Pub Date : 2021-04-01DOI: 10.1177/20531680211018368
C. Ruhe, Iris Volg
Mediation is widely used to settle armed conflict and interstate crises. However, the debate over the most appropriate and effective mediation strategy is still ongoing. In particular, manipulative mediation is controversial, with some research indicating that heavy-handed mediation may buy short-term peace at the expense of an instable long-term situation. This paper re-evaluates these claims. We discuss how existing theoretical arguments either do not imply long-term instability or implicitly make unrealistic assumptions to explain possible long-term problems of manipulative strategies. We re-examine published empirical evidence for problematic long-term effects of manipulative mediation in interstate crises. We demonstrate statistically that this evidence actually implies a different conclusion and instead supports our theoretical argument: manipulative mediation is associated with substantively greater stability compared to unmediated cases, although this effect weakens and becomes statistically insignificant after several years. Interestingly, non-manipulative mediation appears to be uncorrelated with post-crisis stability, based on our analysis.
{"title":"Sticks and carrots for peace: The effect of manipulative mediation strategies on post-conflict stability","authors":"C. Ruhe, Iris Volg","doi":"10.1177/20531680211018368","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20531680211018368","url":null,"abstract":"Mediation is widely used to settle armed conflict and interstate crises. However, the debate over the most appropriate and effective mediation strategy is still ongoing. In particular, manipulative mediation is controversial, with some research indicating that heavy-handed mediation may buy short-term peace at the expense of an instable long-term situation. This paper re-evaluates these claims. We discuss how existing theoretical arguments either do not imply long-term instability or implicitly make unrealistic assumptions to explain possible long-term problems of manipulative strategies. We re-examine published empirical evidence for problematic long-term effects of manipulative mediation in interstate crises. We demonstrate statistically that this evidence actually implies a different conclusion and instead supports our theoretical argument: manipulative mediation is associated with substantively greater stability compared to unmediated cases, although this effect weakens and becomes statistically insignificant after several years. Interestingly, non-manipulative mediation appears to be uncorrelated with post-crisis stability, based on our analysis.","PeriodicalId":37327,"journal":{"name":"Research and Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2021-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/20531680211018368","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48854934","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-04-01DOI: 10.1177/20531680211016968
Kevin Munger, Ishita Gopal, Jonathan Nagler, Joshua A. Tucker
An emerging empirical regularity suggests that older people use and respond to social media very differently than younger people. Older people are the fastest-growing population of Internet and social media users in the US, and this heterogeneity will soon become central to online politics. However, many important experiments in this field have been conducted on online samples that do not contain enough older people to be useful to generalize to the current population of Internet users; this issue is more pronounced for studies that are even a few years old. In this paper, we report the results of replicating two experiments involving social media (specifically, Facebook) conducted on one such sample lacking older users (Amazon’s Mechanical Turk) using a source of online subjects which does contain sufficient variation in subject age. We add a standard battery of questions designed to explicitly measure digital literacy. We find evidence of significant treatment effect heterogeneity in subject age and digital literacy in the replication of one of the two experiments. This result is an example of limitations to generalizability of research conducted on samples where selection is related to treatment effect heterogeneity; specifically, this result indicates that Mechanical Turk should not be used to recruit subjects when researchers suspect treatment effect heterogeneity in age or digital literacy, as we argue should be the case for research on digital media effects.
