Pub Date : 2020-06-04DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190860806.013.6
B. Albertson, Lindsay Dun, S. Gadarian
Political persuasion relies on emotion. Emotions grab people’s attention and can be a starting point for changing minds. Positive emotions tend to reinforce standing dispositions and encourage us to proceed as usual, but often politics and political science research involve negative emotions such as anxiety, anger, disgust, and shame. Where anxiety leads people to consider new information, most research suggests that anger does not facilitate this process of reconsideration and thus can make persuasion more difficult. Emotions like anger, shame, and enthusiasm all underlie the decision to participate in politics and can motivate voting while hatred can lead to support for violence. The chapter ends by considering how different research designs can uncover the effects of multiple, competing emotions, how emotions matter in small group discussion and how emotions color the acceptance of news.
{"title":"The Emotional Aspects of Political Persuasion","authors":"B. Albertson, Lindsay Dun, S. Gadarian","doi":"10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190860806.013.6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190860806.013.6","url":null,"abstract":"Political persuasion relies on emotion. Emotions grab people’s attention and can be a starting point for changing minds. Positive emotions tend to reinforce standing dispositions and encourage us to proceed as usual, but often politics and political science research involve negative emotions such as anxiety, anger, disgust, and shame. Where anxiety leads people to consider new information, most research suggests that anger does not facilitate this process of reconsideration and thus can make persuasion more difficult. Emotions like anger, shame, and enthusiasm all underlie the decision to participate in politics and can motivate voting while hatred can lead to support for violence. The chapter ends by considering how different research designs can uncover the effects of multiple, competing emotions, how emotions matter in small group discussion and how emotions color the acceptance of news.","PeriodicalId":184516,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of Electoral Persuasion","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130926178","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-06-04DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190860806.013.4
Thomas J. Leeper, Rune Slothuus
Framing research has greatly advanced our understanding of how mass communication shapes public opinion and political behavior. However, the dominance of the framing concept has limited integration across different theoretical approaches and concepts like priming, belief change, and persuasion, leading to theoretical confusion and empirical sloppiness. This chapter proposes a way to integrate various approaches to media effects and obtain more coherent, cumulative knowledge on how mass communication shapes political opinion. First, it distinguishes framing from other concepts, most notably persuasion, using the expectancy-value model as a common framework. Second, it discusses the implications of this more rigorous conceptualization for research design and offers an example of an experiment disentangling emphasis framing and persuasive information. Third, it highlights promising avenues for mass communication research emphasizing competition, dynamics over time, and struggle between political parties as key features of democratic politics.
{"title":"How the News Media Persuades","authors":"Thomas J. Leeper, Rune Slothuus","doi":"10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190860806.013.4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190860806.013.4","url":null,"abstract":"Framing research has greatly advanced our understanding of how mass communication shapes public opinion and political behavior. However, the dominance of the framing concept has limited integration across different theoretical approaches and concepts like priming, belief change, and persuasion, leading to theoretical confusion and empirical sloppiness. This chapter proposes a way to integrate various approaches to media effects and obtain more coherent, cumulative knowledge on how mass communication shapes political opinion. First, it distinguishes framing from other concepts, most notably persuasion, using the expectancy-value model as a common framework. Second, it discusses the implications of this more rigorous conceptualization for research design and offers an example of an experiment disentangling emphasis framing and persuasive information. Third, it highlights promising avenues for mass communication research emphasizing competition, dynamics over time, and struggle between political parties as key features of democratic politics.","PeriodicalId":184516,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of Electoral Persuasion","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127108835","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-06-04DOI: 10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780190860806.013.19
D. Barker, Morgan Marietta
This chapter considers the polarized politics of truth in the United States. The chapter starts by distinguishing the most relevant concepts associated with this phenomenon. Next, it explores the proximal causes (and their psychological mechanisms), which include partisan tribalism, social identities, value projection, and media (including fake news). From there, the chapter documents the consequences of these phenomena, which include policy gridlock, social disdain, and a warped electorate. Finally, it scores the revealed usefulness of a few proposed correctives.
