Cross-Pressures and Political Participation

Early researchers of political behavior coined the term cross-pressures to describe conflicting influences on individuals\u27 political preferences, and suggested that cross-pressured citizens were less likely to participate in politics. In recent years, there has been a resurgence of interest in the relationship between cross-pressures and participation, but a lack of consensus about both the measurement of cross-pressures and their mechanisms has led to a wide array of conflicting results. We aim to bring clarity to this debate by comparing these various measures and mechanisms side-by-side, in order to better understand which pathways show the greatest potential in linking cross-pressures with participation. We consider the effect of both social cross-pressures, which stem from interactions with others in one’s social network, and issue cross-pressures, which arise from holding policy preferences across issues that do not fall along traditional ideological lines. We employ data from the 2000 US presidential election to ascertain how best to quantify each type of cross-pressures, then evaluate which proposed mechanisms show the most promise for explaining the connection between cross-pressures and participation. We find that, when modeled appropriately, both issue and social cross-pressures are associated with decreased participation. Our evidence most strongly supports the notion that both types of cross-pressures make individuals more indifferent between candidates and thus less motivated to participate, but also suggests that the potential social costs involved in more public forms of participation play a role in individuals’ calculations as well

Images of an Immigrant Nation: Portrayals of an Immigrant in the Mass Media

Undergraduate Research Opportunity Program (UROP)http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/116117/1/Images_Immigrant_Nation_Abstract_Poster.pd

Replication Data for: Gaffe Appeal: A Field Experiment on Partisan Selective Exposure to Election Messages

The possibility that citizens expose themselves to information in biased ways—so-called selective exposure—has acquired new importance as the media environment has evolved to provide more choices concerning what to watch and read. But evidence for the most prominent idea in selective exposure research—that citizens prefer attitude-consistent information—is notably mixed. Methodological challenges likely contribute to the inconclusive nature of findings, as researchers face trade-offs between the artificiality of lab environments and the difficult-to-disentangle confounds of observational analysis. We improve understanding of selective exposure in two ways. First, we consider how message aspects other than attitude-consistency affect exposure decisions. Second, we study selective exposure with an innovative field experiment conducted in the United States that addresses limitations of other approaches. Our results allow us to reach more confident conclusions about the prevalence of motivated selective exposure, and help to illuminate underpinnings of the oft-lamented tendency for campaign media to focus on candidate miscues rather than substantive policy differences

Which Parties Can Lead Opinion? Experimental Evidence on Partisan Cue Taking in Multiparty Democracies

Political parties not only aggregate the policy preferences of their supporters, but also have the ability to shape those preferences. Experimental evidence demonstrates that, when parties stake out positions on policy issues, partisans become more likely to adopt these positions, whether out of blind loyalty or because they infer that party endorsements signal options consistent with their interests or values. It is equally clear, however, that partisans do not always follow their party’s lead. The authors investigate the impact of three party-level traits on partisan cue taking: longevity, incumbency, and ideological clarity. As parties age, voters may become more certain of both the party’s reputation and their own allegiance. Governing parties must take action and respond to events, increasing the likelihood of compromise and failure, and therefore may dilute their reputation and disappoint followers. Incumbency aside, some parties exhibit greater ambiguity in their ideological position than other parties, undermining voter certainty about the meaning of cues. The authors test these hypotheses with experiments conducted in three multiparty democracies (Poland, Hungary, and Great Britain). They find that partisans more strongly follow their party’s lead when that party is older, in the opposition, or has developed a more consistent ideological image. However, the impact of longevity vanishes when the other factors are taken into account. Underscoring the importance of voter (un)certainty, ideologically coherent opposition parties have the greatest capacity to shape the policy views of followers.</jats:p

Election night\u27s alright for fighting: The role of emotions in political participation

A large literature has established a persistent association between the skills and resources citizens possess and their likelihood of participating in politics. However, the short-term motivational forces that cause citizens to employ those skills and expend resources in one election but not the next have only recently received attention. Findings in political psychology suggest specific emotions may play an important role in mobilization, but the question of \u27which emotions play what role\u27? remains an important area of debate. Drawing on cognitive appraisal theory and the Affective Intelligence model, we predict that anger, more than anxiety or enthusiasm, will mobilize. We find evidence for the distinctive influence of anger in a randomized experiment, a national survey of the 2008 electorate, and in pooled American National Election Studies from 1980 to 2004. © 2011 Southern Political Science Association

\u201cWhere You Lead, I Will Follow\u201d: Partisan Cueing on High\u2010Salience Issues in a Turbulent Multiparty System

The ability of parties to not only reflect, but actually shape, citizens' preferences on policy issues has been long debated, as it corresponds to a fundamental prediction of classic party identification theory. While most research draws on data from the United States or studies of low\u2010salience issues, we exploit the unique opportunity presented by the 2013 Italian election, with the four major parties of a clear multiparty setting holding distinct positions on crucial issues of the campaign. Based on an experimental design, we test the impact of party cues on citizens' preferences on high\u2010salience issues. The results are surprising: Despite a party system in flux (with relevant new parties) and a weakening of traditional party identities, we find large, significant partisan\u2010cueing effects in all the three experimental issues, and for voters of all the major Italian parties\u2014both old and new, governmental and opposition, ideologically clear or ambiguous

Of Two Minds, But One Heart: A Good “Gut” Feeling Moderates the Effect of Ambivalence on Attitude Formation and Turnout

Popular psychological accounts argue that successful candidates address their appeals to citizens’ “hearts” rather than their “heads.” Yet research on campaigns shows that candidates win elections by getting voters to think about particular issues—especially issues that create ambivalence in the minds of opposition supporters. This article helps to reconcile these “heart-centered” and “head-centered” accounts of preference formation during campaigns. An original experiment and ANES data analyses (1980–2004) show that a “good gut feeling” toward a candidate helps citizens to overcome the paralyzing effect of ambivalence on attitude formation and turnout. And, since turnout is most tenuous among those with lower income, this is where the effect is most pronounced. Since Democratic candidates rely disproportionately on support from these lower-income voters, it is particularly important that they inspire positive affect among latent supporters