Ps-Political Science & Politics最新文献

{"title":"Your Honor’s Misdeeds: The Consequences of Judicial Scandal on Specific and Diffuse Support","authors":"Joshua Boston, Benjamin J. Kassow, Ali S. Masood, David R. Miller","doi":"10.1017/S104909652200138X","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S104909652200138X","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Legitimacy is a bulwark for courts; even when judges engage in controversial or disagreeable behavior, the public tends to acquiesce. Recent studies identify several threats to the legitimacy of courts, including polarization and attacks by political elites. This article contributes to the scholarly discourse by exploring a previously unconsidered threat: scandal, or allegations of personal misbehavior. We argue that scandals can undermine confidence in judges as virtuous arbiters and erode broad public support for the courts. Using survey experiments, we draw on real-world judicial controversies to evaluate the impact of scandal on specific support for judicial actors and their rulings and diffuse support for the judiciary. We demonstrate that scandals erode individual support but find no evidence that institutional support is diminished. These findings may ease normative concerns that isolated indiscretions by controversial jurists may deplete the vast “reservoir of goodwill” that is foundational to the courts.","PeriodicalId":48096,"journal":{"name":"Ps-Political Science & Politics","volume":"16 11","pages":"195 - 200"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2023-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72387962","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Independent Redistricting Commissions Are Associated with More Competitive Elections","authors":"M. Nelson","doi":"10.1017/S104909652200124X","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S104909652200124X","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Competitive elections are essential for democratic accountability, yet most US House of Representatives elections are uncompetitive. Using district-level data from 1982 to 2018, I examine the relationship between redistricting institutions and election competition. I extend the work of Carson, Crespin, and Williamson (2014) by separating independent and political commissions and find that, relative to legislative redistricting, independent commissions are 2.25 times more likely to have competitive elections, and they decrease incumbent party wins by 52%.","PeriodicalId":48096,"journal":{"name":"Ps-Political Science & Politics","volume":"211 1","pages":"207 - 212"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2023-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73016238","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"On the Replicability of Data Collection Using Online News Databases","authors":"Mikaela Karstens, Michael J. Soules, Nick Dietrich","doi":"10.1017/S1049096522001317","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096522001317","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT News databases, such as Factiva and Nexis Uni, are vital for the construction of many commonly used datasets of political events because they provide researchers with access to thousands of diverse news sources. This article raises several issues with news databases that pose a threat to the quality and replicability of data-collection efforts. We recommend best practices for using news databases to gather event data.","PeriodicalId":48096,"journal":{"name":"Ps-Political Science & Politics","volume":"41 1","pages":"265 - 272"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2023-01-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76316781","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Disrupted Learning about Democracy: Instructor Strategies for Navigating Temporary Modality Shifts","authors":"Joshua M. Jansa, Eve M. Ringsmuth","doi":"10.1017/S1049096522001305","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096522001305","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Within-semester shifts in course modality in response to pandemics, weather, or accommodation for travel and health are increasingly common and can interrupt student learning. We tracked temporary modality changes across 10 sections of “Introduction to American Government” to examine the extent to which instructors have tools to help students successfully navigate such changes and mitigate learning loss. We find that students rated instructors’ handling of shifts well if they made course material engaging, communicated clearly, and effectively used technology. The analysis suggests that instructors can mitigate the impact of unplanned changes to modality on students’ learning when there are three or fewer shifts during a semester.","PeriodicalId":48096,"journal":{"name":"Ps-Political Science & Politics","volume":"114 1","pages":"315 - 320"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2023-01-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79241020","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Tolerance for the Free Speech of Outgroup Partisans","authors":"R. Carlos, Geoffrey Sheagley, Karlee L. Taylor","doi":"10.1017/S1049096522001202","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096522001202","url":null,"abstract":"Americans consistently express broad levels of support for free speech and free expression. For example, 87% of respondents in a recent survey reported that freedom of speech is “very” or “extremely” personally important (Knight Foundation 2022). Moreover, this support