{"title":"Misinformation, Fake News, and Dueling Fact Perceptions in Public Opinion and Elections","authors":"D. Barker, Morgan Marietta","doi":"10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780190860806.013.19","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780190860806.013.19","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter considers the polarized politics of truth in the United States. The chapter starts by distinguishing the most relevant concepts associated with this phenomenon. Next, it explores the proximal causes (and their psychological mechanisms), which include partisan tribalism, social identities, value projection, and media (including fake news). From there, the chapter documents the consequences of these phenomena, which include policy gridlock, social disdain, and a warped electorate. Finally, it scores the revealed usefulness of a few proposed correctives.","PeriodicalId":184516,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of Electoral Persuasion","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125717841","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-06-04DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190860806.013.9
A. Sokhey, Carey E. Stapleton
To what extent are our political views shaped by those with whom we associate? This chapter discusses the research on interpersonal networks as they relate to processes of attitude and opinion formation. Reviewing the literature’s origins, evolution, and essential design features, the chapter focuses largely on its development in and application to the US context. At base, much of the scholarship on core social networks in the mass public posits that (non-) exposure to disagreement influences what we think about politics and how we vote in elections. The chapter examines the array of findings surrounding this and other characteristics of our “offline” social circles and notes challenges to inference stemming from questions about causal identification, debates over measurement, and ambiguity concerning mechanisms. It closes by describing several potentially fruitful areas for future research and articulating a vision for a more unified approach to the study of persuasion in interpersonal networks.
{"title":"Persuasion in Interpersonal Networks","authors":"A. Sokhey, Carey E. Stapleton","doi":"10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190860806.013.9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190860806.013.9","url":null,"abstract":"To what extent are our political views shaped by those with whom we associate? This chapter discusses the research on interpersonal networks as they relate to processes of attitude and opinion formation. Reviewing the literature’s origins, evolution, and essential design features, the chapter focuses largely on its development in and application to the US context. At base, much of the scholarship on core social networks in the mass public posits that (non-) exposure to disagreement influences what we think about politics and how we vote in elections. The chapter examines the array of findings surrounding this and other characteristics of our “offline” social circles and notes challenges to inference stemming from questions about causal identification, debates over measurement, and ambiguity concerning mechanisms. It closes by describing several potentially fruitful areas for future research and articulating a vision for a more unified approach to the study of persuasion in interpersonal networks.","PeriodicalId":184516,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of Electoral Persuasion","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116190554","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-06-04DOI: 10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780190860806.013.22
J. Benedictis-Kessner, M. Baum, Adam J. Berinsky
This chapter examines the literature concerning media choice and partisan polarization. The past few decades have seen enormous growth in the number of television and internet news sources, giving consumers dramatically increased choices. Previous research has suggested two distinct links between media choice and partisan polarization: partisan media as a reflection of polarization, as partisans self-select into media that conforms with their preexisting views, or as a cause of polarization, when outlets present one-sided stories that persuade people to adopt more extreme views. This chapter discusses how the literature in these two research traditions has diverged, as well as more recent research attempting to bridge this divide. Using novel methods, these studies have drawn together both self-selection and causal research designs to provide a more complete picture of media choice effects, and expanded the literature to more recent mediums, including the internet and social media.
