Search

This study examines voting in the 2022 United States congressional elections, contests that were widely expected to produce a sizable defeat for Democratic candidates for largely economic reasons. Based on a representative national probability sample of voters interviewed in both 2020 and 2022, individuals who changed their vote from one party's congressional candidate to another party's candidate did not do so in response to the salience of inflation or declining economic conditions. Instead, we find strong evidence that views on abortion were central to shifting votes in the midterm elections. Americans who favored (opposed) legal abortions were more likely to shift from voting for Republican (Democratic) candidates in 2020 to Democratic (Republican) candidates in 2022. Since a larger number of Americans supported than opposed legal abortions, the combination of these shifts ultimately improved the electoral prospects of Democratic candidates. New voters were especially likely to weigh abortion views heavily in their vote-shifting calculus. Likewise, those respondents whose confidence in the US Supreme Court declined from 2020 to 2022 were more likely to shift from voting for Republican to Democratic congressional candidates. We provide direct empirical evidence that changes in support for the Supreme Court, a nonpartisan branch of the federal government, are implicated in partisan voting behavior in another branch of government. We explore the implications of these findings for prevalent assumptions about how economic conditions influence voting, as well as for the relationship between the judiciary and electoral politics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study examines whether rising polarization in Americans' partisan judgments has positive implications for political participation. Drawing on cross-sectional and panel survey data, we find evidence that polarized judgments are related to pre-election intent to vote, as well as to post-election self-reported voter turnout. Polarized evaluations also predict greater reporting of participation in campaign activities beyond voting. Polarization in candidate evaluations consistently has more of an impact than affective polarization. However, our results suggest that polarization in evaluations of both parties and candidates includes an expressive component that does not necessarily translate into political action. Roughly one-quarter to one-third of the actual change in turnout can potentially be attributed to polarization in evaluations of Republican and Democratic presidential candidates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article highlights a study which evaluates whether and in what direction the Black Lives Matter movement affected the small percentage of voters whose presidential votes changed from 2016 to 2020. It discusses that results suggest that increases in perceptions of racial inequality significantly increased the probability of vote switching toward the Democratic candidate.

