This study examines whether rising polarization in Americans’ partisan judgments has positive implications for political participation. Drawing on cross-sectional and panel survey data, we find evidence that polarized judgments are related to pre-election intent to vote, as well as to post-election self-reported voter turnout. Polarized evaluations also predict greater reporting of participation in campaign activities beyond voting. Polarization in candidate evaluations consistently has more of an impact than affective polarization. However, our results suggest that polarization in evaluations of both parties and candidates includes an expressive component that does not necessarily translate into political action. Roughly one-quarter to one-third of the actual change in turnout can potentially be attributed to polarization in evaluations of Republican and Democratic presidential candidates.
{"title":"The Effects of Polarized Evaluations on Political Participation: Does Hating the Other Side Motivate Voters?","authors":"Chloe Ahn, Diana C. Mutz","doi":"10.1093/poq/nfad012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfad012","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This study examines whether rising polarization in Americans’ partisan judgments has positive implications for political participation. Drawing on cross-sectional and panel survey data, we find evidence that polarized judgments are related to pre-election intent to vote, as well as to post-election self-reported voter turnout. Polarized evaluations also predict greater reporting of participation in campaign activities beyond voting. Polarization in candidate evaluations consistently has more of an impact than affective polarization. However, our results suggest that polarization in evaluations of both parties and candidates includes an expressive component that does not necessarily translate into political action. Roughly one-quarter to one-third of the actual change in turnout can potentially be attributed to polarization in evaluations of Republican and Democratic presidential candidates.","PeriodicalId":51359,"journal":{"name":"Public Opinion Quarterly","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43343733","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Scholarship evaluating public support for redistribution has emphasized that stereotypical perceptions of low-income people inform citizens’ willingness to redistribute wealth to the poor. Less understood, however, is the extent to which stereotypical perceptions of high-income people lead to greater willingness to raise taxes on high-income individuals. These perceptions likely involve resource-based considerations (i.e., what rich people have). However, following recent scholarship, perceptions of the wealthy may also involve more fundamental, trait-based considerations (i.e., who the rich are as people). In this Research Note, we isolate causal effects, utilizing conjoint experiments, of both resource-based and character-based attributes of the rich on support for taxing wealthy people. We find evidence that two character traits—avarice and elitism—significantly increase support for raising taxes on wealthy individuals, and this pattern appears to be the case even among groups generally opposed to redistribution (e.g., Republicans and conservatives). We conclude that, while resource-based considerations remain important, the scholarly literature on redistribution may also benefit from a deeper understanding of the trait-based foundations of public attitudes toward taxing the wealthy.
{"title":"What They Have but Also Who They Are: Avarice, Elitism, and Public Support for Taxing the Rich","authors":"John V. Kane, Benjamin J. Newman","doi":"10.1093/poq/nfad016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfad016","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Scholarship evaluating public support for redistribution has emphasized that stereotypical perceptions of low-income people inform citizens’ willingness to redistribute wealth to the poor. Less understood, however, is the extent to which stereotypical perceptions of high-income people lead to greater willingness to raise taxes on high-income individuals. These perceptions likely involve resource-based considerations (i.e., what rich people have). However, following recent scholarship, perceptions of the wealthy may also involve more fundamental, trait-based considerations (i.e., who the rich are as people). In this Research Note, we isolate causal effects, utilizing conjoint experiments, of both resource-based and character-based attributes of the rich on support for taxing wealthy people. We find evidence that two character traits—avarice and elitism—significantly increase support for raising taxes on wealthy individuals, and this pattern appears to be the case even among groups generally opposed to redistribution (e.g., Republicans and conservatives). We conclude that, while resource-based considerations remain important, the scholarly literature on redistribution may also benefit from a deeper understanding of the trait-based foundations of public attitudes toward taxing the wealthy.","PeriodicalId":51359,"journal":{"name":"Public Opinion Quarterly","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45390479","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
American public opinion on abortion has been investigated a multitude of times since the Supreme Court’s 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade. In this trends article, we review public attitudes in five areas: (1) support or opposition to Roe v. Wade, (2) basic attitudes toward abortion, (3) attitudes toward abortion under different conditions, (4) attachments to the pro-choice versus pro-life labels, and (5) abortion attitudes in the 50 states. Initial public reaction to the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision overturning Roe is also covered.
