{"title":"PLS volume 42 issue 1 Front matter","authors":"G. Murray, M. Grillo, A. Landrum, B. Boutwell","doi":"10.1017/pls.2023.6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/pls.2023.6","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":35901,"journal":{"name":"Politics and the Life Sciences","volume":"42 1","pages":"f1 - f4"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"57056873","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}
Abstract After drawing a distinction between “class” and “status,” an early but short-lived sociological literature on status politics is reviewed. That approach has lost favor, but moral foundations theory (MFT) offers a new opportunity to link morality policy to status politics. While any of the five moral foundations (care, fairness, loyalty, authority, sanctity) can provoke conflict over status, most often sanctity is the cause of status politics because it engages the emotion of disgust. Disgust drives the behavioral immune system, which prevents us from being infected by contaminants in tainted food or by “outsiders” who are perceived to follow unconventional practices. This research note concludes by referencing 20 empirical studies in which feelings of disgust targeted certain groups or practices in society (i.e., immigrants, criminals, abortion). Thus, status politics is the origin of morality policy.
{"title":"Status politics is the origin of morality policy","authors":"Dane G. Wendell, Raymond Tatalovich","doi":"10.1017/pls.2023.11","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/pls.2023.11","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract After drawing a distinction between “class” and “status,” an early but short-lived sociological literature on status politics is reviewed. That approach has lost favor, but moral foundations theory (MFT) offers a new opportunity to link morality policy to status politics. While any of the five moral foundations (care, fairness, loyalty, authority, sanctity) can provoke conflict over status, most often sanctity is the cause of status politics because it engages the emotion of disgust. Disgust drives the behavioral immune system, which prevents us from being infected by contaminants in tainted food or by “outsiders” who are perceived to follow unconventional practices. This research note concludes by referencing 20 empirical studies in which feelings of disgust targeted certain groups or practices in society (i.e., immigrants, criminals, abortion). Thus, status politics is the origin of morality policy.","PeriodicalId":35901,"journal":{"name":"Politics and the Life Sciences","volume":"170 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135799487","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}
I n academia, true pioneers are often unheralded, if not outright ignored; they take chances with their careers and livelihoods that most would not consider. These pioneers are rarely found in the elite institutions under the bright shining light of renown; more often, they are found far from the fame, systematically plying their craft. Steven A. Peterson was just such a pioneer. As one of the founders of the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences (APLS) in the early 1980s, he was a key part of the original steering committee composed of Carol Barner-Barry, Lynton Caldwell, Peter Corning, Fred Kort, Roger Masters, Steven Peterson, Glendon Schubert, Albert Somit, and Thomas Weigele (Stewart & Bucy, 2011). Forty years ago, this group organized its first program for the 1982 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association and published its first issue of this journal, Politics and the Life Sciences, that same year. In subsequent years, Steve was a constant presence, first in building APLS as an organization and biopolitics as a field, and then as a steadying hand transitioning the organization and this journal to the next generation. He was, perhaps most impressively, among