Suchergebnisse

Some contend that Whites' application of values to form opinions about race-conscious policy may constitute a subtle form of racism. Others challenge the new racism thesis, suggesting that racism and values are exclusive in their influence. Proponents of the thesis assert that many Whites' attitudes about such policy are structured by a mix of racism and American individualism. The author suggests that an even more subtle form of racism may exist. Racism may actually be expressed in opposition to big government. The test results presented here indicate that the effects of limited-government values on attitudes about race-conscious policy are conditional on levels of racial prejudice for many Whites, whereas the effects on racially ambiguous social welfare policy attitudes are not. The author contends that these results provide support to the argument that racism still exists and has found a new subtle expression.

This study uses a fresh approach to measure social welfare ambivalence, addressing the question of who is more ambivalent about such policies- liberals or conservatives. The findings presented here challenge previous assertions that liberals are typically more ambivalent. I argue that conservatives are now more ambivalent than liberals because a change in the tone of elite discourse altered the priming of the potential sources of such ambivalence. The models of ambivalence presented suggest that these primed sources are conflicting thoughts or beliefs (cognitive conflict), conflicting feelings (affective conflict), or beliefs in conflict with feelings (cognitive-affective conflict). The implications of these findings are discussed. [Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications Inc., copyright 2008.]

Research across disciplines, including political science, has embraced the idea that individuals often possess ambivalent attitudes, but there is considerable disagreement about how to measure this phenomenon. Determining an effective way of capturing such phenomena is important to our under-standing of politics and public opinion. The literature offers several meta-attitudinal and operative measures of ambivalence. I discuss strengths and weaknesses of each of these approaches and con-duct a test of the relative construct validity of two meta-attitudinal and two operative measures of social welfare ambivalence using data from a statewide survey of Florida residents in 2004. The findings suggest that one of the operative measures that forces respondents to rate their positive and negative feelings separately performs better than any of the other approaches currently offered.

Research across disciplines, including political science, has embraced the idea that individuals often possess ambivalent attitudes, but there is considerable disagreement about how to measure this phenomenon. Determining an effective way of capturing such phenomena is important to our understanding of politics & public opinion. The literature offers several meta-attitudinal & operative measures of ambivalence. I discuss strengths & weaknesses of each of these approaches & conduct a test of the relative construct validity of two meta-attitudinal & two operative measures of social welfare ambivalence using data from a statewide survey of Florida residents in 2004. The findings suggest that one of the operative measures that forces respondents to rate their positive & negative feelings separately performs better than any of the other approaches currently offered. Adapted from the source document.

This study uses a fresh approach to measure social welfare ambivalence, addressing the question of who is more ambivalent about such policies— liberals or conservatives. The findings presented here challenge previous assertions that liberals are typically more ambivalent. I argue that conservatives are now more ambivalent than liberals because a change in the tone of elite discourse altered the priming of the potential sources of such ambivalence. The models of ambivalence presented suggest that these primed sources are conflicting thoughts or beliefs (cognitive conflict), conflicting feelings (affective conflict), or beliefs in conflict with feelings (cognitive—affective conflict). The implications of these findings are discussed.

"Ambivalence in Political Decision Making" published on by Oxford University Press.

Public opinion about gay rights is often shaped by egalitarian values. While the extant literature has suggested that African Americans' value structure tends to be very egalitarian, many popular media accounts as well as some scholarly research indicate that Blacks have, at times, opposed gay rights. We assert that when the media frame gay rights as equality issues, Blacks are more likely to rely on egalitarianism to form their opinions. We use content analysis to show that equality framing of gay rights dramatically increased in 2012, and we use national survey data to show that Blacks' support for marriage equality also precipitously rose beginning in 2012. Then, we use data from an original framing experiment to show that exposure to an equality frame does, indeed, encourage Blacks to be more reliant on their egalitarian values to form an opinion about same-sex marriage and to be more supportive of the policy.

This research creates a theoretical framework for understanding the effect of Internet voting on the electorate. Based on standard Downsian rational choice voting theory, we claim that Internet voting lowers the cost of voting for certain voting demographics based upon race, age, and income. We further contend that this electoral advantage may crystallize the growing turnout disparity between demographic groups. The theory is tested using Bayesian inferential methods with data from the Internet turnout in the 2000 Arizona Democratic Presidential Primary merged with demographic data obtained from the 2000 Census. Our findings lend support for the theory that the Internet provides an electoral bias towards white voters, younger voters, and to the more affluent.

This research creates a theoretical framework for understanding the effect of Internet voting on the electorate. Based on standard Downsian rational choice voting theory, we claim that Internet voting lowers the cost of voting for certain voting demographics based upon race, age, & income. We further contend that this electoral advantage may crystallize the growing turnout disparity between demographic groups. The theory is tested using Bayesian inferential methods with data from the Internet turnout in the 2000 Arizona Democratic Presidential Primary merged with demographic data obtained from the 2000 Census. Our findings lend support for the theory that the Internet provides an electoral bias towards white voters, younger voters, & to the more affluent. Adapted from the source document.

Does civics education increase political knowledge among 14-year-olds? If not, what does? As it is widely held that competent democratic citizenship requires at minimum a basic level of political knowledge, civic education for American youth has long been considered an important mission of America's schools (Dewey, 1916; Merriam, 1934; Nie et al., 1996; Niemi & Junn, 1998; Galston, 2001). Despite increases in the twentieth century in overall education levels, political knowledge of Americans, particularly young adults, remains low (Delli Carpini & Keeter, 1996). For decades, conventional wisdom among political scientists, driven by the research of Langton & Jennings (1968), was that civics education has little effect on political knowledge (Campbell 2006). In recent years, however, researchers have begun challenging this consensus, publishing studies that suggest civics education has some positive, if modest, effect on political knowledge (Niemi & Junn, 1998; Torney-Purta, 2002; Hartry & Porter (2004); Pasek et al., 2008).