{"title":"Trends in Abortion Attitudes: From Roe to Dobbs","authors":"B. Norrander, C. Wilcox","doi":"10.1093/poq/nfad014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfad014","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 American public opinion on abortion has been investigated a multitude of times since the Supreme Court’s 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade. In this trends article, we review public attitudes in five areas: (1) support or opposition to Roe v. Wade, (2) basic attitudes toward abortion, (3) attitudes toward abortion under different conditions, (4) attachments to the pro-choice versus pro-life labels, and (5) abortion attitudes in the 50 states. Initial public reaction to the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision overturning Roe is also covered.","PeriodicalId":51359,"journal":{"name":"Public Opinion Quarterly","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"61080602","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Erik Hermann, M. Morgan, J. Shanahan, Harry Yaojun Yan
Many factors contributed to support for Donald Trump in the 2016 US presidential election, among them media influences. Morgan and Shanahan (2017) found that television viewing was associated with support for Trump, mediated through authoritarianism. In light of the changes in the political and media environments during Trump’s presidency, our study examined whether Morgan and Shanahan’s (2017) findings still held in the 2020 US presidential election. Replicating their findings, we found that authoritarianism still mediates the relationship between television viewing and Trump support. As in the original study, the indirect effect is moderated by political ideology and gender, with stronger indirect effects among liberals and females.
{"title":"Television, Authoritarianism, and Support for Trump: A Replication","authors":"Erik Hermann, M. Morgan, J. Shanahan, Harry Yaojun Yan","doi":"10.1093/poq/nfad015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfad015","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Many factors contributed to support for Donald Trump in the 2016 US presidential election, among them media influences. Morgan and Shanahan (2017) found that television viewing was associated with support for Trump, mediated through authoritarianism. In light of the changes in the political and media environments during Trump’s presidency, our study examined whether Morgan and Shanahan’s (2017) findings still held in the 2020 US presidential election. Replicating their findings, we found that authoritarianism still mediates the relationship between television viewing and Trump support. As in the original study, the indirect effect is moderated by political ideology and gender, with stronger indirect effects among liberals and females.","PeriodicalId":51359,"journal":{"name":"Public Opinion Quarterly","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46407503","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Racial disparities have persisted in COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and death rates in the United States. Differences in vaccination hesitancy have also emerged by race: communities of color and, particularly, African Americans have been more reluctant to get a vaccine to prevent COVID-19. Can racial descriptive norms provide a tool to increase confidence and reduce hesitancy within the US public? We conducted a survey experiment at the end of January 2021 on a sample of non-Hispanic white and Black American adults. The experiment varied whether information about uptake intent by race was provided, and what racial group was reported to be more likely to get a vaccine if one were available to them today. Our results show that the tendency to conform to one’s racial ingroup can play a key role in improving vaccination attitudes across race. Indeed, whites become significantly more willing to get vaccinated now or in the near future after they learn that a majority of whites intend to do so. Furthermore, both Blacks with high science trust and whites with low science trust are more likely to accept multiple vaccine doses and yearly boosters if their racial ingroup plans on getting vaccinated. Finally, the desire for ingroup conformity leads Blacks with low science trust to be more willing to receive a vaccine when they are provided a choice among vaccine brands.
