Politics and the Life Sciences最新文献_第8页

In Memoriam: Steven Ames Peterson 纪念:史蒂文·埃姆斯·彼得森

Q2 Social Sciences

Politics and the Life Sciences

Pub Date : 2022-02-21 DOI: 10.1017/psj.2022.31

P. Stewart, A. Fletcher, R. Blank, E. Bucy

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}

引用次数: 0

PLS volume 41 issue 1 Front matter PLS第41卷第1期

Q2 Social Sciences

Politics and the Life Sciences

Pub Date : 2022-01-01 DOI: 10.1017/pls.2022.9

G. Murray, M. Grillo, A. Landrum, B. Boutwell

引用次数: 0

Jan-Willem van Prooijen ed., The Psychology of Political Polarization Jan-Willem van proijen等著，《政治两极分化的心理学》

Q2 Social Sciences

Politics and the Life Sciences

Pub Date : 2021-11-18 DOI: 10.1017/pls.2021.32

B. Çakın

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.

根据Federico的说法，文献表明，对安全和确定性的需求与经济领域的意见的关系小于社会领域的意见，因为与社会问题相比，理解经济问题的难度更大。这些作者认为，这些社会压力可能在短期内产生表面的共识，但从长远来看，也有可能造成更广泛的政治分歧。这本书对政治两极分化的研究做出了重要而及时的贡献。由于它对心理学术语和实验方法的复杂使用，我将向熟悉政治心理学的读者推荐这本书。

引用次数: 0

Mike Martin, Why We Fight 迈克·马丁，《我们为什么战斗》

Q2 Social Sciences

Politics and the Life Sciences

Pub Date : 2021-11-05 DOI: 10.1017/pls.2021.26

Róbert Bognár

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

在《我们为什么战斗》一书中，迈克·马丁利用他作为退伍军人、生物学家和战争研究学者的经历，探索了人类冲突和战争的根本原因。简而言之，马丁的核心论点是人类为地位和归属感而战。这两种动机不一定是有意识的，而是在数百万年的人类进化过程中形成的潜意识驱动。虽然《我们为什么战斗》为理解人类冲突提供了一个强有力的生物学理论框架，但我认为，这本书的真正目的是社会学的。马丁试图让读者相信，我们目前对人类冲突的主流社会文化解释造成的问题比它们解决的问题要多，而从生物学角度出发的观点对于预防和打击各种形式的政治暴力是必要的。这本书分为12章，反映了各种相互关联的主题，尽管有两个主要主题:生物学和文化。马丁首先阐述了他的观点的生物学方面——潜意识地激励我们使用暴力的潜在心理驱动力。马丁运用进化心理学的框架，解释了自然选择的进化过程如何在数百万年的时间里塑造了人类的思维，赋予我们某些行为，平均而言，这些行为增加了我们的生殖适应性。马丁特别指出，群体生活和较高的社会地位使古人类获得了过多的进化益处。那些主要出于对归属和地位的渴望的人更有可能生存和繁殖，并在基因库中留下这些本能的基因。随着时间的推移，人类进化出相应的神经生物学机制来驱动这两种动机。归属感是由催产素调节的，它促使我们在群体的安全中寻求和找到安慰。地位追求是由睾丸激素调节的，它鼓励我们在那些群体中攀登等级，尤其是在我们的地位受到挑战时，男性比女性更容易这样做。但马丁强调，这两种动机的因果关系是概率性的，而不是决定性的。它们只会“推动”我们在应对特定环境刺激时使用暴力。在阐述了我们为什么打架的生物学基础之后，马丁斯转向了社会文化的解释。根据马丁的说法，群体生活存在着一个根本性的困境。每个人都想在获得群体生活的好处的同时，将自己的利益最大化。如果个人觉得群体的利益不值得付出代价，他们就会分裂出来，形成自己的群体。马丁认为，要解决这一困境并维持一个有凝聚力的社会群体，人类需要解决五个相互关联的问题:身份、等级、贸易、疾病和惩罚。随着时间的推移，我们解决这五个问题的方法是在社会上构建各种道德规范、宗教和意识形态。但在这里，马丁提出了一个大胆的主张:这些社会结构只是给我们提供了一种错觉，即我们正在做出有意识的、社会可以接受的决定，而实际上我们是在做出自私的、潜意识的决定，以获得归属感和地位。马丁在书中反复提到的一个例子是自杀式恐怖主义。马丁与这种形式的恐怖主义的对抗是至关重要的，因为它似乎与进化论的观点相矛盾。毕竟，如果战争和暴力是进化适应性的结果，为什么年轻且通常没有孩子的个体会为他们的群体自杀呢?马丁相当有说服力地指出，自杀式炸弹袭击者是个人拼命寻求归属感和地位的较为极端的例子之一。马丁认为，激进的反恐政策进一步疏远和羞辱了这些人，迫使他们采取最终和绝望的行动，以重新获得失去的归属感和地位。此外，与当前的反恐理论相反，马丁认为意识形态只是一种幻觉，它通过使那些愿意为自己的团体做出最终牺牲的人获得社会接受和高地位，从而为这种行为提供便利。这本书的一个显著优点是，马丁在每一章之前都讲述了他作为一名军官在阿富汗和其他地方的亲身经历。这使读者能够将马丁的理论论点置于一个真实世界的例子中，这对作者来说是非常个人的，并使学术部分更容易理解。也许这本书最大的优点是马丁提供的现实世界的解决方案。马丁的观点遵循了其他叛乱理论家的观点，他们认为极端主义主要是一种威胁。电子邮件:罗伯特。bognar@lincoln.ox.ac.uk书评