the first generation of biopolitical specialists to organize their graduate education around combining biology and politics. Steve’s undergraduate education at Bradley University led to a senior honors paper on biology and politics. He subsequently attended SUNYBuffalo’s graduate program, creating his own special subfield within the political science program based upon mammalian ethology, primate behavior, genetics, and classic works in biology. His dissertation, which focused on the biological basis of student protest—then a constant and roiling part of American political life—reflected a pragmatic approach to dealing with pressing public policy problems (Peterson, 2011). It was there, at SUNY Buffalo, that Steve met and developed a fruitful research collaboration with his longtime friend, colleague, and fellow APLS founder Al Somit. Among many other notable achievements and initiatives, Steve and Al were the series editors of the long-running Research in Biopolitics edited collections, first for JAI and then for Emerald Press, and they were the stalwart leaders of the similarly focused International Political Science Association Research Committee #12. Together, they gave the field of biopolitics renewed visibility with the 560-page edited volume, the Handbook of Biology and Politics (Peterson & Somit, 2017). Beyond these accomplishments in building the field of biopolitics, Steve’s collaborations extended outward to multiple fields and across a diverse array of individuals, as he took on the mentoring role of a highly productive academic. As author or editor ofmore than 25 books and 125 articles, including the pathbreaking Darwinism, Dominance, and Democracy: The Biological Bases of Authoritarianism (Somit & Peterson, 1997), his influence can be seen in th
在学术界，真正的先驱者往往是默默无闻的，如果不是完全被忽视的话;他们拿自己的事业和生计冒险，这是大多数人不会考虑的。这些先驱者很少出现在名牌名校的耀眼光芒下;更多的时候，他们被发现远离名声，系统地发挥他们的手艺。史蒂文·a·彼得森(Steven a . Peterson)就是这样一位先驱。作为20世纪80年代早期政治与生命科学协会(Association for Politics and the Life Sciences, APLS)的创始人之一，他是由Carol Barner-Barry、Lynton Caldwell、Peter Corning、Fred Kort、Roger Masters、Steven Peterson、Glendon Schubert、Albert Somit和Thomas Weigele组成的最初指导委员会的关键成员(Stewart & Bucy, 2011)。40年前，该组织为1982年美国政治科学协会年会组织了第一个项目，并于同年出版了《政治与生命科学》杂志的第一期。在随后的几年里，史蒂夫一直存在，首先将apl作为一个组织和生物政治学作为一个领域，然后作为一个稳定的手将组织和这本杂志过渡到下一代。也许最令人印象深刻的是，他是第一代将生物学和政治学结合起来组织研究生教育的生物政治学专家之一。史蒂夫在布拉德利大学(Bradley University)的本科教育让他写了一篇关于生物学和政治学的高级荣誉论文。随后，他参加了纽约州立大学布法罗分校的研究生课程，在基于哺乳动物行为学、灵长类动物行为学、遗传学和生物学经典著作的政治科学课程中创建了自己的特殊子领域。他的论文关注的是学生抗议的生物学基础——当时是美国政治生活中一个持续而动荡的部分——反映了一种务实的方法来处理紧迫的公共政策问题(Peterson, 2011)。就在那里，在纽约州立大学布法罗分校，史蒂夫遇到了他的老朋友、同事和apl创始人Al Somit，并与他进行了卓有成效的研究合作。在许多其他值得注意的成就和倡议中，史蒂夫和阿尔是长期运行的《生物政治研究》系列编辑，先是为JAI编辑，然后为翡翠出版社编辑，他们是同样专注的国际政治科学协会研究委员会第12号的坚定领导者。他们共同出版了560页的《生物与政治手册》(Peterson & Somit, 2017)，使生物政治领域重新获得了关注。除了在建立生物政治学领域取得的这些成就之外，史蒂夫的合作还向外扩展到多个领域，涉及各种各样的个人，因为他担任了一位高产学者的导师角色。作为超过25本书和125篇文章的作者或编辑，包括开创性的达尔文主义、统治和民主:威权主义的生物学基础(Somit & Peterson, 1997)，他的影响可以从他在40多年的职业生涯中积累的超过3272次引用中看出。虽然许多(如果不是大多数的话)具有如此研究创造力和生产力的学者会因为没有得到更多的荣誉而感到沮丧，但史蒂夫在他的职业生涯中一直谦虚和深思熟虑，他认识到他在纽约州北部阿尔弗雷德大学的第一份工作——一个几乎没有教师发表论文的教学机构——提供了一个机会。事实上，他说，“我有发表和研究生物政治学的自由，没有任何回避的压力。出版是一件令人愉快的事情，因为我在一个志同道合的政治科学家网络中分享了想法……我甚至因为参与了缓慢发展的生物政治社区而得到了奖励”(Peterson, 2011, pp. 92-93)。在很多方面，史蒂夫都体现了他在伊利诺伊州基瓦尼镇长大的美国中西部农村的美德。他标志性的勤奋、谦逊和务实的品质证明了他对这个领域的贡献。通讯作者:Patrick A. Stewart。电子邮件:pastewar@uark.edu
{"title":"In Memoriam: Steven Ames Peterson","authors":"P. Stewart, A. Fletcher, R. Blank, E. Bucy","doi":"10.1017/psj.2022.31","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/psj.2022.31","url":null,"abstract":"I n academia, true pioneers are often unheralded, if not outright ignored; they take chances with their careers and livelihoods that most would not consider. These pioneers are rarely found in the elite institutions under the bright shining light of renown; more often, they are found far from the fame, systematically plying their craft. Steven A. Peterson was just such a pioneer. As one of the founders of