Suchergebnisse

AbstractPolitical scientists often use the lens of generations when studying how the political views of citizens develop and how the polity as a whole evolves. This essay provides an overview of the topic: distinguishing work on lineage generations from that on political generations while also addressing their intersection; describing the Age-Period-Cohort (APC) framework used to study political generations and illustrating the difficulty of distinguishing cohort from age and period effects; and reflecting on the difficulty of explaining generational differences. The essay closes with a discussion of the many ways in which America's youngest citizens are politically different from their elders.

Reviews Steven A. Tuch & Michael Hughes's "Whites' Racial Policy Attitudes" (1996 [see abstract 9715740]), suggesting a reexamination of the purpose & ideal character of research concerning race-targeted policies. It is argued that Tuch & Hughes did not pay sufficient attention to the effects differing policy attributes would have on whites' policy views. It is further contended that the data sets used by Tuch & Hughes characterized racial prejudice variables differently, which may account for the differences discovered in their statistical analyses. Experimental research designs are suggested that would allow future testing of the sources of policy-specific variations in opinion. 24 References. S. Barrera

Draws on 1986/87 National Election Study data to investigate the public reaction to the scandal alleging an adulterous liaison that effectively ended Gary Hart's quest for the 1988 Democractic presidential nomination. Analysis of the Hart case illuminates more general questions about how citizens respond to media communications during the course of an election campaign & of the factors that facilitate or inhibit attitude change. The investigation: lends support to contemporary theories of attitude change that emphasize citizens' levels of political involvement & prior predispositions; uncovers evidence of media priming as views about controversial standards of morality were newly engaged in defining citizens' postscandal evaluations of Hart; & yields evidence that negative responses to Hart in the wake of the scandal were tempered among citizens who typically weigh policy criteria alongside candidate characteristics when formulating their overall candidate evaluations. 3 Tables, 2 Figures, 2 Appendixes, 36 References. Adapted from the source document.

I examine the place of self-interest in political life as given by a conception of politics that invokes ethics. This conception portrays each citizen as an individual with unique hopes and desires who is at the same time joined with others—part of, and continually giving shape to, a shared social and political life. It sees in political diversity and controversy not just conflicting interests but also competing claims about what "we"—unique individuals, linked to particular others through social roles and relationships, and together forming a single citizenry—ought to do or seek. Research that simply adopts a broad conception of utility or interest to admit nonselfish preferences or that employs typologies contrasting self-interested with non-self-interested motives will reveal neither the significance nor the limits of self-interest in this politics. Rather, we must explore how citizens' interests are both championed and challenged by the understandings of "good" and "right" to which our politics gives voice.

This article reviews recent survey-based research on citizens' trust in government, focusing particularly on the United States. It addresses the long-term decline in trust and potential causes for this decline, with an emphasis on the effects of partisanship, polarization, performance, process, and media priming. While dispositions can anchor trust levels, the dominant research findings show that the sources of variation and change in trust are political, if multifaceted, in nature. We discuss new versions of standard measures, call for a renewed look at the distinction between trust in authorities and trust in the regime, review ongoing work on how and why trust matters, and recommend broadening the foci of mistrust to include antiestablishment sentiments and attacks on electoral integrity. How trust intervenes between perceptions of political processes and compliance with authoritative commands is a critical domain for additional research. We conclude with a caveat against confidence that the decline in trust can be quickly or easily reversed.