Suchergebnisse

Existing research concludes that acculturation converges Latino immigration policy views with those of Anglo-Americans. Yet, polls show few Latinos support restricting immigration. This article reconciles these statements with theory and evidence. I argue acculturation is part of a broader give-and-take process, the two-way street in which the contrast between expected and perceived treatment by the receiving community shapes whether or not Latino acculturation leads to restrictionism and "convergence" with Anglos. Regression analysis of survey data shows that perceived group discrimination, but not perceived individual discrimination or Latino within-group discrimination, moderates the link between acculturation and support for restrictive policy.

This article builds on analyses addressing social group identification found in The American Voter Revisited (chapter 11), by exploring the dynamics of social group identity and Latino partisanship using data from the 2006 Latino National Survey. We argue that group identification matters to Latinos, and that the ANES significantly underestimates the degree of ethnic identification among Latino registered voters. The evidence we bring to bear on the matter of Latino partisan unity shows important distinctions by national origin, generation, language and level of perceived discrimination - measures that are unreliable due to sampling error or wholly unavailable in the ANES. These distinctions are shown in our replications of descriptive tables in the American Voter Revisited, and further supported through multinomial logit models of Latino partisanship. As a result of a large immigration population, continued and widespread discrimination against Latinos, and new mobilization efforts that encourage ethnic appeals, the Latino electorate embodies the renewal and persistence of group identification in American politics. [Copyright Elsevier Ltd.]

A growing body of research in political science is influenced by conceptual advances in socialization theory which posit that children can influence adults' learning across a wide range of topics. The concept of bidirectional influence describes socialization led by one's parents and children. One outstanding need in the effort to import this concept to political socialization research is a measure that captures the influence of both parents and children. We meet this need with a measure of relative influence from both parents and children as sources for political learning. We provide evidence of measurement validity using separate samples of Asians, Blacks, Latinos, and Whites. Our findings suggest that our metric is portable across groups, and that the range of what individuals recall about their familial socialization experience includes more child-to-parent influence than existing studies suggest.

ObjectiveWe extend prototype theory to explain why nonmembers who are socially connected to group members hold political attitudes that differ from nonmembers lacking that connection. We anticipate that the intensity of nonmember attitudes varies by connection to a prototype or periphery group member.MethodsUsing data from the 2006 Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES), we model group‐salient political attitudes for veterans, union members, and their family members.ResultsWe find social distance from group members is theoretically linked to within‐group variation that distinguishes prototype from periphery group members.ConclusionAnalysis of political attitudes is enhanced beyond the traditional member/nonmember dichotomy by accounting for nonmembers' social distance from group members.

The article focuses on group-based features of issue publics and advances the concept of residual group saliency as a way to organize members of issue publics. We accord veterans exemplar or prototype status, and civilians as periphery members of this issue public. As issue public exemplars, veterans anchor the "right" attitudes and behaviors for the veteran issue public, and civilians, especially those with family ties to veterans, gravitate toward those exemplar attitudes. We argue that pressure to conform to these "right" attitudes among civilians who are connected to a veteran is greater when there are more veterans in their environment. However, veterans and civilians who are not connected to a veteran are not responsive to such contextual effects, the former because they are already exemplars, and the latter because there is no motivation to evaluate the self in relation to veterans. We test and find support for these claims using data from the 2010 Cooperative Congressional Election Study. We conclude with an evaluative discussion and suggestions for future research.

Public opinion studies on war attitudes say little about civilians who are related to military service members. The authors argue that military "service-connected" individuals are missing voices in the research that examines public support for war. Using over 50,000 observations from the 2010 Cooperative Congressional Election Study, the authors estimate attitudes toward the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, and the use of US military troops in general. The authors find that service-connected civilians express greater support for war and the use of troops than civilians without such a connection. This study discusses the implications of these findings for theoretical advancements in the literature addressing war attitudes and the conceptualization of the "civil-military gap.". [Reprinted by permission; copyright Inter-University Seminar on Armed Forces and Society/Sage Publications Inc.]

Public opinion studies on war attitudes say little about civilians who are related to military service members. The authors argue that military "service-connected" individuals are missing voices in the research that examines public support for war. Using over 50,000 observations from the 2010 Cooperative Congressional Election Study, the authors estimate attitudes toward the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, and the use of US military troops in general. The authors find that service-connected civilians express greater support for war and the use of troops than civilians without such a connection. This study discusses the implications of these findings for theoretical advancements in the literature addressing war attitudes and the conceptualization of the "civil–military gap."