{"title":"Polarization and Media Usage","authors":"J. Benedictis-Kessner, M. Baum, Adam J. Berinsky","doi":"10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780190860806.013.22","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780190860806.013.22","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter examines the literature concerning media choice and partisan polarization. The past few decades have seen enormous growth in the number of television and internet news sources, giving consumers dramatically increased choices. Previous research has suggested two distinct links between media choice and partisan polarization: partisan media as a reflection of polarization, as partisans self-select into media that conforms with their preexisting views, or as a cause of polarization, when outlets present one-sided stories that persuade people to adopt more extreme views. This chapter discusses how the literature in these two research traditions has diverged, as well as more recent research attempting to bridge this divide. Using novel methods, these studies have drawn together both self-selection and causal research designs to provide a more complete picture of media choice effects, and expanded the literature to more recent mediums, including the internet and social media.","PeriodicalId":184516,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of Electoral Persuasion","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129734593","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-11-06DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190860806.013.55
A. D. Angelis
Voters’ ability to perceive political parties’ positions on policy scales is a precondition for a functioning and responsive electoral democracy. Appropriate measures of policy distance are thus key to addressing the link between political parties and the citizens. This chapter reviews the scholarship on ideal point estimation, identifying the main methodological and substantial implications for empirical studies involving issue scales. Next, the chapter applies two-stage Bayesian Aldrich-McKelvey scaling to European Election Studies data to find evidence of systematic perceptual distortions: right-wing voters perceive political parties as more progressive than they actually are, while knowledgeable voters perceive greater differences between parties. Perceptual bias is also shown to correlate with standard polarization measures based on perceived party positions.
{"title":"How Voters Distort their Perceptions and Why this Matters","authors":"A. D. Angelis","doi":"10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190860806.013.55","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190860806.013.55","url":null,"abstract":"Voters’ ability to perceive political parties’ positions on policy scales is a precondition for a functioning and responsive electoral democracy. Appropriate measures of policy distance are thus key to addressing the link between political parties and the citizens. This chapter reviews the scholarship on ideal point estimation, identifying the main methodological and substantial implications for empirical studies involving issue scales. Next, the chapter applies two-stage Bayesian Aldrich-McKelvey scaling to European Election Studies data to find evidence of systematic perceptual distortions: right-wing voters perceive political parties as more progressive than they actually are, while knowledgeable voters perceive greater differences between parties. Perceptual bias is also shown to correlate with standard polarization measures based on perceived party positions.","PeriodicalId":184516,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of Electoral Persuasion","volume":"66 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130247729","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-09-04DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190860806.013.11
Florian Foos, E. D. Rooij
Political scientists have long observed that interactions within intimate networks such as the household are correlated with higher and concordant turnout behavior. However, it is unclear whether these correlations arise due to social influence, selection, or a shared context, and, if the first, whether it is indeed the intimacy of networks that moderates social influence. This article locates the study of voter mobilization in intimate networks within the context of partisan campaigns and presents examples of studies that apply different strategies to identify social influence between family members, friends, and neighbors. Looking to future advances, the article emphasizes design-based approaches, the collection of detailed covariate data on network characteristics, and collaborations with partner organizations to experimentally test theories of indirect voter mobilization.
{"title":"Voter Mobilization in Intimate Networks","authors":"Florian Foos, E. D. Rooij","doi":"10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190860806.013.11","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190860806.013.11","url":null,"abstract":"Political scientists have long observed that interactions within intimate networks such as the household are correlated with higher and concordant turnout behavior. However, it is unclear whether these correlations arise due to social influence, selection, or a shared context, and, if the first, whether it is indeed the intimacy of networks that moderates social influence. This article locates the study of voter mobilization in intimate networks within the context of partisan campaigns and presents examples of studies that apply different strategies to identify social influence between family members, friends, and neighbors. Looking to future advances, the article emphasizes design-based approaches, the collection of detailed covariate data on network characteristics, and collaborations with partner organizations to experimentally test theories of indirect voter mobilization.","PeriodicalId":184516,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of Electoral Persuasion","volume":"60 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133266506","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-08-12DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190860806.013.2
John G. Bullock
We now have a large and sprawling body of research on the effects of party cues. It is not very consistent or cumulative. Findings vary widely from one article to the next, and they sometimes contradict each other. This article sifts the evidence for five potential moderators of party-cue effects that have received much attention: political sophistication, need for cognition, issue salience, the amount of information in the information environment, and the distinctiveness of party reputations. It also considers the evidence on three large questions: whether party cues dominate policy information in people’s judgments, whether they are “shortcuts,” and how they affect our inferences about policies. The article closes by suggesting that limitations of research in this area are due partly to weak links between theory and empirical efforts and partly to problems of measurement error and statistical power.