seemingly transcends party lines, with 91% of Republicans and 88% of Democrats endorsing this importance.1 Yet, there are reasons to be skeptical that broad levels of support translate to on-theground tolerance of free speech. There are numerous historical examples of Americans’ willingness to selectively withdraw First Amendment protections to those deemed undeserving, particularly along racial, ethnic, and ideological dimensions (King and Smith 2005). Additionally, people are far less likely to tolerate and extend rights to members of their “least-liked” group, especially when threatened (Lambert and Chasteen 1997; Marcus et al. 1995; McClosky and Chong 1985; Nelson, Clawson, and Oxley 1997). Therefore, we are left to wonder what to make of these strong endorsements that Americans continue to give regarding First Amendment protections. One reason to be skeptical about these declarations of support for free speech is that these endorsements lack tradeoffs and are socially desirable. These low-stakes features could inflate levels of overall public support for civil rights protections. In practice, however, questions related to rights typically do not ask whether a constitutionally protected right should exist. Instead, debates often center on the scope of those rights and/or the groups to whom those protections extend. Creating an additional complication is that beliefs about freedom of speech—and other related rights—can be politicized along partisan lines. Democrats and Republicans could differ significantly in defining First Amendment rights and the values they attach to them based on the object they seek to defend. For example, the previously cited Knight Foundation (2022) report noted that partisans differ substantially in their belief about whether spreading misinformation or hate speech online should be a protected form of speech. To test the limits of Americans’ commitment to free speech, we relied on two survey experiments that were designed expressly to assess whether broad commitments to speech change when tradeoffs or costs to that speech are introduced, as well as whether those speech protections extend to partisan groups. The first experiment focused on broad support for free speech; the second concerned views of free speech on college campuses. The studies yielded four broad conclusions: (1) in the absence of tradeoffs, support for free speech was high; (2) Republicans expressed greater support for free speech than Democrats; (3) the introduction of tradeoffs altered support for free speech and did so similarly for Democrats and Republicans; and (4) support for free speech did not depend on whether partisan in-groups or out-groups engaged in the speech. The survey ex","PeriodicalId":48096,"journal":{"name":"Ps-Political Science & Politics","volume":"45 1","pages":"240 - 244"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2023-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89934783","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Introduction to Freedom of Expression in an Age of Social Media, Misinformation, and Political Polarization","authors":"Eitan Hersh, Yanna Krupnikov","doi":"10.1017/S1049096522001275","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096522001275","url":null,"abstract":"In January 2022, the Knight Foundation released a study of American attitudes toward freedom of expression, which builds on regular student surveys that the foundation has conducted since 2004. With three other scholars (i.e., Katherine Glenn Bass of Columbia University; Daron Shaw of the University of Texas at Austin; and David Wilson of the University of California, Berkeley), we served as advisors in the development of the national survey of 4,000 Americans that was fielded jointly by Knight and Ipsos. The Knight Foundation study paints a complicated portrait of American public opinion regarding speech and expression, with wide gaps between support for freedom of expression in the abstract and support for particular examples of expression. As part of this study, we put out a call in early 2021 to scholars to submit proposals for experiments that consider how people perceive different dimensions of freedom of expression. The preregistered experiments that we selected, which were fielded by Ipsos along with the Knight survey, reach the heart of the way people translate abstract support into political attitudes and behaviors. This symposium presents the (often-unexpected) findings of these studies. Ranging in topic from police suppression of protests to “flagging” inappropriate content on social media to self-censorship, the experiments measure how identities of speakers, content of speech, and identities of the audience all intersect to affect the way that people apply and understand freedom of expression.","PeriodicalId":48096,"journal":{"name":"Ps-Political Science & Politics","volume":"21 1","pages":"219 - 221"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2023-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89513843","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Who Gets Flagged? An Experiment on Censorship and Bias in Social Media Reporting","authors":"Jessica T. Feezell, Meredith Conroy, Barbara Gomez-Aguinaga, John K. Wagner","doi":"10.1017/S1049096522001238","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096522001238","url":null,"abstract":"With a large majority of Americans using social media platforms to consume and disseminate information on a regular basis, social media serve as today’s town square in many ways (Pew Research Center 2021). However, unlike public spaces where the