextual social forces on an otherwise stable and enduring attachment such as partisanship and suggest that partisan socialization is a process that extends beyond an individual's childhood.

Questions of whether to enforce COVID-related mask mandates are complex. While enforced mandates are more effective at controlling community spread, government imposed behavioral controls have met significant opposition in conservative states, where a political bloc on the right is skeptical that COVID presents a significant and immediate threat. The authors conduct a split sample survey in order to examine how inclusion of a fine provision attached to mask mandates affects support. The survey was conducted in Idaho (a Republican dominated state) at a time when a mask mandate was a central debate. Unsurprisingly, respondents were more supportive of a mask mandate if a fine was not included. Further investigation indicates this is primarily a result of shifting Republican attitudes, which highlights the complex political situation in conservative states as leaders consider best mechanisms for battling COVID.

This article explores whether the places where people live—and specifically the diversity of incomes where people live—influence views about income inequality. Using a unique survey of New York City that contains geographic identifiers and questions about attitudes toward inequality, coupled with a rich array of Census data, we assess the degree to which the income diversity within spatially customized neighborhood boundaries influences beliefs about inequality. We find consistent evidence that attitudes about inequality are influenced by the places where people live—those who are exposed to more income diversity near their homes perceive larger gaps between the rich and everybody else, and are more likely to believe that the gap should be smaller. Moreover, this effect appears to be especially pronounced among those with lower educational attainment and at either end of the income spectrum.

AbstractHow do people assign blame in the wake of significant government failures? If the role of the citizenry in a representative democracy is to discipline elected officials for failing to meet collective expectations, then this question is of paramount importance. Much research suggests that the base tendency of citizens is to simply blame the other party—a normatively concerning outcome. However, some argue that information, especially that from expert and nonpartisan sources, may push citizens to overlook their party affiliation and assign blame in a more performance-based fashion. Using an experimental design, we test this possibility, manipulating whether there is unified or divided government, the partisanship of key actors, and the nature of expert information that participants receive during a hypothetical budget crisis at the state level. We find strong evidence that party weighs heavily on individuals' minds when assigning blame, as expected. More importantly, we find that nonpartisan expert information about the situation does not live up to its potential to sway partisans from their priors. Rather, unbiased information appears to be used as a weapon—ignored when it challenges partisan expectations and used to magnify blame of the other party when it conforms with them.