Suchergebnisse

ObjectiveAlthough group consciousness of minority groups is believed to increase their rates of political participation and help shape their attitudes, no research has examined group consciousness of American Indians. Therefore, our objective is to help fill this void by estimating the effects of American Indians' group consciousness on their political interests, voting rates, and support for co‐ethnic candidates.MethodsWe use a unique data set based on an opt‐in panel survey of American Indians.ResultsWe find that similar to most Americans, American Indians who have higher levels of group consciousness are more likely to support co‐ethnic candidates. However, unlike African Americans and Hispanics, group consciousness has little effect on American Indians' political participation and interest.ConclusionsWe believe that the unique findings may be related to the small number of American Indians in the United States, or their unique place in the U.S. political fabric. Nevertheless, the findings warn against assuming that theories designed for one minority group will automatically transfer to another.

Spouses who talk about politics with each other have long been considered aberrant cases of political discussion because of the frequency of their interaction and the high levels of agreement between them. Using the 1996 Indianapolis-St. Louis Election Study, we challenge these assumptions. We find that compared with other types of discussion dyads, married dyads are no more likely to agree about a host of policy issues, even though they do talk about them more frequently. In addition, we find even when spouses do agree about their presidential vote choice more often, they do not perceive this agreement to exist. These findings indicate that within the microfoundations of married political behavior, spouses may experience less political variety because of the frequency of their interaction, but this does not necessarily mean they experience lower levels of disagreement.

ObjectiveThis article argues that whether male candidates have facial hair has political implications. We argue that facial hair makes men appear overly masculine, having strong support for use of violence and little support for feminist views, which makes them less attractive candidates for women and feminists. Further, we argue that these perceptions are likely accurate.MethodsUsing a survey of college‐age subjects, the research generally supports this theory.ResultsMen with facial hair are seen as more masculine, as well as more conservative on feminist issues, and women and feminists are less likely to vote for them. Further, we find perceptions of masculinity mediate the effects of facial hair on voters' perceptions of them and willingness to vote for them. However, candidates with facial hair are seen as less supportive of use of force and these perceptions are not accurate based on members' roll‐call votes.ConclusionThis article indicates that male candidates send a signal to voters about their masculinity by their choice of whether to shave.

Individuals with similar political orientations may find themselves in dissimilar social and political surroundings, with important consequences for the flow of political information among citizens. Analyses of data from the post‐election survey of the 1900 National Election Study show that some individuals reside within extensive networks of political discussion and communication, whereas others are politically isolated. With respect to presidential candidate preference in 1900, some citizens in networks were surrounded by discussants who agreed with their preference, others by discussants who held ambiguous and undetermined preferences, and still others by discussants who held politically divergent preferences. These preference distributions have various implications for the formation of political opinion and for levels of political engagement and turnout.