How gun control policies influence consumers’ service businesses evaluations

Purpose Given the growing prevalence of gun control policies in service settings, this study aims to investigate how the adoption of a gun control policy by a service businesses influences consumers’ evaluations of the service businesses. Design/methodology/approach Three experiments were conducted to examine how the adoption of a gun control policy by a service businesses influences consumers’ brand favorability of that service businesses and how value congruence (i.e. the alignment between a consumer’s own personal values and perceptions of the brand’s values) is the underlying mechanism. Findings This study documents several major findings. First, the authors find that the adoption of a gun control policy by a service businesses increases consumers’ brand favorability. Second, the authors highlight a boundary condition to this effect, such that a gun control policy actually decreases consumers’ brand favorability for people high (vs low) in support for gun rights. Third, the authors show that value congruence is the psychological process underlying these effects. Fourth, the authors generalize the focal effects to a real-world brand and demonstrate that the adoption of a gun control policy increases brand favorability for consumers low (vs high) in patronage behavior of the brand. Finally, the authors find that a pioneer brand strategy in the adoption of a gun control policy significantly increases brand favorability, whereas a follower brand strategy in the adoption of such a policy is less effective. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this research is the first to provide critical insight to service businesseses as to how their position regarding guns influences consumers’ evaluations of the service businesses.

Reactive and Asymmetric Communication Flows: Social Media Discourse and Partisan News Framing in the Wake of Mass Shootings

Marked by both deep interconnectedness and polarization, the contemporary media system in the United States features news outlets and social media that are bound together, yet deeply divided along partisan lines. This article formally analyzes communication flows surrounding mass shootings in the hybrid and polarized U.S. media system. We begin by integrating media system literature with agenda setting and news framing theories and then conduct automated text analysis and time series modeling. After accounting for exogenous event characteristics, results show that (a) sympathy and gun control discourses on Twitter preceded news framing of gun policy more than the other way around, and (b) conservatives on Twitter and conservative media reacted to progressive discourse on Twitter, without their progressive counterparts exhibiting a similar reactiveness. Such results shed light on the influence of social media on political communication flows and confirm an asymmetry in the ways partisan media ecosystems respond to social events.

Political Polarization During 2017-2021

During the Trump era there was a significant rise of hate crimes, racial bullying, and violence against the LGBTQ+ community which can be explained by political polarization. Both major political parties were pushed to the far ends of the spectrum to counteract the influence of the other side. We tested how this polarization occurs at the level of individual political issues, and study the political factors under Trump that contributed to it. We used a survey research method to collect data on peoples’ beliefs over 5 different contentious political topics (abortion, climate change, gun control, healthcare, and immigration). This data was compared to data from studies performed in 2016 (pre-Trump). To ensure standardization of the data, our survey used the same questions as the previous surveys. Along with the questions gauging opinion, we also included an individual question per issue that gauged how the participant formed that opinion. Compared to 2016 there was a shift towards more government involvement and regulation in the areas of healthcare and gun control, respectively. There was a shift towards environmental protection, and less stringent immigration standards. More participants were in favor of abortion. Most participants said they formed ALL of their political opinions individually. However, social media and major news outlets had played a role in shaping opinions about abortion and environment, respectively. Compared to 2016 surveys there was a significant change in public opinion about various issues of contemporary importance, partly influenced by political polarization and by social media and news outlets.

It’s Only You and Me and We Just Disagree: The Ideological Foundations of Affective Polarization

Using the extensive battery of issue questions included in the 2020 ANES survey, I find that a single underlying liberal-conservative dimension largely explains the policy preferences of ordinary Americans across a wide range of issues including the size and scope of the welfare state, abortion, gay and transgender rights, race relations, immigration, gun control and climate change. I find that the distribution of preferences on this liberal-conservative issue scale is highly polarized with Democratic identifiers and leaners located overwhelmingly on the left, Republican identifiers and leaners located overwhelmingly on the right and little overlap between the two distributions. Finally, I show that ideological preferences strongly predict feelings toward the parties and presidential candidates. These findings indicate that polarization in the American public has a rational foundation. Hostility toward the opposing party reflects strong disagreement with the policies of the opposing party. As long as the parties remain on the opposite sides of almost all major issues, feelings of mistrust and animosity are unlikely to diminish regardless of Donald Trump’s future role in the Republican Party.