{"title":"Party Cues","authors":"John G. Bullock","doi":"10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190860806.013.2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190860806.013.2","url":null,"abstract":"We now have a large and sprawling body of research on the effects of party cues. It is not very consistent or cumulative. Findings vary widely from one article to the next, and they sometimes contradict each other. This article sifts the evidence for five potential moderators of party-cue effects that have received much attention: political sophistication, need for cognition, issue salience, the amount of information in the information environment, and the distinctiveness of party reputations. It also considers the evidence on three large questions: whether party cues dominate policy information in people’s judgments, whether they are “shortcuts,” and how they affect our inferences about policies. The article closes by suggesting that limitations of research in this area are due partly to weak links between theory and empirical efforts and partly to problems of measurement error and statistical power.","PeriodicalId":184516,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of Electoral Persuasion","volume":"92 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131480372","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-07-02DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190860806.013.15
J. Victor
While lobbyists are colloquially thought of as parasites on US democracy, this article offers the perspective that lobbyists are part of vital connective tissue that facilitates interaction between principal players and institutions of policymaking. After a brief review of the history of lobbying in the United States, the article outlines four paradigmatic lenses through which lobbying has been understood—pluralist, realist, behavioral, and relational. It then makes the case that the relational lens is the most productive means of studying and understanding the role of lobbying in the United States. The article concludes with noting the considerable challenges to this field of study.
{"title":"Lobbying Networks","authors":"J. Victor","doi":"10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190860806.013.15","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190860806.013.15","url":null,"abstract":"While lobbyists are colloquially thought of as parasites on US democracy, this article offers the perspective that lobbyists are part of vital connective tissue that facilitates interaction between principal players and institutions of policymaking. After a brief review of the history of lobbying in the United States, the article outlines four paradigmatic lenses through which lobbying has been understood—pluralist, realist, behavioral, and relational. It then makes the case that the relational lens is the most productive means of studying and understanding the role of lobbying in the United States. The article concludes with noting the considerable challenges to this field of study.","PeriodicalId":184516,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of Electoral Persuasion","volume":"110 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126850190","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-07-02DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190860806.013.54
B. Grofman
There are many aspects to understanding the effects of persuasion, including the role of factors such as emotions, biases in cognitive processing, and context effects. This chapter, however, is limited to what it labels as “reasoned persuasion,” which we may think of as the “reasoned response” half of dual-process theories of persuasion. The chapter examines the role of beliefs and values primarily from a Bayesian perspective. It presents theoretical expectations derived from this perspective in terms of twenty-five propositions, with particular attention to the updating of beliefs based on new information received and on how persuasion ultimately affects behavior. Because these propositions follow logically from the key idea that choices are primarily, but not exclusively, a function of beliefs and values, these propositions have been labeled as “laws.”
{"title":"Reasoned Persuasion","authors":"B. Grofman","doi":"10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190860806.013.54","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190860806.013.54","url":null,"abstract":"There are many aspects to understanding the effects of persuasion, including the role of factors such as emotions, biases in cognitive processing, and context effects. This chapter, however, is limited to what it labels as “reasoned persuasion,” which we may think of as the “reasoned response” half of dual-process theories of persuasion. The chapter examines the role of beliefs and values primarily from a Bayesian perspective. It presents theoretical expectations derived from this perspective in terms of twenty-five propositions, with particular attention to the updating of beliefs based on new information received and on how persuasion ultimately affects behavior. Because these propositions follow logically from the key idea that choices are primarily, but not exclusively, a function of beliefs and values, these propositions have been labeled as “laws.”","PeriodicalId":184516,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of Electoral Persuasion","volume":"45 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129220948","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：