{"title":"Accessibility and generalizability: Are social media effects moderated by age or digital literacy?","authors":"Kevin Munger, Ishita Gopal, Jonathan Nagler, Joshua A. Tucker","doi":"10.1177/20531680211016968","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20531680211016968","url":null,"abstract":"An emerging empirical regularity suggests that older people use and respond to social media very differently than younger people. Older people are the fastest-growing population of Internet and social media users in the US, and this heterogeneity will soon become central to online politics. However, many important experiments in this field have been conducted on online samples that do not contain enough older people to be useful to generalize to the current population of Internet users; this issue is more pronounced for studies that are even a few years old. In this paper, we report the results of replicating two experiments involving social media (specifically, Facebook) conducted on one such sample lacking older users (Amazon’s Mechanical Turk) using a source of online subjects which does contain sufficient variation in subject age. We add a standard battery of questions designed to explicitly measure digital literacy. We find evidence of significant treatment effect heterogeneity in subject age and digital literacy in the replication of one of the two experiments. This result is an example of limitations to generalizability of research conducted on samples where selection is related to treatment effect heterogeneity; specifically, this result indicates that Mechanical Turk should not be used to recruit subjects when researchers suspect treatment effect heterogeneity in age or digital literacy, as we argue should be the case for research on digital media effects.","PeriodicalId":37327,"journal":{"name":"Research and Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2021-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/20531680211016968","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46486977","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-04-01DOI: 10.1177/20531680211027017
K. Beardsley
This brief essay considers the “mediation dilemma” in the light of new analysis by Constantin Ruhe and Iris Volg. Ruhe and Volg’s analysis adds to our understanding of manipulative mediation in two important ways: (a) it demonstrates how an analysis that uses a lens of survival functions clarifies the policy trade-offs beyond what is possible from an analysis that uses a lens of changing hazard rates; and (b) it demonstrates that lighter (nonmanipulative) forms of mediation have a less positive effect on peace stability than in the original analysis. This response also offers important corrections to the conclusions drawn by Ruhe and Volg: (a) ignoring the lens of changing hazard rates misses key ways of testing for the observable implications that arise from the underlying theoretical arguments; (b) Ruhe and Volg misstate some of the theoretical claims made by Beardsley; and (c) almost all of the original implications explored by Beardsley remain supported.
{"title":"Clarifying the mediation dilemma: A response to “Sticks and carrots for peace”","authors":"K. Beardsley","doi":"10.1177/20531680211027017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20531680211027017","url":null,"abstract":"This brief essay considers the “mediation dilemma” in the light of new analysis by Constantin Ruhe and Iris Volg. Ruhe and Volg’s analysis adds to our understanding of manipulative mediation in two important ways: (a) it demonstrates how an analysis that uses a lens of survival functions clarifies the policy trade-offs beyond what is possible from an analysis that uses a lens of changing hazard rates; and (b) it demonstrates that lighter (nonmanipulative) forms of mediation have a less positive effect on peace stability than in the original analysis. This response also offers important corrections to the conclusions drawn by Ruhe and Volg: (a) ignoring the lens of changing hazard rates misses key ways of testing for the observable implications that arise from the underlying theoretical arguments; (b) Ruhe and Volg misstate some of the theoretical claims made by Beardsley; and (c) almost all of the original implications explored by Beardsley remain supported.","PeriodicalId":37327,"journal":{"name":"Research and Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2021-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/20531680211027017","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43302689","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-04-01DOI: 10.1177/20531680211013154
Mattias Agerberg, Marcus Tannenberg
List experiments are widely used in the social sciences to elicit truthful responses to sensitive questions. Yet, the research design commonly suffers from the problem of measurement error in the form of non-strategic respondent error, where some inattentive participants might provide random responses. This type of error can result in severely biased estimates. A recently proposed solution is the use of a necessarily false placebo item to equalize the length of the treatment and control lists in order to alleviate concerns about respondent error. In this paper we show theoretically that placebo items do not in general eliminate bias caused by non-strategic respondent error. We introduce a new option, the mixed control list, and show how researchers can choose between different control list designs to minimize the problems caused by inattentive respondents. We provide researchers with practical guidance to think carefully about the bias that inattentive respondents might cause in a given application of the list experiment. We also report results from a large novel list experiment fielded to over 4900 respondents, specifically designed to illustrate our theoretical argument and recommendations.