This study assesses the impact of international border walls on evaluations of countries and on beliefs about bilateral relationships between states. Using a short video, we experimentally manipulate whether a border wall image appears in a broader description of the history and culture of a little-known country. In a third condition, we also indicate which bordering country built the wall. Demographically representative samples from the United States, Ireland, and Turkey responded similarly to these experimental treatments. Compared to a control group, border walls lowered evaluations of the bordering countries. They also signified hostile international relationships to third-party observers. Furthermore, the government of the country responsible for building the wall was evaluated especially negatively. Reactions were consistent regardless of people's predispositions toward walls in their domestic political context. Our findings have important implications for a country's attractiveness, or "soft power," an important component of nonmilitary influence in international relations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Whether American citizens hold presidents accountable for changes in the condition of the economy has increasingly been questioned. At the same time, the outcome of the 2016 election has been widely interpreted in economic terms. Press and pundits on both sides of the aisle have endorsed the "left behind" voter thesis suggesting that those who were economically dissatisfied or anxious voted against the incumbent party and thus elected Donald Trump. Likewise, some have argued that Trump would have won again in 2021 if not for the economic downturn caused by the COVID19 pandemic. In this study I use seven waves of nationally-representative panel data to examine change over time in individuals' perceptions of the economy across the two most recent presidential election periods. I compare the magnitude of change from partisan rationalization of the economy to the magnitude of changes in perceptions due to the record-breaking decline in GDP during the year that COVID19 hit the US. My results provide little to no evidence that changes in perceptions due to real economic change were strong enough to overcome the effects of partisan rationalization. Given that the COVID19 recession was unusually severe, these results provide little reason for optimism that voters can hold leaders accountable for economic change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What effect does seeing a member of a historically marginalized group in high-level office have on attitudes toward government among those who identify with that group? We hypothesize that, when salient, increased descriptive representation will increase feelings of government responsiveness among members of historically marginalized groups. Moreover, we hypothesize that this effect will persist even when substantive representation is not expected, that is, when the official is viewed as unlikely to represent the individual's own political interests. We explore this theory by taking advantage of two exogenous changes in descriptive representation: the election of the first African–American president, Barack Obama, and the confirmation of the first Latino on the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor. Using panel data and a difference-in-differences design, we analyze within-person changes in attitudes toward government among African–Americans and Latinos, from before to after these events. In doing so, we attempt to separate descriptive from anticipated substantive representation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What difference does it make if people attribute the loss of manufacturing jobs to trade as opposed to automation? Attributions of responsibility for social problems help shape mass opinion. In this study I use two experiments, including one nationally representative probability survey-experiment, to examine the consequences of attributing job loss to trade versus automation. Findings suggest that as of 2018, public discourse attributes manufacturing job loss in America primarily to trade. When I experimentally manipulate attributions of responsibility for job loss, I find important consequences for levels of mass support for international trade, the extent of negative emotions arising from job loss, and beliefs that trade restrictions and tariffs can bring back manufacturing jobs. Finally, job loss that is attributed to trade—even when it is a single job loss—also serves as a threat to the national ingroup, which triggers a heightened sense of national superiority among white Americans. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When forming opinions, mass publics may implicitly or explicitly value some people's well-being more than others. Here we examine how two forms of this phenomenon—ethnocentric valuation and moral exclusion—affect attitudes toward international trade. We hypothesize that attitudes toward competition and believing that trade is a competition moderate the extent of ethnocentric valuation and moral exclusion; although all citizens value their co-nationals' livelihoods systematically more than those of people in trading partner countries, greater ethnocentric valuation and moral exclusion occur when trade is seen as a competition and when individuals hold more positive attitudes toward competition. Using two survey experiments conducted on representative samples of both Americans and Canadians, we examine how differential valuation of in-country and out-country job gains and losses influences trade policy preferences. We test a series of hypotheses using multiple variables tied to competitive attitudes across two countries that differ in their attitudes toward competition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Opinions toward gay marriage, also known as same-sex marriage, have become dramatically more favorable in the last 20 years. Given the more accepting attitudes of younger Americans, generational replacement is one widely noted engine of change. However, the pace of shifts in public attitudes has been too rapid for this to be the sole explanation. Identifying other causes of increasing support has been difficult due to reliance on cross-sectional associations. Using nationally representative panel data from 2008 to 2016, we test three potential explanations for changes in public attitudes toward gay marriage. Our findings suggest that increased interpersonal contact with gays and lesbians, declining religiosity, and increasing levels of education in the U.S. all contributed to the rise in public support for same-sex marriage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When political leaders are chosen by democratic means, the electoral process supposedly legitimates their authority, whatever the outcome. Nonetheless, disliked democratic outcomes may result instead in denigration of the electoral process. If positive reactions to winning and negative reactions to losing ultimately balance one another out, then perceived electoral integrity should remain roughly constant in a highly competitive political environment such as the United States. However, little is known about the symmetry or duration of these effects. Using panel data spanning more than nine years, we examine individual perceptions of electoral integrity across three American presidential election cycles. Our conclusions suggest that the effects of winning versus losing are not symmetric. Moreover, effects on people's perceptions of electoral integrity are surprisingly persistent over time. We find that repeated losing has especially important long-term consequences for how citizens view elections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Did the American public become more protectionist during the Great Recession of 2007–09? If so, why? During this period, many observers expressed concern that rising unemployment would stimulate protectionist pressures. The results of this study indicate that although increased unemployment did not affect the trade preferences of most Americans, individuals working in import-competing industries who lost their jobs during the Great Recession did grow more hostile to trade. However, even greater hostility to trade stemmed from a variety of non-material factors. Increasing ethnocentrism and opposition to involvement in world affairs between 2007 and 2009 help account for growing antipathy toward trade. But most importantly, increasing anxiety that foreign commerce would harm people in the future, even if it had not done so thus far, contributed to mounting opposition to trade among the American public. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study evaluates evidence pertaining to popular narratives explaining the American public's support for Donald J. Trump in the 2016 presidential election. First, using unique representative probability samples of the American public, tracking the same individuals from 2012 to 2016, I examine the "left behind" thesis (that is, the theory that those who lost jobs or experienced stagnant wages due to the loss of manufacturing jobs punished the incumbent party for their economic misfortunes). Second, I consider the possibility that status threat felt by the dwindling proportion of traditionally high-status Americans (i.e., whites, Christians, and men) as well as by those who perceive America's global dominance as threatened combined to increase support for the candidate who emphasized reestablishing status hierarchies of the past. Results do not support an interpretation of the election based on pocketbook economic concerns. Instead, the shorter relative distance of people's own views from the Republican candidate on trade and China corresponded to greater mass support for Trump in 2016 relative to Mitt Romney in 2012. Candidate preferences in 2016 reflected increasing anxiety among high-status groups rather than complaints about past treatment among low-status groups. Both growing domestic racial diversity and globalization contributed to a sense that white Americans are under siege by these engines of change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, we provide one of the first systematic analyses of gender's effect on trade attitudes. We draw on a unique representative national survey of American workers that allows us to evaluate a variety of potential explanations for gender differences in attitudes toward free trade and open markets more generally. We find that existing explanations for the gender gap, most notably differences between men and women in economic knowledge and differing material self-interests, do not explain the gap. Rather, the gender difference in trade preferences and attitudes about open markets is due to less favorable attitudes toward competition among women, less willingness to relocate for jobs among women, and more isolationist non-economic foreign policy attitudes among women. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Three central themes that have persisted throughout the history of research on communication and public opinion are examined in light of past, present, and future research. These themes include (1) ongoing concerns surrounding the political diversity of the communication environment; (2) selective exposure to political communication; and (3) the interrelationship between mass and interpersonal political communication. We explore the importance of these themes with an emphasis on how technological changes have made them, if anything, more relevant today than they were when first identified as central concerns of the discipline. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