{"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}

引用次数: 0

Tie my hands loosely: Pre-analysis plans in political science. 松开我的手:政治学的预分析计划。

Q2 Social Sciences

Politics and the Life Sciences

Pub Date : 2021-11-01 DOI: 10.1017/pls.2021.23

Daniel Rubenson

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}

引用次数: 3

Editor-in-Chief's introduction to the issue. 主编对本期的介绍。

Q2 Social Sciences

Politics and the Life Sciences

Pub Date : 2021-11-01 DOI: 10.1017/pls.2021.25

Gregg R Murray

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}

引用次数: 0

Measuring attitudes as a complex system: Structured thinking and support for the Canadian carbon tax. 衡量作为一个复杂系统的态度:结构化思维和对加拿大碳税的支持。

Q2 Social Sciences

Politics and the Life Sciences

Pub Date : 2021-11-01 DOI: 10.1017/pls.2021.16

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.

我们测试了一种将基于网络的方法应用于政治态度研究的方法。我们使用认知-情感映射，这是一种将态度直观地表示为个人与给定问题相关联的概念网络的方法。使用一种叫做Valence的软件工具，我们要求加拿大人(n = 111)绘制他们对碳税看法的认知-情感地图(CAM)。我们将这些网络视为一系列无向图，并根据每个图的情感和结构属性来检验对税收的支持程度。我们发现有证据表明，情感属性而非结构属性显著地预测了个人对碳税的态度。我们还发现CAMs的结构属性(密度和中心性)与若干政治利益指标之间存在关联。我们的研究结果为CAMs作为研究政治态度的工具的有效性提供了初步证据。研究数据可在https://osf.io/qwpvd/?view_only=6834a1c442224e72bf45e7641880a17f上获得。

引用次数: 5

Can a beautiful smile win the vote?: The role of candidates' physical attractiveness and facial expressions in elections. 美丽的微笑能赢得选票吗?候选人的外貌和面部表情在选举中的作用。

Q2 Social Sciences

Politics and the Life Sciences

Pub Date : 2021-11-01 DOI: 10.1017/pls.2021.17

Lena Masch, Anna Gassner, Ulrich Rosar

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.

