Switzerland’s Independent Commission of Experts: State-Sponsored History and the Challenges of Political Partisanship

Author(s):  
Alexander Karn
2020 ◽  
Vol 149 (3) ◽  
pp. 407-418 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leor Zmigrod ◽  
Peter Jason Rentfrow ◽  
Trevor W. Robbins

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-5
Author(s):  
Travis M. Johnston ◽  
Kevin H. Wozniak

ABSTRACT After years of gridlock on the issue, a bipartisan group of members of Congress struck a deal in 2020 to restore eligibility for inmates to access Pell Grants. Evidence indicates that college education programs in prison reduce recidivism and, consequently, state corrections expenditures, but legislators in prior decades feared that voters would resent government subsidy of college classes for criminals. To assess the contemporary politics of the issue, we analyze data from a framing experiment embedded in the 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Study. We find that Americans, on average, neither support nor oppose the proposal to restore inmates’ Pell Grant eligibility; however, exposure to arguments about the proposal’s benefits to inmates in particular and American society more broadly both increased subjects’ support. We further explore how this framing effect varies across political partisanship and racial resentment. We find that both frames elicited a positive response from subjects, especially among Democrats and subjects with low or moderate racial resentment.


The Lancet ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 375 (9721) ◽  
pp. 1137-1138 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zulfiqar A Bhutta ◽  
Lincoln Chen ◽  
Jordan Cohen ◽  
Nigel Crisp ◽  
Tim Evans ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert M Ross ◽  
David Gertler Rand ◽  
Gordon Pennycook

Why is misleading partisan content believed and shared? An influential account posits that political partisanship pervasively biases reasoning, such that engaging in analytic thinking exacerbates motivated reasoning and, in turn, the acceptance of hyperpartisan content. Alternatively, it may be that susceptibility to hyperpartisan misinformation is explained by a lack of reasoning. Across two studies using different subject pools (total N = 1977), we had participants assess true, false, and hyperpartisan headlines taken from social media. We found no evidence that analytic thinking was associated with increased polarization for either judgments about the accuracy of the headlines or willingness to share the news content on social media. Instead, analytic thinking was broadly associated with an increased capacity to discern between true headlines and either false or hyperpartisan headlines. These results suggest that reasoning typically helps people differentiate between low and high quality news content, rather than facilitating political bias.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document