the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences (APLS) in the early 1980s, he was a key part of the original steering committee composed of Carol Barner-Barry, Lynton Caldwell, Peter Corning, Fred Kort, Roger Masters, Steven Peterson, Glendon Schubert, Albert Somit, and Thomas Weigele (Stewart & Bucy, 2011). Forty years ago, this group organized its first program for the 1982 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association and published its first issue of this journal, Politics and the Life Sciences, that same year. In subsequent years, Steve was a constant presence, first in building APLS as an organization and biopolitics as a field, and then as a steadying hand transitioning the organization and this journal to the next generation. He was, perhaps most impressively, among the first generation of biopolitical specialists to organize their graduate education around combining biology and politics. Steve’s undergraduate education at Bradley University led to a senior honors paper on biology and politics. He subsequently attended SUNYBuffalo’s graduate program, creating his own special subfield within the political science program based upon mammalian ethology, primate behavior, genetics, and classic works in biology. His dissertation, which focused on the biological basis of student protest—then a constant and roiling part of American political life—reflected a pragmatic approach to dealing with pressing public policy problems (Peterson, 2011). It was there, at SUNY Buffalo, that Steve met and developed a fruitful research collaboration with his longtime friend, colleague, and fellow APLS founder Al Somit. Among many other notable achievements and initiatives, Steve and Al were the series editors of the long-running Research in Biopolitics edited collections, first for JAI and then for Emerald Press, and they were the stalwart leaders of the similarly focused International Political Science Association Research Committee #12. Together, they gave the field of biopolitics renewed visibility with the 560-page edited volume, the Handbook of Biology and Politics (Peterson & Somit, 2017). Beyond these accomplishments in building the field of biopolitics, Steve’s collaborations extended outward to multiple fields and across a diverse array of individuals, as he took on the mentoring role of a highly productive academic. As author or editor ofmore than 25 books and 125 articles, including the pathbreaking Darwinism, Dominance, and Democracy: The Biological Bases of Authoritarianism (Somit & Peterson, 1997), his influence can be seen in th","PeriodicalId":35901,"journal":{"name":"Politics and the Life Sciences","volume":"04 1","pages":"150 - 151"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88904162","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}
{"title":"PLS volume 41 issue 1 Front matter","authors":"G. Murray, M. Grillo, A. Landrum, B. Boutwell","doi":"10.1017/pls.2022.9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/pls.2022.9","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":35901,"journal":{"name":"Politics and the Life Sciences","volume":"41 1","pages":"f1 - f5"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"57056855","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}
According to Federico, the literature suggests that needs for security and certainty are less related to opinions in the economic domain than in the social domain because of the greater difficultly of comprehending economic issues compared with social issues. According to these authors, these social pressures may generate superficial consensuses in the short term but also have the potential to create broader political divisions in the long term. The book makes an important and timely contribution to research on political polarization. Because of its sophisticated use of psychological terminology and experimental methods, I would recommend this book for an audience familiar with political psychology.
