Suchergebnisse

It is often claimed that conspiracy theories are endorsed with the same level of intensity across the left‐right ideological spectrum. But do liberals and conservatives in the United States embrace conspiratorial thinking to an equivalent degree? There are important historical, philosophical, and scientific reasons dating back to Richard Hofstadter's book The Paranoid Style in American Politics to doubt this claim. In four large studies of U.S. adults (total N = 5049)—including national samples—we investigated the relationship between political ideology, measured in both symbolic and operational terms, and conspiratorial thinking in general. Results reveal that conservatives in the United States were not only more likely than liberals to endorse specific conspiracy theories, but they were also more likely to espouse conspiratorial worldviews in general (r = .27, 95% CI: .24, .30). Importantly, extreme conservatives were significantly more likely to engage in conspiratorial thinking than extreme liberals (Hedges' g = .77, SE = .07, p < .001). The relationship between ideology and conspiratorial thinking was mediated by a strong distrust of officialdom and paranoid ideation, both of which were higher among conservatives, consistent with Hofstadter's account of the paranoid style in American politics.

Rising partisan polarization in the American public over the last decade has been linked to stress and anxiety, raising questions about how communities and public health experts should respond. As the strength of an individual's social network correlates with better health outcomes, could building a diverse set of connections moderate the effect of political polarization on an individual's health? This study examines the role of social capital as a key intervening variable in the relationship between polarization and health. Drawing on a nationally representative survey of 2,752 U.S. residents conducted in December 2019 compared with county-level data, we use negative binomial, logit, and gamma models to examine the interaction between indicators of political polarization and bonding, bridging, and linking social capital on physical and mental health outcomes. We find consistent evidence that bonding social ties intervene to improve the physical and mental health of individuals in polarized communities, while bridging ties are related to worse health for politically isolated residents. By highlighting the relationship between polarization, social networks, and health, our findings shed light on how public health experts, and policymakers can improve health outcomes in polarized communities.

It is often claimed that conspiracy theories are endorsed with the same level of intensity across the left‐right ideological spectrum. But do liberals and conservatives in the United States embrace conspiratorial thinking to an equivalent degree? There are important historical, philosophical, and scientific reasons dating back to Richard Hofstadter's book The Paranoid Style in American Politics to doubt this claim. In four large studies of U.S. adults (total N = 5049)—including national samples—we investigated the relationship between political ideology, measured in both symbolic and operational terms, and conspiratorial thinking in general. Results reveal that conservatives in the United States were not only more likely than liberals to endorse specific conspiracy theories, but they were also more likely to espouse conspiratorial worldviews in general (r = .27, 95% CI: .24, .30). Importantly, extreme conservatives were significantly more likely to engage in conspiratorial thinking than extreme liberals (Hedges' g = .77, SE = .07, p < .001). The relationship between ideology and conspiratorial thinking was mediated by a strong distrust of officialdom and paranoid ideation, both of which were higher among conservatives, consistent with Hofstadter's account of the paranoid style in American politics.

Recent genopolitics and political psychology research suggests individuals' biological differences influence political participation. The interaction between individual differences and environments has received less attention, not least because of the confound of self‐selection into environments. To test the interaction between innate predispositions and an exogenous environmental influence, we conducted a field experiment during the 2010 California midterm elections. We randomly assigned subjects to receive a postcard mobilization treatment designed to induce an emotional response to the degree of political contention in the election. We tested the possibility that subjects who are genetically predisposed toward negative affectivity will be less likely to vote after treatment exposure. To our knowledge, this is the first field experiment in political science to measure genetic moderation of a treatment, and it suggests experimental approaches can benefit from the inclusion of genetically and other biologically informative covariates.

We examine whether Big Five personality traits are associated with heterogeneous responses to commonly used Get-Out-The-Vote (GOTV) appeals in both a survey and a field experiment. The results suggest that Big Five personality traits affect how people respond to the costs and benefits of voting highlighted in GOTV appeals. Our evidence also suggests that one trait-Openness-is associated with broad persuasibility, while others shape responses to particular types of messages. In some cases the conditioning effects of Big Five traits are substantial. For example, in the one-voter households (HHs) included in our field experiment, we find that a mailer that raised the specter of social sanctions increased the likelihood of voting by a statistically greater amount among those scoring high on Openness. The findings constitute an important step forward in understanding how core personality traits shape responses to various aspects of the act of voting. Adapted from the source document.

Abstract
Partisan polarization significantly drives stress and anxiety among Americans, and recent aggregate-level studies suggest polarization may be shaping their health. This individual-level study uses a new representative dataset of 2,752 US residents surveyed between December 2019 and January 2020, some US residents report more days of poor physical and mental health per month than others. Using negative binomial models, zero inflated models, and visualizations, we find evidence that polarization is linked to declines in physical health: the more distant an individual feels politically from the average voter in their state, the worse health outcomes he or she reports. By uncovering the individual-level political correlates of health, this study aims to encourage further study and attention to the broader consequences of political polarization on American communities.

AbstractWe report the results of a field experiment conducted in New York City during the 2013 election cycle, examining the impact ofnonpartisanmessages on donations from small contributors. Using information from voter registration and campaign finance records, we built a forecasting model to identify voters with an above-average probability of donating. A random sample of these voters received one of four messages asking them to donate to a candidate of their choice. Half of these treatments reminded voters that New York City's campaign finance program matches small donations with public funds. Candidates' financial disclosures to the city's Campaign Finance Board reveal that only the message mentioning policy (in generic terms) increased donations. Surprisingly, reminding voters that matching funds multiplied the value of their contribution had no effect. Our experiment sheds light on the motivations of donors and represents the first attempt to assess nonpartisan appeals to contribute.