{"title":"Dealing with measurement error in list experiments: Choosing the right control list design","authors":"Mattias Agerberg, Marcus Tannenberg","doi":"10.1177/20531680211013154","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20531680211013154","url":null,"abstract":"List experiments are widely used in the social sciences to elicit truthful responses to sensitive questions. Yet, the research design commonly suffers from the problem of measurement error in the form of non-strategic respondent error, where some inattentive participants might provide random responses. This type of error can result in severely biased estimates. A recently proposed solution is the use of a necessarily false placebo item to equalize the length of the treatment and control lists in order to alleviate concerns about respondent error. In this paper we show theoretically that placebo items do not in general eliminate bias caused by non-strategic respondent error. We introduce a new option, the mixed control list, and show how researchers can choose between different control list designs to minimize the problems caused by inattentive respondents. We provide researchers with practical guidance to think carefully about the bias that inattentive respondents might cause in a given application of the list experiment. We also report results from a large novel list experiment fielded to over 4900 respondents, specifically designed to illustrate our theoretical argument and recommendations.","PeriodicalId":37327,"journal":{"name":"Research and Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2021-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/20531680211013154","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46568234","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-04-01DOI: 10.1177/20531680211022206
Hannah Béchara, Alexander Herzog, Slava Jankin, Peter John
Topic models are widely used in natural language processing, allowing researchers to estimate the underlying themes in a collection of documents. Most topic models require the additional step of attaching meaningful labels to estimated topics, a process that is not scalable, suffers from human bias, and is difficult to replicate. We present a transfer topic labeling method that seeks to remedy these problems, using domain-specific codebooks as the knowledge base to automatically label estimated topics. We demonstrate our approach with a large-scale topic model analysis of the complete corpus of UK House of Commons speeches from 1935 to 2014, using the coding instructions of the Comparative Agendas Project to label topics. We evaluated our results using human expert coding and compared our approach with more current state-of-the-art neural methods. Our approach was simple to implement, compared favorably to expert judgments, and outperformed the neural networks model for a majority of the topics we estimated.
{"title":"Transfer learning for topic labeling: Analysis of the UK House of Commons speeches 1935–2014","authors":"Hannah Béchara, Alexander Herzog, Slava Jankin, Peter John","doi":"10.1177/20531680211022206","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20531680211022206","url":null,"abstract":"Topic models are widely used in natural language processing, allowing researchers to estimate the underlying themes in a collection of documents. Most topic models require the additional step of attaching meaningful labels to estimated topics, a process that is not scalable, suffers from human bias, and is difficult to replicate. We present a transfer topic labeling method that seeks to remedy these problems, using domain-specific codebooks as the knowledge base to automatically label estimated topics. We demonstrate our approach with a large-scale topic model analysis of the complete corpus of UK House of Commons speeches from 1935 to 2014, using the coding instructions of the Comparative Agendas Project to label topics. We evaluated our results using human expert coding and compared our approach with more current state-of-the-art neural methods. Our approach was simple to implement, compared favorably to expert judgments, and outperformed the neural networks model for a majority of the topics we estimated.","PeriodicalId":37327,"journal":{"name":"Research and Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2021-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/20531680211022206","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46912677","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-04-01DOI: 10.1177/20531680211053067
Miles T. Armaly, A. Enders
Although the U.S. Supreme Court goes to great lengths to avoid the “political thicket,” it is sometimes unwittingly pulled in. We employ several experimental treatments—each of which is composed of real behaviors that took place during the Trump impeachment trial—to understand the impact of the trial on attitudes about the Court. We find that Chief Justice Roberts’ presence and behaviors during the trial failed to legitimize the proceeding and may have even harmed views of the Court. Treatments involving Roberts’ actions decreased willingness to accept Court decisions and, in some cases, negatively impacted perceived legitimacy. We also find that criticisms of the Chief Justice by Senators decreased decision acceptance. These findings clarify both the bounds of the institution’s legitimizing power and the tenuous nature of public support in times of greater Court politicization by outside actors.