{"title":"Jan-Willem van Prooijen ed., The Psychology of Political Polarization","authors":"B. Çakın","doi":"10.1017/pls.2021.32","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/pls.2021.32","url":null,"abstract":"According to Federico, the literature suggests that needs for security and certainty are less related to opinions in the economic domain than in the social domain because of the greater difficultly of comprehending economic issues compared with social issues. According to these authors, these social pressures may generate superficial consensuses in the short term but also have the potential to create broader political divisions in the long term. The book makes an important and timely contribution to research on political polarization. Because of its sophisticated use of psychological terminology and experimental methods, I would recommend this book for an audience familiar with political psychology.","PeriodicalId":35901,"journal":{"name":"Politics and the Life Sciences","volume":"96 1","pages":"140 - 142"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73213282","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}
InWhyWe Fight, Mike Martin draws on his experience as amilitary veteran, biologist, andwar studies academic to explore the root causes of human conflict and war. In short, Martin’s central argument is that humans fight for status and belonging. These two motivations are not necessarily conscious but rather subconscious drives shaped over millions of years of human evolution. While WhyWe Fight provides a cogent and powerful biological theoretical framework for understanding human conflict, the real aim of the book, I believe, is sociological. Martin sets out to convince the reader that our current dominant sociocultural explanations of human conflict are causing more problems than they solve and that a biologically informed view is necessary to prevent and combat political violence in all its forms. The book is organized in 12 chapters that reflect a variety of interrelated topics, although there are two overarching themes: biology and culture. Martin first covers the biological side of his argument—the underlying psychological drives that subconsciously motivate us to use violence. Employing an evolutionary psychology framework, Martin explains how the process of evolution by natural selection has shaped the human mind over millions of years, endowing us with certain behaviors that, on average, increase our reproductive fitness. In particular, Martin argues that group living and high social status allowed ancient humans a plethora of evolutionary benefits. Thosewhoweremainlymotivated by a desire for belonging and status were more likely to survive and reproduce and leave genes for these instincts in the gene pool. Over time, then, humans evolved corresponding neurobiological mechanisms driving these two motivations. Belonging is regulated by oxytocin, which motivates us to seek and find comfort in the security of groups. Status seeking is regulated by testosterone, which encourages us to climb the hierarchy within those groups, especially in response to challenges to our status, and more so in males than females. But Martin stresses that the causal effects of these two motivations are probabilistic, not deterministic. They only give us a “push” toward using violence in response to specific environmental stimuli. After laying out the biological foundations of why we fight,Martinmoves on to the sociocultural explanations. There is, according to Martin, a fundamental dilemma with group living. Every individual wants to reap the benefits of group living while simultaneously maximizing their selfish interests. If individuals feel that the benefits of the group are not worth the costs, they will splinter off and form their own groups. Martin posits that to solve this dilemma and maintain a cohesive social group, humans need to address the five interrelated problems of identity, hierarchy, trade, disease, and punishment. Over time, our solution to these five problems has been to socially construct various moral codes, religions, and ideologies. But here
{"title":"Mike Martin, Why We Fight","authors":"Róbert Bognár","doi":"10.1017/pls.2021.26","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/pls.2021.26","url":null,"abstract":"InWhyWe Fight, Mike Martin draws on his experience as amilitary veteran, biologist, andwar studies academic to explore the root causes of human conflict and war. In short, Martin’s central argument is that humans fight for status and belonging. These two motivations are not necessarily conscious but rather subconscious drives shaped over millions of years of human evolution. While WhyWe Fight provides a cogent and powerful biological theoretical framework for understanding human conflict, the real aim of the book, I believe, is sociological. Martin sets out to convince the reader that our current dominant sociocultural explanations of human conflict are causing more problems than they solve and that a biologically informed view is necessary to prevent and combat political violence in all its forms. The book is organized in 12 chapters that reflect a variety of interrelated topics, although there are two overarching themes: biology and culture. Martin first covers the biological side of his argument—the underlying psychological drives that subconsciously motivate us to use violence. Employing an evolutionary psychology framework, Martin explains how the process of evolution by natural selection has shaped the human mind over millions of years, endowing us with certain behaviors that, on average, increase our reproductive fitness. In particular, Martin argues that group living and high social status allowed ancient humans a plethora of evolutionary benefits. Thosewhoweremainlymotivated by a desire for belonging and status were more likely to survive and reproduce and leave genes for these instincts in the gene pool. Over time, then, humans evolved corresponding neurobiological mechanisms driving these two motivations. Belonging is regulated by oxytocin, which motivates us to seek and find comfort in the security of groups. Status seeking