Suchergebnisse

To what extent should Supreme Court justices be appointed on the basis of ideology and politics as opposed to qualifications and experience only? We examine how Americans' preferences regarding this question are influenced by their perceptions of the Court as politicized in how it goes about its work. From a "backlash" perspective, such perceptions should diminish preferences for a political appointment process, whereas a "political reinforcement" perspective suggests an enhancement effect. National survey data show that a large segment of the public perceives of the Court in political terms and prefers that justices be chosen on political and ideological bases. Empirical evidence refutes the backlash hypothesis and supports the political reinforcement hypothesis; the more individuals perceive the Court in politicized terms, the greater their preferences for a political appointment process. Those who view the Court as highly politicized do not differentiate the Court from the explicitly political branches and therefore prefer that justices be chosen on political and ideological grounds. The results have implications for the public's perceptions and expectations of the Court as a "political" institution. Adapted from the source document.

What factors prompt citizens to switch from a partisan judgment strategy, one in which they reflexively side with the in-group in policy and electoral contests, to a more thoughtful one, in which they pause to consider additional information? Previous work suggests that variation in political reasoning is triggered by the experience of anxiety. In this research, we examine a broader consideration: whether the overall pattern of experienced emotions confirms or violates one's partisan expectations. Using both cross-sectional and panel data from the American National Election Studies, we examine how the emotions of anxiety, anger, and enthusiasm influence the manner in which voters appraise presidential candidates and update their opinions on salient policy issues. In line with an expectancy violation framework, the results consistently indicate that expectancy-violating emotions (e.g., experiencing enthusiasm toward the other party's candidate) heighten deliberative reasoning and suppress partisan cue-taking, and that expectancy-confirming emotions (e.g., experiencing anxiety toward the other party's candidate) have the reverse set of effects. We discuss the implications of our findings for American politics and for theories of political information processing and judgment.

"Debates over redistribution, social welfare, and market regulation are central to American politics. Why do some of us prefer a large role for government in the economic life of the nation while others prefer a smaller role? In Open Versus Closed, the authors argue that these preferences are not always what they seem. They show how deep-seated personality traits underpinning the culture wars over race and immigration, sexuality, gender roles, and religion influence debates about economics, binding cultural and economic preferences together in unexpected ways. Integrating insights from both psychology and political science - and twenty years of observational and experimental data - the authors reveal the deeper motivations driving attitudes toward government. The book concludes that for the politically engaged these attitudes are not primarily driven by self-interest but by a desire to express the traits and cultural commitments that define their identities."

"Debates over redistribution, social welfare, and market regulation are central to American politics. Why do some of us prefer a large role for government in the economic life of the nation while others prefer a smaller role? In Open Versus Closed, the authors argue that these preferences are not always what they seem. They show how deep-seated personality traits underpinning the culture wars over race and immigration, sexuality, gender roles, and religion influence debates about economics, binding cultural and economic preferences together in unexpected ways. Integrating insights from both psychology and political science - and twenty years of observational and experimental data - the authors reveal the deeper motivations driving attitudes toward government. The book concludes that for the politically engaged these attitudes are not primarily driven by self-interest but by a desire to express the traits and cultural commitments that define their identities"...

Taking aim at decades of received wisdom, the central claim of this book is that high-quality political judgment hinges less on citizens' cognitive ability than on their willingness to temporarily suspend partisan habits and follow the 'evidence' wherever it leads. This occurs most readily when citizens experience a disjuncture between their stable political 'identities' and their contemporary 'evaluations' of party performance, a state the authors refer to as 'partisan ambivalence'.

Includes legislation ; First ed. published 1864 under title: Treatise on the parochial ecclestiatical law of Scotland ; Mode of access: Internet.

Cover -- Contents -- Preface -- Acknowledgments -- 1 Partisan Ambivalence and the Contingent Nature of Political Judgment -- 2 Getting It Right, Making It Easy, and Validating Our Partisan Commitments: A Motivational Theory of Political Judgment -- 3 Conceptualization, Measurement, and Antecedents -- 4 Partisan Ambivalence and Preference Formation: Experimental and Survey Evidence -- 5 Ambivalence and the Partisan Perceptual Screen -- 6 Ambivalent Partisans at the Polls -- 7 Unmoved Mover or Running Tally? Ambivalence and the Dynamic Nature of Partisanship -- 8 Partisan Ambivalence, Citizen Competence, and American Democracy -- Appendix A -- Appendix B -- Appendix C -- References -- Index -- A -- B -- C -- D -- E -- F -- G -- H -- I -- J -- K -- L -- M -- N -- O -- P -- Q -- R -- S -- T -- U -- V -- W -- Y -- Z.

Existing research analyzes the effects of cross-national and temporal variation in income inequality on public opinion; however, research has failed to explore the impact of variation in inequality across citizens' local residential context. This article analyzes the impact of local inequality on citizens' belief in a core facet of the American ethos-meritocracy. We advance conditional effects hypotheses that collectively argue that the effect of residing in a high-inequality context will be moderated by individual income. Utilizing national survey data, we demonstrate that residing in more unequal counties heightens rejection of meritocracy among low-income residents and bolsters adherence among high-income residents. In relatively equal counties, we find no significant differences between high- and low-income citizens. We conclude by discussing the implications of class-based polarization found in response to local inequality with respect to current debates over the consequences of income inequality for American democracy. Adapted from the source document.