{"title":"No home court advantage: The trump impeachment trial and attitudes toward the U.S. Supreme Court","authors":"Miles T. Armaly, A. Enders","doi":"10.1177/20531680211053067","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20531680211053067","url":null,"abstract":"Although the U.S. Supreme Court goes to great lengths to avoid the “political thicket,” it is sometimes unwittingly pulled in. We employ several experimental treatments—each of which is composed of real behaviors that took place during the Trump impeachment trial—to understand the impact of the trial on attitudes about the Court. We find that Chief Justice Roberts’ presence and behaviors during the trial failed to legitimize the proceeding and may have even harmed views of the Court. Treatments involving Roberts’ actions decreased willingness to accept Court decisions and, in some cases, negatively impacted perceived legitimacy. We also find that criticisms of the Chief Justice by Senators decreased decision acceptance. These findings clarify both the bounds of the institution’s legitimizing power and the tenuous nature of public support in times of greater Court politicization by outside actors.","PeriodicalId":37327,"journal":{"name":"Research and Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2021-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41418450","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-04-01DOI: 10.1177/20531680211016971
William O’Brochta, Sunita Parikh
What can researchers do to address anomalous survey and experimental responses on Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk)? Much of the anomalous response problem has been traced to India, and several survey and technological techniques have been developed to detect foreign workers accessing US-specific surveys. We survey Indian MTurkers and find that 26% pass survey questions used to detect foreign workers, and 3% claim to be located in the United States. We show that restricting respondents to Master Workers and removing the US location requirement encourages Indian MTurkers to correctly self-report their location, helping to reduce anomalous responses among US respondents and to improve data quality. Based on these results, we outline key considerations for researchers seeking to maximize data quality while keeping costs low.
{"title":"Anomalous responses on Amazon Mechanical Turk: An Indian perspective","authors":"William O’Brochta, Sunita Parikh","doi":"10.1177/20531680211016971","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20531680211016971","url":null,"abstract":"What can researchers do to address anomalous survey and experimental responses on Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk)? Much of the anomalous response problem has been traced to India, and several survey and technological techniques have been developed to detect foreign workers accessing US-specific surveys. We survey Indian MTurkers and find that 26% pass survey questions used to detect foreign workers, and 3% claim to be located in the United States. We show that restricting respondents to Master Workers and removing the US location requirement encourages Indian MTurkers to correctly self-report their location, helping to reduce anomalous responses among US respondents and to improve data quality. Based on these results, we outline key considerations for researchers seeking to maximize data quality while keeping costs low.","PeriodicalId":37327,"journal":{"name":"Research and Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2021-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/20531680211016971","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46689806","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-04-01DOI: 10.1177/20531680211012228
Thad Kousser, Seth J. Hill, Mackenzie Lockhart, Jennifer L. Merolla, Mindy Romero
To inform the vital conversation among the nation’s political leaders, elections administrators, and scholars about how to hold a safe, accessible, and fair election in November 2020, this article reports how a sample of 5612 eligible American voters, surveyed 8–10 April, wanted to see the election run during the COVID-19 crisis. We embedded a randomized experiment presenting respondents with truthful summaries of the projections of two teams of scientists about the pandemic. Our descriptive findings show that in November 2020, four in 10 eligible voters would have preferred to cast their ballot by mail rather than in person and that a majority of respondents favored policies expanding mail voting. Our experimental findings show that respondents who read the scientific projections were more likely to prefer voting by mail, were more likely to trust that a mail ballot would be counted accurately, and were more likely to favor holding the election entirely by mail.