is regulated by testosterone, which encourages us to climb the hierarchy within those groups, especially in response to challenges to our status, and more so in males than females. But Martin stresses that the causal effects of these two motivations are probabilistic, not deterministic. They only give us a “push” toward using violence in response to specific environmental stimuli. After laying out the biological foundations of why we fight,Martinmoves on to the sociocultural explanations. There is, according to Martin, a fundamental dilemma with group living. Every individual wants to reap the benefits of group living while simultaneously maximizing their selfish interests. If individuals feel that the benefits of the group are not worth the costs, they will splinter off and form their own groups. Martin posits that to solve this dilemma and maintain a cohesive social group, humans need to address the five interrelated problems of identity, hierarchy, trade, disease, and punishment. Over time, our solution to these five problems has been to socially construct various moral codes, religions, and ideologies. But here","PeriodicalId":35901,"journal":{"name":"Politics and the Life Sciences","volume":"29 1","pages":"143 - 144"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73940136","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}
S everal years ago, I was at an American Political Science Association Annual Meeting at which there was a well-attended special session to discuss the newly proposed Data Access and Research Transparency (DART) initiative, which encouraged researchers to make their data available to facilitate evaluation of their findings. During a heated discussion, a very senior scholar who was skeptical of the application of DART in general and for qualitative research in particular, exclaimed in frustration, “It’s as if you think we’re trying to hide things!” A slightly more junior scholar who had been a proponent of greater transparency responded with a deadpan, “Yes, it’s as if you’re trying to hide things.” Much has happened in the 10 or so years since that meeting in terms of social and political science research practice and attitudes. One of the major developments has been the increasingly widespread adoption of the registration of pre-analysis plans (PAPs), in which researchers register their design and empirical specifications before accessing and analyzing (and often before collecting) their data. In many ways, this has been a natural extension of what economists Joshua Angrist and Jorn-Steffen Pischke (2010) call the “credibility revolution” in empirical economics and political economy—broadly speaking, the use of identification-driven research designs, most prominently randomized experiments. Figure 1 shows the growth in the number of registered PAPs in two of the more prominent social science registries—the Evidence in Governance and Politics (EGAP) design registry1 and the American Economic Association’s RCT Registry.2 As can be seen, the number of registrations of PAPs has grown steadily each year since the introduction of these two registries in 2011 and 2013, respectively, with a slight dip (likely pandemic related) in the EGAP registry in 2020. As I alluded to earlier, this trend has been driven to a large extent by the explosion of experimental research designs in political science and economics over the past two decades and by related organizations such as the EGAP research network, which has done much for the adoption of more transparent research practices. There have been several arguments presented for the adoption of PAPs and proposals for how this might work in social science. Humphreys et al. (2013), Nosek et al. (2015), and Munafo et al. (2017) are some of the more prominent recent ones. In this short article, I want to provide some of my thoughts on these developments from the perspective of someone who writes PAPs and reads them as a reviewer, as well as from the perspective of a journal editor.
{"title":"Tie my hands loosely: <i>Pre-analysis plans in political science</i>.","authors":"Daniel Rubenson","doi":"10.1017/pls.2021.23","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/pls.2021.23","url":null,"abstract":"S everal years ago, I was at an American Political Science Association Annual Meeting at which there was a well-attended special session to discuss the newly proposed Data Access and Research Transparency (DART) initiative, which encouraged researchers to make their data available to facilitate evaluation of their findings. During a heated discussion, a very senior scholar who was skeptical of the application of DART in general and for qualitative research in particular, exclaimed in frustration, “It’s as if you think we’re trying to hide things!” A slightly more junior scholar who had been a proponent of greater transparency responded with a deadpan, “Yes, it’s as if you’re trying to hide things.” Much has happened in the 10 or so years since that meeting in terms of social and political science research practice and attitudes. One of the major developments has been the increasingly widespread adoption of the registration of pre-analysis plans (PAPs), in which researchers register their design and empirical specifications before accessing and analyzing (and often before collecting) their data. In many ways, this has been a natural extension of what economists Joshua Angrist and Jorn-Steffen Pischke (2010) call the “credibility revolution” in empirical economics and political economy—broadly speaking, the use of identification-driven research designs, most prominently randomized experiments. Figure 1 shows the growth in the number of registered PAPs in two of the more prominent social science registries—the Evidence in Governance and Politics (EGAP) design registry1 and the American Economic Association’s RCT Registry.2 As can be seen, the number of registrations of PAPs has grown steadily each year since the introduction of these two registries in 2011 and 2013, respectively, with a slight dip (likely pandemic related) in the EGAP registry in 2020. As I alluded to earlier, this trend has been driven to a large extent by the explosion of experimental research designs in political science and economics over the past two decades and by related organizations such as the EGAP research network, which has done much for the adoption of more transparent research practices. There have been several arguments presented for the adoption of PAPs and proposals for how this might work in social science. Humphreys et al. (2013), Nosek et al. (2015), and Munafo et al. (2017) are some of the more prominent recent ones. In this short article, I want to provide some of my thoughts on these developments from the perspective of someone who writes PAPs and reads them as a reviewer, as well as from the perspective of a journal editor.","PeriodicalId":35901,"journal":{"name":"Politics and the Life Sciences","volume":"40 2","pages":"142-151"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"39661465","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}