{"title":"The Impact of Racial Descriptive Norms on Vaccination against COVID-19","authors":"Marzia Oceno, Wei Yen","doi":"10.1093/poq/nfad017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfad017","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Racial disparities have persisted in COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and death rates in the United States. Differences in vaccination hesitancy have also emerged by race: communities of color and, particularly, African Americans have been more reluctant to get a vaccine to prevent COVID-19. Can racial descriptive norms provide a tool to increase confidence and reduce hesitancy within the US public? We conducted a survey experiment at the end of January 2021 on a sample of non-Hispanic white and Black American adults. The experiment varied whether information about uptake intent by race was provided, and what racial group was reported to be more likely to get a vaccine if one were available to them today. Our results show that the tendency to conform to one’s racial ingroup can play a key role in improving vaccination attitudes across race. Indeed, whites become significantly more willing to get vaccinated now or in the near future after they learn that a majority of whites intend to do so. Furthermore, both Blacks with high science trust and whites with low science trust are more likely to accept multiple vaccine doses and yearly boosters if their racial ingroup plans on getting vaccinated. Finally, the desire for ingroup conformity leads Blacks with low science trust to be more willing to receive a vaccine when they are provided a choice among vaccine brands.","PeriodicalId":51359,"journal":{"name":"Public Opinion Quarterly","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"61080611","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
How do ideologically slanted media outlets react to politically relevant events? Previous research suggests that partisan media trumpet ideologically congenial events, such as opposing-party scandals, while ignoring bad news for their own side. Looking at reactions to newsworthy events on political radio—an often-partisan medium that reaches more Americans than Twitter—I find a different pattern. Based on recordings of hundreds of shows totaling two million broadcast hours, I demonstrate that regardless of their ideological leanings, political shows respond to events by dramatically increasing the attention they give to related policy issues. At the same time, liberal and conservative shows continue to frame those issues in very different ways. Instead of ignoring inconvenient events, partisan media “weave them in,” interpreting them in ways consistent with their ideological leanings. These media dynamics imply that nationally significant events can cause opinion polarization rather than convergence—becoming a divisive rather than a shared experience.
{"title":"Weaving It In: How Political Radio Reacts to Events","authors":"Clara Vandeweerdt","doi":"10.1093/poq/nfad005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfad005","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 How do ideologically slanted media outlets react to politically relevant events? Previous research suggests that partisan media trumpet ideologically congenial events, such as opposing-party scandals, while ignoring bad news for their own side. Looking at reactions to newsworthy events on political radio—an often-partisan medium that reaches more Americans than Twitter—I find a different pattern. Based on recordings of hundreds of shows totaling two million broadcast hours, I demonstrate that regardless of their ideological leanings, political shows respond to events by dramatically increasing the attention they give to related policy issues. At the same time, liberal and conservative shows continue to frame those issues in very different ways. Instead of ignoring inconvenient events, partisan media “weave them in,” interpreting them in ways consistent with their ideological leanings. These media dynamics imply that nationally significant events can cause opinion polarization rather than convergence—becoming a divisive rather than a shared experience.","PeriodicalId":51359,"journal":{"name":"Public Opinion Quarterly","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46987662","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Christopher F. Karpowitz, Sarah Austin, Jacob Crandall, Raquel Macias
List experimentation is a common survey methodology that purports to reduce or eliminate social desirability bias. While some studies have assessed list experimentation’s effectiveness in achieving that goal, to our knowledge, this is the first ever experimental evaluation of interviewer effects on list experiment performance. We embedded a list experiment about immigration attitudes in an in-person survey administered to 718 white respondents. Randomly assigning Caucasian and Latinx interviewers, we find strong evidence that responses to the list experiment differed by interviewer ethnicity, thus failing to fully eliminate social desirability bias. A follow-up survey of 1,460 online respondents revealed similar difference-in-differences when merely priming the ethnic identities of survey researchers through pictures. The results of this study shed light on patterns of interpersonal communication about sensitive issues and how social context shapes the reporting of political attitudes, even when methodology specifically meant to mute sensitivity biases is employed.
{"title":"Experimenting with List Experiments: Interviewer Effects and Immigration Attitudes","authors":"Christopher F. Karpowitz, Sarah Austin, Jacob Crandall, Raquel Macias","doi":"10.1093/poq/nfad001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfad001","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 List experimentation is a common survey methodology that purports to reduce or eliminate social desirability bias. While some studies have assessed list experimentation’s effectiveness in achieving that goal, to our knowledge, this is the first ever experimental evaluation of interviewer effects on list experiment performance. We embedded a list experiment about immigration attitudes in an in-person survey administered to 718 white respondents. Randomly assigning Caucasian and Latinx interviewers, we find strong evidence that responses to the list experiment differed by interviewer ethnicity, thus failing to fully eliminate social desirability bias. A follow-up survey of 1,460 online respondents revealed similar difference-in-differences when merely priming the ethnic identities of survey researchers through pictures. The results of this study shed light on patterns of interpersonal communication about sensitive issues and how social context shapes the reporting of political attitudes, even when methodology specifically meant to mute sensitivity biases is employed.","PeriodicalId":51359,"journal":{"name":"Public Opinion Quarterly","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49379037","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Satisfaction with democracy (SWD) is one of the most commonly studied topics in the fields of political behavior and public opinion. Gauged with a survey question that asks respondents whether they are satisfied with the way democracy works, SWD has featured as an independent or dependent variable in more than 400 publications. In this Synthesis, we review the evolution and findings of this nearly 50-year-old body of literature, identifying gaps and disagreements. We pay particular attention to issues of measurement and conceptualization, research methodology, and real-world importance. We conclude by highlighting critical areas of future research, including continued investigation into the measurement of SWD and what the question captures, more qualitative and (quasi-)experimental work, more focus on emotions and extreme (dis)satisfaction, and greater geographic coverage.
