Information about celebrities’ political activities can influence how people think about political parties

From Lady Gaga to Justin Bieber, to Oprah, celebrities have a tremendous influence over people’s lives. But does that influence also extend to how people think about political parties as well? In new research, Anthony J. Nownes looks at how people react when given the information that celebrities have made contributions to the Republican and Democratic parties. He finds that when people dislike a celebrity, and that celebrity has contributed to a party, then they like that party less. He also writes that celebrities’ political activities inform how people view them; such that those who dislike a party are turned off a celebrity who they are told has supported that party

Celebrity endorsements affect voters' feelings of anger and anxiety towards political candidates

In the 2016 election actors, musicians, and athletes publicly endorsed political candidates with the hopes that their celebrity could bring attention, and ultimately votes, to their preferred candidates. Research by Anthony J. Nownes shows us that many times this does work- survey respondents who were aware of Hillary Clinton’s celebrity endorsements had lower levels of anger and anxiety towards the candidate than other respondents

Density Dependent Dynamics in the Population of Transgender Interest Groups in the United States, 1964-2005

This article seeks to determine the value of density dependence theory in helping us understand the process of interest group mobilization. The general theory of density dependence has been tested against manifold organizational populations. It has not, however, been tested extensively against data on populations of overtly political organizations. Copyright (c) 2010 by the Southwestern Social Science Association.

A Last-Minute Voting Cue in a High-Information Setting: An Experimental Investigation of the Effect of The New York Times Presidential Endorsement

Relying upon the results of a randomized, post-test only, control group experiment, we examine the effects of The New York Times endorsement of Barack Obama on potential voters in the 2012 presidential election (N=443). Our findings show that the Times endorsement mattered to exposed respondents. Specifically, they used the Times endorsement as a candidate evaluation cue in the real world. Different respondents, however, responded to the Times endorsement cue differently. Those who viewed the Times favorably accepted the endorsement and evaluated President Obama more positively and Mitt Romney more negatively after viewing it. Conversely, respondents who viewed the Times unfavorably rejected the endorsement and evaluated President Obama more negatively and Mitt Romney more positively after viewing it. In more general terms, our findings show that even in information-saturated, highly salient election campaigns, voters rely to some extent on shortcuts and cues when they evaluate candidates

An Experimental Investigation of How Judicial Elections Affect Public Faith in the Judicial System

Judicial scholars have often speculated about the impact of elections on the administration of justice in the state courts. Yet relatively little research has concerned itself with public perceptions of state court selection methods. Of particular interest is the concept of legitimacy. Do elections negatively affect public perceptions of judicial legitimacy? Bonneau and Hall (2009) and Gibson (2012) answer this question with an emphatic “No.” Judicial elections, these studies show, are not uniquely troublesome for perceptions of institutional legitimacy. This article aims to extend the findings of Bonneau and Hall and Gibson via a laboratory experiment on the effects of elections on public perceptions of judicial legitimacy. In the end, we find that because elections preempt the use of the other main selection method—appointment—they actually enhance perceptions of judicial legitimacy rather than diminish them

Activists, Contributors, and Volunteers: The Participation Puzzle

Despite a general consensus that citizen group supporters vary radically in their level of group activity, we know little about what factors “create” an activist. This paper asks: What factors determine which mode a supporter chooses? We seek to answer this question by examining socio-demographic correlates of participation and several “benefits” of participation using individual level survey data. This question informs a more central question: What factors separate the activist from the “regular” supporter? We find that those individuals best able to bear participation costs who also participate out of a sense of duty and who enjoy group participation most, are the most likely to opt for maximum participation. Our data support the conclusion that duty, commitment, and the desire for expressive benefits are capable of overwhelming the “free-rider” impulse. However, activists are not typical, comprising only a fraction of group membership. This means Olson, who would predict that few people would become activists, is right for most people most of the time

Toward an Explanation of Public Interest Group Formation and Proliferation: ‘Seed Money,’ Disturbances, Entrepreneurship, and Patronage

Utilizing data from a survey of 60 national public interest group founders, this paper addresses two related questions: What factors explain the (relatively) recent proliferation of public interest groups? What factors determine in which policy areas public interest group activity is most likely? The results of the data analysis suggest that several factors have contributed to group proliferation. Among the most important are law group start-up costs, the spread of affluence and education, an increase in patron activity, and rapid societal change. The results also suggest that public interest group activity is most likely in issue areas of interest to well-educated, affluent whites. Ultimately, however, the data suggest there is bound to be a great deal of uncertainty in the public interest group universe. Because group startup costs are so low and the entrepreneurial pod is so large and varied, virtually any type of public interest group dealing with any issue could form at any time