Partisan Affiliation and the Evaluation of Non-Prototypical Candidates

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 121-147
Author(s):  
Alexander W. Severson
Keyword(s):  
Survey Experiment ◽  
Party Affiliation ◽  
Representative Survey ◽  
Present Evidence ◽  
Consistent Relationship ◽  
Candidate Support ◽  
Nationally Representative

AbstractIdeologically impure candidates—RINOs and DINOs—risk losing the endorsement of their fellow copartisans. However, which copartisans? In this article, I assess how party affiliation and the strength of partisan affiliation condition the evaluation of ideologically impure, non-prototypical candidates. Using a nationally representative survey experiment, I present evidence that while partisans negatively evaluate non-prototypical copartisans, there is not a consistent relationship between strength of identification and the degree of punitiveness. Moreover, candidate non-prototypicality causes convergence in candidate support between Republicans and Democrats. My results provide evidence that nominal partisan affiliation is by itself insufficient to save an ideologically non-prototypical candidate from the rebuke of fellow copartisans and thus that the “in-name-only” charge holds some weight.

scholarly journals Durably Reducing Americans’ Dehumanization of Rival Partisans

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Landry ◽  
Jonathan Schooler ◽  
Robb Willer ◽  
Paul Seli
Keyword(s):  
Negative Affect ◽  
Social Distance ◽  
The Other ◽  
Survey Experiment ◽  
Representative Survey ◽  
Informational Intervention ◽  
Nationally Representative ◽  
Democrats And Republicans

Dehumanization, the belief that other people are less than fully human, dampens empathy, increases animosity, and catalyzes conflict between groups. Research has revealed that a troubling number of American partisans blatantly dehumanize members of the other party. Nonetheless, this research has also found that partisans substantially overestimate the extent to which members of the rival party dehumanize them. Here, we predict that partisans’ perceptions of being dehumanized by rival partisans (or meta-dehumanization) leads them to respond with reciprocal dehumanization. By implication, partisans’ own dehumanization of rival partisans could be reduced by correcting their exaggerated meta-dehumanization. We test this hypothesis in a pre-registered, nationally-representative survey experiment of Democrats and Republicans (N = 2,127). We find that a brief, informational intervention correcting partisans’ exaggerated perceptions of how much rival partisans dehumanize them reduced levels of partisan dehumanization by 45%, and this effect persisted in a follow-up survey conducted approximately one week later. We also investigated the effects of our intervention on additional outcomes, finding that it reduced desire for social distance from, and negative affect toward, rival partisans, and that these effects also persisted a week later. Together, these results suggest that correcting inaccurate perceptions of the extent of partisan dehumanization can be a tool for durably mitigating partisan enmity.

scholarly journals Historical knowledge and national identity: Evidence from China

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 205316801879435 ◽  
Author(s):  
Haifeng Huang ◽  
Xinsheng Liu
Keyword(s):  
National Identity ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Original Data ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Survey Experiment ◽  
Representative Survey ◽  
Historical Knowledge ◽  
Nationally Representative ◽  
Information Treatment ◽  
Shed Light

How is citizens’ factual historical knowledge related to their national identity? With original data from a nationally representative survey experiment in China, we find that significantly more Chinese citizens overestimate rather than underestimate China’s objective historical achievements, and those who overestimate the achievements of ancient Chinese civilization have higher levels of national identity. To an even greater degree, citizens who underestimate Chinese historical achievements have lower levels of national identity. We also find that correcting misinformation can potentially affect individuals’ national identity, although the effects did not reach statistical significance, likely because the survey experiment was under-powered for interaction effects, and because our information treatment was brief and on a very limited number of questions. These findings shed light on the subtle relationships between historical knowledge, propaganda, and national identity, and suggest avenues for future research.

Political isolation in America

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 333-355 ◽  
Author(s):  
Byungkyu Lee ◽  
Peter Bearman
Keyword(s):  
Presidential Election ◽  
Data Sets ◽  
Survey Experiment ◽  
Representative Survey ◽  
National Data ◽  
Historical Trends ◽  
Core Networks ◽  
Nationally Representative ◽  
Political Health

AbstractThis study documents historical trends of size and political diversity in Americans’ discussion networks, which are often seen as important barometers of social and political health. Contrasting findings from data drawn out of a nationally representative survey experiment of 1,055 Americans during the contentious 2016 U.S. presidential election to data arising from 11 national data sets covering nearly three decades, we find that Americans’ core networks are significantly smaller and more politically homogeneous than at any other period. Several methodological artifacts seem unlikely to account for the effect. We show that in this period, more than before, “important matters” were often framed as political matters, and that this association probably accounts for the smaller networks.