民主满意度(Satisfaction with democracy, SWD)是政治行为和民意研究领域中最常研究的课题之一。社会福利署在超过400份刊物中以自变量或因变量的形式出现，问卷询问受访者是否满意民主的运作方式。在本文中，我们回顾了这一近50年的文献体系的演变和发现，找出了差距和分歧。我们特别关注测量和概念化问题，研究方法和现实世界的重要性。最后，我们强调了未来研究的关键领域，包括继续研究社会福利的测量方法和问题所反映的内容，更多的定性和(准)实验工作，更多地关注情绪和极端(不满)满意度，以及更大的地理覆盖范围。
{"title":"Satisfaction with Democracy: A Review of a Major Public Opinion Indicator","authors":"Shane P. Singh, Quinton Mayne","doi":"10.1093/poq/nfad003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfad003","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Satisfaction with democracy (SWD) is one of the most commonly studied topics in the fields of political behavior and public opinion. Gauged with a survey question that asks respondents whether they are satisfied with the way democracy works, SWD has featured as an independent or dependent variable in more than 400 publications. In this Synthesis, we review the evolution and findings of this nearly 50-year-old body of literature, identifying gaps and disagreements. We pay particular attention to issues of measurement and conceptualization, research methodology, and real-world importance. We conclude by highlighting critical areas of future research, including continued investigation into the measurement of SWD and what the question captures, more qualitative and (quasi-)experimental work, more focus on emotions and extreme (dis)satisfaction, and greater geographic coverage.","PeriodicalId":51359,"journal":{"name":"Public Opinion Quarterly","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46663690","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Political scientists, party elites, and journalists agree that affective polarization and negative partisanship are serious problems in American politics, but is it possible to reverse this trend and decrease negative outparty affect? Using two original survey experiments that manipulate partisans to think of the Republican and Democratic parties in either expressive or instrumental terms, I find that providing policy information about the parties decreases Republicans’ negative affect toward Democrats, while providing party coalition information decreases Democrats’ negative affect toward Republicans. Neither type of information, however, causes a significant change in inparty affect. This paper provides evidence, therefore, that an asymmetric informational intervention can decrease negative outparty affect, with important implications for an affectively polarized America.
{"title":"The Devil No More? Decreasing Negative Outparty Affect through Asymmetric Partisan Thinking","authors":"Wayde Z. C. Marsh","doi":"10.1093/poq/nfad009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfad009","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Political scientists, party elites, and journalists agree that affective polarization and negative partisanship are serious problems in American politics, but is it possible to reverse this trend and decrease negative outparty affect? Using two original survey experiments that manipulate partisans to think of the Republican and Democratic parties in either expressive or instrumental terms, I find that providing policy information about the parties decreases Republicans’ negative affect toward Democrats, while providing party coalition information decreases Democrats’ negative affect toward Republicans. Neither type of information, however, causes a significant change in inparty affect. This paper provides evidence, therefore, that an asymmetric informational intervention can decrease negative outparty affect, with important implications for an affectively polarized America.","PeriodicalId":51359,"journal":{"name":"Public Opinion Quarterly","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45985526","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Taylor N. Carlson and Jaime E. Settle. What Goes Without Saying: Navigating Political Discussion in America","authors":"E. Sydnor","doi":"10.1093/poq/nfac056","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfac056","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51359,"journal":{"name":"Public Opinion Quarterly","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43688452","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"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：