The editorial team is pleased to publish volume 40, issue 2, of Politics and the Life Sciences (PLS). This issue continues the implementation of the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences initiative to fund research, particularly research following open science practices. In this case, researchers responded to a call for research designed to address “Psychophysiology, Cognition, and Political Differences.” Funded proposals were approved through a competitive peer-review process that required (1) a preanalysis plan (PAP) detailing the research to be undertaken prior to data collection or, in one case, prior to data analysis and (2) publication in the journal regardless of outcomes as long as the research was conducted according to the PAP. The four resulting “registered report” articles appear in this issue of the journal. For an overview of the articles, see the guest editor introduction by Mansell and colleagues (2021). More broadly, the registered report process is designed to improve scientific reporting by increasing research transparency and reducing researchers’ discretion over decisions that may make their work more publishable but also more biased. Such decisions may include selecting variables or model specifications that increase the likelihood of statistically significant results and/or support for hypotheses (Rubenson, 2021). Evidence suggests pre-registered biomedical and psychological studies report null findings for hypotheses about two-thirds of the time, while standard, nonregistered studies report null findings only up to one in five times (Allen&Mehler, 2019). A later study focusing exclusively on findings in psychology suggests registered studies report null findings for first hypotheses almost six out of 10 times, while standard studies report null findings only about one in 20 times (Scheel et al., 2021). Consistent with these findings, a prior special issue of PLS on disgust and political attitudes in Fall 2020 “include[s] a large proportion of null findings that raise a number of important and interesting questions for current and future disgust researchers” (Murray, 2020, p. 128). The same can be said for the reported findings from registered reports in this issue. While the large preponderance of the registered report findings are null and do not support the hypothesized effects, these studies also raise a number of important and interesting questions for researchers studying political differences. As noted in last year’s disgust and political attitudes special issue, these type of results are likely when the research process is informed by open science practices. The editorial team extends its thanks to the many reviewers who invested a great deal of time and effort in their consideration of “Psychophysiology, Cognition, and Political Differences.” It is also eminently grateful to the guest editorial team – Jordan Mansell, Allison Harrell, Elisabeth Gidengil, and Patrick Stewart – for their diligent and insightf
{"title":"Editor-in-Chief's introduction to the issue.","authors":"Gregg R Murray","doi":"10.1017/pls.2021.25","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/pls.2021.25","url":null,"abstract":"The editorial team is pleased to publish volume 40, issue 2, of Politics and the Life Sciences (PLS). This issue continues the implementation of the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences initiative to fund research, particularly research following open science practices. In this case, researchers responded to a call for research designed to address “Psychophysiology, Cognition, and Political Differences.” Funded proposals were approved through a competitive peer-review process that required (1) a preanalysis plan (PAP) detailing the research to be undertaken prior to data collection or, in one case, prior to data analysis and (2) publication in the journal regardless of outcomes as long as the research was conducted according to the PAP. The four resulting “registered report” articles appear in this issue of the journal. For an overview of the articles, see the guest editor introduction by Mansell and colleagues (2021). More broadly, the registered report process is designed to improve scientific reporting by increasing research transparency and reducing researchers’ discretion over decisions that may make their work more publishable but also more biased. Such decisions may include selecting variables or model specifications that increase the likelihood of statistically significant results and/or support for hypotheses (Rubenson, 2021). Evidence suggests pre-registered biomedical and psychological studies report null findings for hypotheses about two-thirds of the time, while standard, nonregistered studies report null findings only up to one in five times (Allen&Mehler, 2019). A later study focusing exclusively on findings in psychology suggests registered studies report null findings for first hypotheses almost six out of 10 times, while standard studies report null findings only about one in 20 times (Scheel et al., 2021). Consistent with these findings, a prior special issue of PLS on disgust and political attitudes in Fall 2020 “include[s] a large proportion of null findings that raise a number of important and