{"title":"How do Americans want elections to be run during the COVID-19 crisis?","authors":"Thad Kousser, Seth J. Hill, Mackenzie Lockhart, Jennifer L. Merolla, Mindy Romero","doi":"10.1177/20531680211012228","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20531680211012228","url":null,"abstract":"To inform the vital conversation among the nation’s political leaders, elections administrators, and scholars about how to hold a safe, accessible, and fair election in November 2020, this article reports how a sample of 5612 eligible American voters, surveyed 8–10 April, wanted to see the election run during the COVID-19 crisis. We embedded a randomized experiment presenting respondents with truthful summaries of the projections of two teams of scientists about the pandemic. Our descriptive findings show that in November 2020, four in 10 eligible voters would have preferred to cast their ballot by mail rather than in person and that a majority of respondents favored policies expanding mail voting. Our experimental findings show that respondents who read the scientific projections were more likely to prefer voting by mail, were more likely to trust that a mail ballot would be counted accurately, and were more likely to favor holding the election entirely by mail.","PeriodicalId":37327,"journal":{"name":"Research and Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2021-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/20531680211012228","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44741506","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-04-01DOI: 10.1177/20531680211052135
Maneesh Arora, Christopher Stout
Recent scholarship finds that the use of explicit racial appeals can be an effective mobilization strategy in some situations. Consequently, U.S. politics has witnessed the resurgence of such appeals. Yet, the effects of racial appeals are not ensconced in electoral contexts, but may have potential downstream effects on interest representation and the ability for politicians to build broader coalitions This study uses a survey experiment to test the effect of exposure to racist comments used by a 2018 U.S. Senate candidate on perceived interest representation among Black and White respondents. The results show that Black and liberal White respondents who are exposed to these comments feel that the candidate is less able to represent their interests. Thus, we find that the use of explicit racial appeals potentially alienates a substantial proportion of people which could potentially lead to greater dissatisfaction with government.
{"title":"After the ballot box: How explicit racist appeals damage constituents views of their representation in government","authors":"Maneesh Arora, Christopher Stout","doi":"10.1177/20531680211052135","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20531680211052135","url":null,"abstract":"Recent scholarship finds that the use of explicit racial appeals can be an effective mobilization strategy in some situations. Consequently, U.S. politics has witnessed the resurgence of such appeals. Yet, the effects of racial appeals are not ensconced in electoral contexts, but may have potential downstream effects on interest representation and the ability for politicians to build broader coalitions This study uses a survey experiment to test the effect of exposure to racist comments used by a 2018 U.S. Senate candidate on perceived interest representation among Black and White respondents. The results show that Black and liberal White respondents who are exposed to these comments feel that the candidate is less able to represent their interests. Thus, we find that the use of explicit racial appeals potentially alienates a substantial proportion of people which could potentially lead to greater dissatisfaction with government.","PeriodicalId":37327,"journal":{"name":"Research and Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2021-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46686210","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-04-01DOI: 10.1177/20531680211019904
Scott S. Boddery, Graig R. Klein
During times of domestic turmoil, the use of force abroad becomes an appealing strategy to US presidents in hopes of diverting attention away from internal conditions and toward a foreign policy success. Weaponized drone technology presents a low cost and potentially high-reward option to embattled presidents. While generally covert operations, drone strikes are frequently reported in the media, making them a viable diversionary tool. To gauge whether drone strikes are in fact capable of diverting the public’s attention, we surveyed 1198 Americans and find that a successful drone strike increases presidential approval despite a weak and sagging economy, and the impact of diversionary drone use is significantly greater than that which accompanies traditional diversionary methods.
{"title":"Presidential use of diversionary drone force and public support","authors":"Scott S. Boddery, Graig R. Klein","doi":"10.1177/20531680211019904","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20531680211019904","url":null,"abstract":"During times of domestic turmoil, the use of force abroad becomes an appealing strategy to US presidents in hopes of diverting attention away from internal conditions and toward a foreign policy success. Weaponized drone technology presents a low cost and potentially high-reward option to embattled presidents. While generally covert operations, drone strikes are frequently reported in the media, making them a viable diversionary tool. To gauge whether drone strikes are in fact capable of diverting the public’s attention, we surveyed 1198 Americans and find that a successful drone strike increases presidential approval despite a weak and sagging economy, and the impact of diversionary drone use is significantly greater than that which accompanies traditional diversionary methods.","PeriodicalId":37327,"journal":{"name":"Research and Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2021-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/20531680211019904","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"65485835","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","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：