#No2Sectarianism: Experimental Approaches to Reducing Sectarian Hate Speech Online

2020 ◽  
Vol 114 (3) ◽  
pp. 837-855 ◽  
Author(s):  
ALEXANDRA A. SIEGEL ◽  
VIVIENNE BADAAN
Keyword(s):  
National Identity ◽  
Social Norms ◽  
Religious Identity ◽  
Representative Sample ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
Survey Experiment ◽  
Representative Survey ◽  
Suggestive Evidence ◽  
Experimental Approaches ◽  
Nationally Representative

We use an experiment across the Arab Twittersphere and a nationally representative survey experiment in Lebanon to evaluate what types of counter-speech interventions are most effective in reducing sectarian hate speech online. We explore whether and to what extent messages priming common national identity or common religious identity, with and without elite endorsements, decrease the use of hostile anti-outgroup language. We find that elite-endorsed messages that prime common religious identity are the most consistently effective in reducing the spread of sectarian hate speech. Our results provide suggestive evidence that religious elites may play an important role as social referents—alerting individuals to social norms of acceptable behavior. By randomly assigning counter-speech treatments to actual producers of online hate speech and experimentally evaluating the effectiveness of these messages on a representative sample of citizens that might be incidentally exposed to such language, this work offers insights for researchers and policymakers on avenues for combating harmful rhetoric on and offline.

scholarly journals Perceived beneficiaries and support for the globalization of higher education: a survey experiment on attitudes toward international students

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Thomas Gift ◽  
Carlos X. Lastra-Anadón
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
International Students ◽  
Foreign Students ◽  
Public Support ◽  
Survey Experiment ◽  
Representative Survey ◽  
Domestic Students ◽  
Host Countries ◽  
Nationally Representative ◽  
The Uk

Abstract Foreign students are one of the most significant immigrant categories in many North American and Western European countries. Yet, as their numbers have swelled, many governments have experienced increasing pressures to cap their entry. This is true despite the sizable benefits that foreign students bring to host countries, and despite standard political economy concerns about immigrants—that they take away jobs or abuse public entitlements—not applying to foreign students. We field a nationally-representative survey experiment in the UK, one of the top destinations for foreign students, to examine potential activators of public support for capping the number of foreign students. Results show that support for caps is most activated when citizens are primed to think about foreign students competing with domestic students for scarce admissions slots at universities.

scholarly journals Polarized platforms? How partisanship shapes perceptions of “algorithmic news bias”

2021 ◽  
pp. 146144482110341
Author(s):  
Mikhaila N. Calice ◽  
Luye Bao ◽  
Isabelle Freiling ◽  
Emily Howell ◽  
Michael A. Xenos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Social Media ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Media Bias ◽  
Survey Experiment ◽  
Representative Survey ◽  
News Content ◽  
Social Media Platforms ◽  
Nationally Representative ◽  
News Bias

The use of artificial intelligence-based algorithms for the curation of news content by social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter has upended the gatekeeping role long held by traditional news outlets. This has caused some US policymakers to argue that platforms are skewing news diets against them, and such claims are beginning to take hold among some voters. In a nationally representative survey experiment, we explore whether traditional models of media bias perceptions extend to beliefs about algorithmic news bias. We find that partisan cues effectively shape individuals’ attitudes about algorithmic news bias but have asymmetrical effects. Specifically, whereas in-group directional partisan cues stimulate bias perceptions for members of both parties, Democrats, but not Republicans, also respond to out-group cues. We conclude with a discussion about the implications for the formation of attitudes about new technologies and the potential for polarization.

