{"title":"Political identity moderates the effect of watchful eyes on voter mobilization: A reply to Matland and Murray (2019)","authors":"Costas Panagopoulos, S. van der Linden","doi":"10.1080/15534510.2019.1698123","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Matland and Murray (2019) reanalyze three of their previous field experiments and fail to reproduce the finding reported in Panagopoulos and van der Linden (2016) that political identity moderates the watchful eye effect on voter mobilization in elections. We highlight several concerns with their empirical approach, including lack of power and between-study differences, that lead us to conclude that the authors offer little evidence against partisan heterogeneity. By contrast, closer inspection and additional analyses of the data reported in Panagopoulos and van der Linden (2016) only reinforce our original conclusion that partisanship moderates voter responsiveness to watchful eyes. Specifically, Republicans appear to be more susceptible to watchful eyes compared to Democrats in the context of voting in elections.","PeriodicalId":46580,"journal":{"name":"Social Influence","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Influence","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2019.1698123","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
ABSTRACT Matland and Murray (2019) reanalyze three of their previous field experiments and fail to reproduce the finding reported in Panagopoulos and van der Linden (2016) that political identity moderates the watchful eye effect on voter mobilization in elections. We highlight several concerns with their empirical approach, including lack of power and between-study differences, that lead us to conclude that the authors offer little evidence against partisan heterogeneity. By contrast, closer inspection and additional analyses of the data reported in Panagopoulos and van der Linden (2016) only reinforce our original conclusion that partisanship moderates voter responsiveness to watchful eyes. Specifically, Republicans appear to be more susceptible to watchful eyes compared to Democrats in the context of voting in elections.
Matland和Murray(2019)重新分析了他们之前的三个实地实验，但未能重现Panagopoulos和van der Linden(2016)报告的发现，即政治认同调节了选举中选民动员的观察眼效应。我们强调了他们的实证方法的几个问题，包括缺乏权力和研究之间的差异，这导致我们得出结论，作者几乎没有提供反对党派异质性的证据。相比之下，对Panagopoulos和van der Linden(2016)报告的数据进行更仔细的检查和额外的分析只会强化我们最初的结论，即党派关系会缓和选民对观察的反应。具体来说，在选举投票中，共和党人似乎比民主党人更容易受到监视。
期刊介绍：
Social Influence is a journal that provides an integrated focus for research into this important, dynamic, and multi-disciplinary field. Topics covered include: conformity, norms, social influence tactics such as norm of reciprocity, authority, scarcity, interpersonal influence, persuasion, power, advertising, mass media effects, political persuasion, propaganda, comparative influence, compliance, minority influence, influence in groups, cultic influence, social movements, social contagions, rumors, resistance to influence, influence across cultures, and the history of influence research.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