interesting questions for current and future disgust researchers” (Murray, 2020, p. 128). The same can be said for the reported findings from registered reports in this issue. While the large preponderance of the registered report findings are null and do not support the hypothesized effects, these studies also raise a number of important and interesting questions for researchers studying political differences. As noted in last year’s disgust and political attitudes special issue, these type of results are likely when the research process is informed by open science practices. The editorial team extends its thanks to the many reviewers who invested a great deal of time and effort in their consideration of “Psychophysiology, Cognition, and Political Differences.” It is also eminently grateful to the guest editorial team – Jordan Mansell, Allison Harrell, Elisabeth Gidengil, and Patrick Stewart – for their diligent and insightf","PeriodicalId":35901,"journal":{"name":"Politics and the Life Sciences","volume":"40 2","pages":"135-136"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"39661463","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}
Jordan Mansell, Steven Mock, Carter Rhea, Adrienne Tecza, Jinelle Piereder
We test a method for applying a network-based approach to the study of political attitudes. We use cognitive-affective mapping, an approach that visually represents attitudes as networks of concepts that an individual associates with a given issue. Using a software tool called Valence, we asked a sample of Canadians (n = 111) to draw a cognitive-affective map (CAM) of their views on the carbon tax. We treat these networks as a series of undirected graphs and examine the extent to which support for the tax can be predicted based on each graph's emotional and structural properties. We find evidence that the emotional but not the structural properties significantly predict individuals' attitudes toward the carbon tax. We also find associations between CAMs' structural properties (density and centrality) and several measures of political interest. Our results provide preliminary evidence for the efficacy of CAMs as a tool for studying political attitudes. The study data are available at https://osf.io/qwpvd/?view_only=6834a1c442224e72bf45e7641880a17f.
{"title":"Measuring attitudes as a complex system: <i>Structured thinking and support for the Canadian carbon tax</i>.","authors":"Jordan Mansell, Steven Mock, Carter Rhea, Adrienne Tecza, Jinelle Piereder","doi":"10.1017/pls.2021.16","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/pls.2021.16","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We test a method for applying a network-based approach to the study of political attitudes. We use cognitive-affective mapping, an approach that visually represents attitudes as networks of concepts that an individual associates with a given issue. Using a software tool called Valence, we asked a sample of Canadians (n = 111) to draw a cognitive-affective map (CAM) of their views on the carbon tax. We treat these networks as a series of undirected graphs and examine the extent to which support for the tax can be predicted based on each graph's emotional and structural properties. We find evidence that the emotional but not the structural properties significantly predict individuals' attitudes toward the carbon tax. We also find associations between CAMs' structural properties (density and centrality) and several measures of political interest. Our results provide preliminary evidence for the efficacy of CAMs as a tool for studying political attitudes. The study data are available at https://osf.io/qwpvd/?view_only=6834a1c442224e72bf45e7641880a17f.</p>","PeriodicalId":35901,"journal":{"name":"Politics and the Life Sciences","volume":"40 2","pages":"179-201"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"39913788","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}
Several empirical studies have linked political candidates' electoral success to their physical appearance. We reexamine the effects of candidates' physical attractiveness by taking into account emotional facial expressions as measured by automated facial recognition software. The analysis is based on an observational case study of candidate characteristics in the 2017 German federal election. Using hierarchical regression modeling and controlling for candidates' displays of happiness, consistent effects of physical attractiveness remain. The results suggest that a potential interaction effect between displays of happiness and attractiveness positively affects vote shares. The study emphasizes the importance of considering emotional expressions when analyzing the impact of candidate appearance on electoral outcomes.
{"title":"Can a beautiful smile win the vote?: <i>The role of candidates' physical attractiveness and facial expressions in elections</i>.","authors":"Lena Masch, Anna Gassner, Ulrich Rosar","doi":"10.1017/pls.2021.17","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/pls.2021.17","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Several empirical studies have linked political candidates' electoral success to their physical appearance. We reexamine the effects of candidates' physical attractiveness by taking into account emotional facial expressions as measured by automated facial recognition software. The analysis is based on an observational case study of candidate characteristics in the 2017 German federal election. Using hierarchical regression modeling and controlling for candidates' displays of happiness, consistent effects of physical attractiveness remain. The results suggest that a potential interaction effect between displays of happiness and attractiveness positively affects vote shares. The study emphasizes the importance of considering emotional expressions when analyzing the impact of candidate appearance on electoral outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":35901,"journal":{"name":"Politics and the Life Sciences","volume":"40 2","pages":"213-223"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"39913790","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：