Firearms and Homicide: the Influence of the Weapon Substitution Hypothesis on the American Gun Control Debate

<p>For several decades now the gun control literature in the United States has continued to produce conflicting accounts in regards to the availability of firearms on the U.S's high rate of homicide. This thesis proposes that this conflict is, in part, due to the implicit and continued influence of Wolfgang's (1958) 'weapon substitution hypothesis'. Wolfgang's hypothesis proposes that the intentions of an assailant, whether they be to kill or injure, determined the weapon selected. Since guns are recognised as being highly lethal, all assailants who use such weapons were believed by Wolfgang to have been highly determined to kill. Among other negative effects, it is argued that Wolfgang's hypothesis introduced a mind-set to this controversial research area that has continued to influence the opinions of academics from both sides of the debate. This mind-set revolves around the consensually held belief that if a firearm assailant is believed to have been determined to kill then they would have been capable of killing in the absence of firearms. Importantly, this belief implies that the best possible predictor of lethal weapon substitution is if a firearm assailant is determined to kill. This is unlikely to be true. Mischel (1968: 135) has argued: 'A person's relevant past behaviours tend to be the best predictors of his future behaviour in similar situations.' After adapting Mischel's logic to fit the weapon substitution debate, the following predictor was produced. The best possible predictor of lethal weapon substitution to non-firearm weapons is whether people who had killed with firearms were as experienced at killing victims with non-firearm weapons as assailants who had actually killed with such weapons. This predictor was further developed into a more workable methodology that was capable of testing the validity of both Wolfgang's hypothesis and the consensually held belief it initiated. This methodology involved a comparison of the previous serious to fatal violent non-firearm convictions between those most likely to be determined firearm and knife killers. It was discovered that only 2.94 percent of those most likely to be determined firearm assailants and 25.23 percent of those most likely to be determined knife assailants had previous convictions for serious to fatal non-firearm assaults. This result was statistically significant to the p< 0.005 (Z score=2.84). After eliminating all other possible explanations for these results it was concluded that, in conflict with both Wolfgang's hypothesis and the consensually held belief, not all determined firearm assailants are likely to be capable of lethal weapon substitution. Furthermore, if some proportion of determined firearm assailants are unlikely to be capable of lethal weapon substitution, then those not so determined are likely to be even less capable. Therefore, it was concluded that inhibiting all potential firearm assailants from accessing guns would be likely to reduce the overall rate of homicide. However, this thesis was limited in being able to apply this conclusion to the United States because it was based on a New Zealand population. Nevertheless, it is argued that the perpetuation of the consensually held belief has inhibited the best possible predictor of lethal weapon substitution from being applied to a research area where prediction is of paramount importance. When the best possible predictor of lethal weapon substitution has not previously been applied, it therefore becomes more understandable why this research area is plagued by such controversy.</p>

Firearms and Homicide: the Influence of the Weapon Substitution Hypothesis on the American Gun Control Debate

<p>For several decades now the gun control literature in the United States has continued to produce conflicting accounts in regards to the availability of firearms on the U.S's high rate of homicide. This thesis proposes that this conflict is, in part, due to the implicit and continued influence of Wolfgang's (1958) 'weapon substitution hypothesis'. Wolfgang's hypothesis proposes that the intentions of an assailant, whether they be to kill or injure, determined the weapon selected. Since guns are recognised as being highly lethal, all assailants who use such weapons were believed by Wolfgang to have been highly determined to kill. Among other negative effects, it is argued that Wolfgang's hypothesis introduced a mind-set to this controversial research area that has continued to influence the opinions of academics from both sides of the debate. This mind-set revolves around the consensually held belief that if a firearm assailant is believed to have been determined to kill then they would have been capable of killing in the absence of firearms. Importantly, this belief implies that the best possible predictor of lethal weapon substitution is if a firearm assailant is determined to kill. This is unlikely to be true. Mischel (1968: 135) has argued: 'A person's relevant past behaviours tend to be the best predictors of his future behaviour in similar situations.' After adapting Mischel's logic to fit the weapon substitution debate, the following predictor was produced. The best possible predictor of lethal weapon substitution to non-firearm weapons is whether people who had killed with firearms were as experienced at killing victims with non-firearm weapons as assailants who had actually killed with such weapons. This predictor was further developed into a more workable methodology that was capable of testing the validity of both Wolfgang's hypothesis and the consensually held belief it initiated. This methodology involved a comparison of the previous serious to fatal violent non-firearm convictions between those most likely to be determined firearm and knife killers. It was discovered that only 2.94 percent of those most likely to be determined firearm assailants and 25.23 percent of those most likely to be determined knife assailants had previous convictions for serious to fatal non-firearm assaults. This result was statistically significant to the p< 0.005 (Z score=2.84). After eliminating all other possible explanations for these results it was concluded that, in conflict with both Wolfgang's hypothesis and the consensually held belief, not all determined firearm assailants are likely to be capable of lethal weapon substitution. Furthermore, if some proportion of determined firearm assailants are unlikely to be capable of lethal weapon substitution, then those not so determined are likely to be even less capable. Therefore, it was concluded that inhibiting all potential firearm assailants from accessing guns would be likely to reduce the overall rate of homicide. However, this thesis was limited in being able to apply this conclusion to the United States because it was based on a New Zealand population. Nevertheless, it is argued that the perpetuation of the consensually held belief has inhibited the best possible predictor of lethal weapon substitution from being applied to a research area where prediction is of paramount importance. When the best possible predictor of lethal weapon substitution has not previously been applied, it therefore becomes more understandable why this research area is plagued by such controversy.</p>