As of the early 21st century, one of the most popular uses of the internet is for online shopping. In this study I examine how online purchasing affects levels of generalized social trust, a quality widely believed to be central to the health and well-being of contemporary societies. Drawing on two original studies, including an experiment embedded in a representative national survey, and a hybrid laboratory/field experiment, I find consistent evidence that positive e-commerce experiences promote generalized social trust. I discuss the implications of these findings for the role of business in helping to maintain attitudes supportive of democracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To what extent do online discussion spaces expose participants to political talk and to cross-cutting political views in particular? Drawing on a representative national sample of over 1000 Americans reporting participation in chat rooms or message boards, we examine the types of online discussion spaces that create opportunities for cross-cutting political exchanges. Our findings suggest that the potential for deliberation occurs primarily in online groups where politics comes up only incidentally, but is not the central purpose of the discussion space. We discuss the implications of our findings for the contributions of the Internet to cross-cutting political discourse. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When and how can institutions lead public opinion? Scholarly controversy exists over whether even a highly esteemed institution such as the Supreme Court can move mass opinion. In this study we use an experimental design embedded within a representative national survey to examine these questions in a context involving multiple institutions and multiple issues. Our findings suggest that the Court's ability to move opinion is potent and based on multiple processes of persuasive influence. Congress's ability to move opinion, while conditional, is surprisingly more potent than previously understood. Moreover, opinion change in response to institutional endorsements is mediated by substantive political thought to a greater extent than heuristic explanations have suggested. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To further dialogue between theory and research on deliberative democracy, I advocate abandoning tests of deliberative theory per se and instead developing "middle-range" theories that are each important, specifiable, and falsifiable parts of deliberative democratic theory. By replacing vaguely defined entities with more concrete, circumscribed concepts, and by requiring empirically and theoretically grounded hypotheses about specific relationships between those concepts, researchers may come to understand which elements of the deliberative experience are crucial to particular valued outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How do Americans acquire the impression that their political foes have some understandable basis for their views, and thus represent a legitimate opposition? How do they come to believe that reasonable people may disagree on any given political controversy? Given that few people talk regularly to those of opposing perspectives, some theorize that mass media, and television in particular, serve as an important source of exposure to the rationales for oppositional views. A series of experimental studies suggests that television does, indeed, have the capacity to encourage greater awareness of oppositional perspectives. However, common characteristics of televised political discourse-incivility and close-up camera perspectives-cause audiences to view oppositional perspectives as less legitimate than they would have otherwise. I discuss the broader implications of these findings for assessments of the impact of television on the political process, and for the perspective that televised political discourse provides on oppositional political views. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Political dialogue among citizens offers numerous potential contributions to American politics, but attainment of these benefits hinges largely on the extent to which conversations cross lines of political difference. In what contexts are cross-cutting interactions most likely to thrive? Using data from five surveys, we find consistent evidence that the workplace is the social context best positioned to facilitate cross-cutting political discourse. Political discussion in the workplace involves a large number of discussants, and it involves greater exposure to people of dissimilar perspectives than does discussion in contexts such as the family, the neighborhood, or the voluntary association. We next consider whether workplace-based interactions are capable of producing beneficial effects. Despite the notoriously weak nature of work-based social ties, we find evidence that workplace-based exposure to differing political views increases people's knowledge of rationales for political perspectives other than their own and also fosters political tolerance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this study, an experimental design embedded in a national survey is used to examine the impact of social trust on participation in e-commerce. To what extent does generalized trust in people influence economic behavior, particularly in newly established realms such as the Internet? Although some previous work has posited a role for social trust in encouraging both e-commerce and economic development more generally, evidence has been based on cross-sectional associations and, primarily, at the aggregate level of entire countries. While these relationships have been suggestive, studies have yet to confirm a causal role for social trust in influencing e-commerce. Would increasing levels of social trust actually encourage greater e-commerce participation? This study combines the representativeness of a national survey with the internal validity of an experimental design to answer this question. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Does incivility in political discourse have adverse effects on public regard for politics? if so, why? in this study we present a theory suggesting that when viewers are exposed to televised political disagreement, it often violates well-established face-to-face social norms for the polite expression of opposing views. As a result, incivility in public discourse adversely affects trust in government. Drawing on three laboratory experiments, we find that televised presentations of political differences of opinion do not, in and of themselves, harm attitudes toward politics and politicians. However, political trust is adversely affected by levels of incivility in these exchanges. Our findings suggest that the form at of much political television effectively promotes viewer interest, but at the expense of political trust [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Analyzes the benefits of exposure to conflicting political viewpoints to citizens of a democratic country. Information on the characteristics of the people's political discussion networks; Awareness of individuals of the rationale for oppositional viewpoints; Examination of the role of cross-cutting exposure in fostering political tolerance.