一些实证研究将政治候选人的选举成功与他们的外表联系起来。我们通过考虑自动面部识别软件测量的面部情绪表情来重新检查候选人身体吸引力的影响。该分析基于对2017年德国联邦选举候选人特征的观察性案例研究。使用层次回归模型和控制候选人的幸福表现，外表吸引力的一致影响仍然存在。结果表明，表现出快乐和吸引力之间的潜在互动效应会积极影响投票份额。该研究强调了在分析候选人外表对选举结果的影响时考虑情绪表达的重要性。

引用次数: 6

Political taste: Exploring how perception of bitter substances may reveal risk tolerance and political preferences. 政治口味:探索对苦味物质的感知如何揭示风险承受能力和政治偏好。

Q2 Social Sciences

Politics and the Life Sciences

Pub Date : 2021-11-01 DOI: 10.1017/pls.2021.20

Amanda Friesen, Aleksander Ksiazkiewicz, Claire Gothreau

Risk is endemic to the political arena and influences citizen engagement. We explore this connection by suggesting that risk-taking may be biologically instantiated in sensory systems. With specific attention to gender and gender identity, we investigate the connections between self-reported bitter taste reception, risk tolerance, and both of their associations with political participation. In three U.S. samples collected in 2019 and 2020, participants were asked to rate their preferences from lists of foods as well as whether they detected the taste of the substance N-Propylthiouracil (PROP) and, if so, the strength of the taste. In this registered report, we find that self-reported bitter taste preference, but not PROP detection, is positively associated with higher levels of risk tolerance as well as political participation. The pattern with gender and gender identity is mixed across our samples, but interestingly, we find that sex-atypical gender identity positively predicts political participation.

风险是政治领域特有的，影响着公民的参与。我们通过提出冒险行为可能在感觉系统中具有生物学实例来探索这种联系。特别关注性别和性别认同，我们调查了自我报告的苦味接受、风险容忍以及两者与政治参与之间的联系。在2019年和2020年收集的三个美国样本中，参与者被要求从食物清单中评估他们的偏好，以及他们是否检测到n -丙基硫脲嘧啶(PROP)物质的味道，如果检测到，味道的强度。在这个注册的报告中，我们发现自我报告的苦味偏好，而不是PROP检测，与更高水平的风险承受能力和政治参与呈正相关。性别和性别认同的模式在我们的样本中是混合的，但有趣的是，我们发现性别非典型的性别认同积极地预测政治参与。

引用次数: 3

Psychophysiology, cognition, and political differences: Guest editors' introduction to the special issue. 心理生理学、认知和政治差异:特刊特邀编辑简介。

Q2 Social Sciences

Politics and the Life Sciences

Pub Date : 2021-11-01 DOI: 10.1017/pls.2021.21

Jordan Mansell, Allison Harell, Elisabeth Gidengil, Patrick A Stewart

We introduce the Politics and the Life Sciences special issue on Psychophysiology, Cognition, and Political Differences. This issue represents the second special issue funded by the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences that adheres to the Open Science Framework for registered reports (RR). Here pre-analysis plans (PAPs) are peer-reviewed and given in-principle acceptance (IPA) prior to data being collected and/or analyzed, and are published contingent upon the preregistration of the study being followed as proposed. Bound by a common theme of the importance of incorporating psychophysiological perspectives into the study of politics, broadly defined, the articles in this special issue feature a unique set of research questions and methodologies. In the following, we summarize the findings, discuss the innovations produced by this research, and highlight the importance of open science for the future of political science research.

我们介绍政治和生命科学特刊心理生理学，认知和政治差异。本期是政治与生命科学协会资助的第二期特刊，该协会遵循注册报告开放科学框架(RR)。在这里，预分析计划(pap)在数据收集和/或分析之前经过同行评审并给予原则接受(IPA)，并根据所建议的研究预注册进行公布。在将心理生理学观点纳入广义政治研究的重要性这一共同主题的约束下，本期特刊中的文章以一套独特的研究问题和方法为特色。在下文中，我们总结了研究结果，讨论了本研究产生的创新，并强调了开放科学对政治学研究未来的重要性。

引用次数: 2