The Limits of Online Consensus Effects: A Social Affirmation Theory of How Aggregate Online Rating Scores Influence Trust in Factual Corrections

2018 ◽  
Vol 47 (5) ◽  
pp. 771-792 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel L. Neo
Keyword(s):  
Survey Experiment ◽  
Representative Survey ◽  
Online Experiment ◽  
The Social ◽  
Online Rating ◽  
News Selection ◽  
Boomerang Effects ◽  
Nationally Representative ◽  
Bandwagon Effects ◽  
Clear Support

Research on bandwagon effects suggests that people will yield to aggregate online rating scores even when forming evaluations of contentious content. However, such findings derive mainly from studying partisan news selection behaviors, and therefore, are incomplete. How do people use ratings to evaluate whether factual corrections on contentious issues are trustworthy? Through what I term the social affirmation heuristic, I hypothesize, people will first assess rating scores for compatibility with their own beliefs; and then they will invest trust only in ratings of factual messages that affirm their beliefs, while distrusting ratings that disaffirm them. I further predict that distrusted ratings will elicit boomerang effects, causing evaluations of message trustworthiness to conflict with rating scores. I use an online experiment ( n = 157) and a nationally representative survey experiment ( N = 500) to test these ideas. All hypotheses received clear support. Implications of the findings are discussed.

Loyalty over Fairness: Acceptance of Unfair Supreme Court Procedures

2020 ◽  
pp. 106591292094447
Author(s):  
Miles T. Armaly
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Conventional Wisdom ◽  
Sample Survey ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Survey Experiment ◽  
Representative Survey ◽  
Convenience Sample ◽  
Group Loyalty ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Nationally Representative

Evidence of procedural fairness leads individuals to support Supreme Court decisions, even ones with which they disagree. Yet, in some settings, unfair behavior is seen as acceptable, even praiseworthy, if it yields a pleasing outcome for one’s group. The loyalty norm occasionally trumps the fairness norm, and group loyalty has taken on increasing importance in American politics. I use a nationally representative survey with an embedded experiment, and a convenience sample survey experiment, to relate group (i.e., partisan) loyalty and perceptions of (un)fair behavior to support for the Court. I find that when group concerns are unclear, individuals tend to punish the Court for unfair behavior. However, despite conventional wisdom regarding fairness and support, individuals fail to censure unfair behavior when their group benefits from the Court’s impropriety. These effects hold when integrating preferences regarding specific case outcomes. Perceived unfair procedures do not universally harm evaluations of the Supreme Court.

Change in the Legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
James L. Gibson ◽  
Michael J. Nelson
Keyword(s):  
Predominantly White ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Survey Experiment ◽  
Representative Survey ◽  
Institutional Legitimacy ◽  
Personal Experiences ◽  
Diffuse Support ◽  
Judicial Authority ◽  
Nationally Representative ◽  
The U.S

Positivity Theory suggests that increased exposure to the symbols of judicial authority stimulates positive associations within individuals that help courts build and maintain their legitimacy. Indeed, recent research suggests that exposure to the symbols of judicial authority negates the linkage between decisional disappointment and changes in judgments of institutional legitimacy. However, this research has been conducted on predominantly white samples and fails to account for the possibility that individuals’ group attachments and experiences with legal authorities might affect the extent to which they update their diffuse support for a court in response to a displeasing decision. We therefore examine changes in legitimacy, relying on a nationally-representative survey experiment. The results indicate that respondents are particularly likely to withdraw support from the Court under the condition of seeing the symbols of judicial authority if they have negative personal experiences with the police, and if they are both particularly disappointed in the decision and do not have any strong group attachments.

scholarly journals Beliefs about Money in Families: Balancing Unity, Autonomy, and Gender Equality

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanna R. Pepin
Keyword(s):  
Gender Inequality ◽  
Household Income ◽  
Cultural Value ◽  
Survey Experiment ◽  
Representative Survey ◽  
Financial Autonomy ◽  
The Past ◽  
Nationally Representative ◽  
Income Sharing ◽  
And Gender

Objective: This study provides the first nationally representative data on U.S. adults' perceptions of income sharing within families.Background: Modern couples confront tensions between ideals of mutual interests and values of economic autonomy, a departure from fitting themselves into culturally expected family arrangements of the past. This study teases apart the conditions under which people might prioritize one cultural value over another.Method: The author conducted a nationally representative survey experiment (N = 3,986 individuals). The respondents selected an income allocation arrangement for a fictional couple with varied relationships investments (i.e., marriage, parenthood, length of relationship) and earning disparities.Results: Although stronger relationship investments were associated with greater support for sharing all income, the most commonly selected income allocation arrangement was a hybrid arrangement of sharing some income and keeping the rest separate. When respondents preferred some amount of financial autonomy, the primary earner was expected to maintain ownership of a greater amount of the total household income. The preferred level of withholding income was slightly larger in magnitude when women were shown as the primary earner when compared with men shown as the primary earner.Conclusion: The pursuit of economic autonomy, in combination with beliefs about gender, are important dimensions of gender inequality located within families.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document