Focuses on the concept of political communication research. Redefinition on the concept of political communication; Conceptualization of citizen as gatherer and processor of information; Effects of communication technologies on social life.

Focuses on the role of mass media in facilitating communication across people with dissimilar political views in the United States. Factor in determining the exposure of an individual to dissimilar ideas; Complaints against the news media; Comparison between the political views acquired through news media and interpersonal political discussants.

This study traces the effects of a purposefully chosen news agenda on the perceived and actual issue opinions of members of the mass public. Using a year-long, quasi-experimental design, we analyzed a newspaper's attempt to move community opinion and bring about policy change. We examined the success of these efforts from the perspective of their intended effects on public opinion and from the perspective of their unintended effects on perceptions of the broader political environment. Overall, our findings suggest that this strategy is extremely limited in its ability to bring about changes in the opinions of individual members of the mass public or even changes in the salience they attach to an issue at a personal level. Nonetheless, we find that this practice may have important effects on citizens' perceptions of the salience the community as a whole attaches to an issue and on their perceptions of the dominant opinion climate within their communities. Although these effects may not be identical to the goals of the news organization, the ability to alter the perceptual environment in which policy changes transpire implies that news organizations may be able to facilitate indirectly the very changes they seek. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study examines the effects of issue-specific knowledge on the extent to which personal unemployment experiences influence presidential approval. The well informed are found to be more likely to connect personal experiences directly to political preferences, yet less likely to generalize from their own personal experiences in assessing the state of the nation as a whole. Since perceptions of the state of national conditions have a well-documented influence on presidential approval, simultaneously considering direct and indirect paths helps to resolve contradictory implications in past findings on the role of information in conditioning the politicization of personal economic experience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Evaluates several potential theoretical frameworks for understanding the social psychological processes underlying the effects of political momentum. Potential explanation of changes in candidate preference; Understanding of perceptions of public support; Shift of attitudes; Cognitive response explanation for momentum.

Examines the effects of media portrayals of public support for candidates on the behavior of potential campaign contributors in the United States. Extent of media coverage suggesting a candidate is gaining or losing political support; Suggestion that strategic considerations weigh heavily in decisions to donate money to political candidates.

Studies competing theories concerning the role of mass media in hindering or facilitating the translation of personal experiences into political preferences. Unique contribution of mass media; Measuring news media use and media coverage; Stages of the analysis of media's direct impact; Direct and indirect effects of personal judgements; Longstanding misconceptions on the nature of media influence.

Expresses gratitude to reviewers, authors and members of the Editorial Board of "Political Behavior." Remarks on working with the Editorial Board; Professionalism and support of reviewers and authors; Growth of the journal.