free expression of citizens is afforded First Amendment protections, social media platforms are privately owned, and users are subject to the platform’s terms of service and community standards (Congressional Research Service 2021). Although platform rules vary about what is allowable content, most are in agreement that certain forms of content (e.g., credible threats of violence and hate speech) are not, and they strive to identify and remove such posts. Both Twitter and Facebook prohibit credible threats of violence (e.g., “I will...” or “I plan to...”) and hate speech directed at protected classes (e.g., race, gender, and religion). To identify objectionable content, social media platforms rely in part on users to report offensive posts, which the platform then decides to leave up or take down (Crawford and Gillespie 2016). Users play a critical role in determining which content is flagged for review; however, little is known about user reporting behavior. In general, social media platforms use two techniques to identify objectionable content: (1) algorithms (or “classifiers”) that are trained to flag posts that contain certain language; and (2) other users who report posts that they believe violate the community standards (Crawford and Gillespie 2016). Posts that are identified as possibly containing objectionable content then are reviewed by a group of human moderators to determine whether the post in fact violates the terms of service and therefore should be removed or labeled. Adjudicating what is and is not objectionable content is difficult and subject to personal biases; even professional moderators admit to making mistakes (Gadde and Derella 2020; Varner et al. 2017). However, classifiers also are subject to racial bias. For instance, several classifiers were more likely to flag social media posts written in “Black English” as abusive than posts written in standard English (Davidson, Bhattacharya, and Weber 2019; Sap et al. 2019). Automated toxic-language identification tools generally are unable to consider social and cultural context and therefore risk reporting posts that are not actually in violation. Thus, the assumption that automated techniques are a way to remove bias is incorrect andmay invite systemic bias. In our study, we tested for bias in the second pathway to online content removal: that is, through social media users. Specifically, we were interested in whether the demographics of the poster influence a willingness to report content as violating the community standards; this makes certain demographics more likely to have their posts reviewed and possibly removed. We focused on race, gender, and the intersection of these traits because gendered and racial stereotypes—as well as s","PeriodicalId":48096,"journal":{"name":"Ps-Political Science & Politics","volume":"9 1","pages":"222 - 226"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2023-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74268178","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Freedom of Expression in Interpersonal Interactions","authors":"Taylor N. Carlson, Jaime E. Settle","doi":"10.1017/S1049096522001342","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096522001342","url":null,"abstract":"For a half-century, scholars have examined how people navigate political discussions, finding that many avoid expressing their true opinions to others who disagree and instead choose to remain silent (Noelle-Neumann 1974) or conform to the group’s opinion (Carlson and Settle 2016; Levitan and Verhulst 2016). These everyday experiences of censorship draw less attention than concerns about people silencing themselves to avoid being “canceled” in more publicly visible ways (Lukianoff and Haidt 2019). However, these seemingly mundane, everyday political encounters restrict the free flow of opinion, information, and dialogue on important political topics. The majority of previous research on political discussion focuses on the effects of exposure to disagreement (Huckfeldt, Johnson, and Sprague 2004; Mutz 2006), but most of this work does not directly examine how the interpersonal dynamics of a political conversation affect the choices that people make about political expression. Carlson and Settle (2022a) build on extensive qualitative research (Eliasoph 1998; Walsh 2010) to argue that social and psychological impediments in interpersonal conversations—namely, people’s desire to preserve their esteem and relationships—might structure how forthcoming they are about their political opinions. Consistent with previous research, the authors found that disagreement is indeed a central roadblock reducing the likelihood of people expressing their true opinions. However, disagreement is not the only challenge that people face in discussion: Carlson and Settle (2022a) identified other factors—including the political knowledge gap, strength of relationship, and power dynamic between discussants—that could affect how likely people are to express their true opinions. Similarly, recent scholarship highlights other important divides in American politics, such as deep involvement in politics (Krupnikov and Ryan 2022), that could affect the dynamics of discussion. A remaining question is how these factors stack up against one another. To address this gap in our knowledge, we conducted a preregistered conjoint experiment in which we randomized features of a hypothetical political discussant and asked participants to report how comfortable they would be expressing their true political opinions in a discussion with the person described (Carlson and Settle 2022b). We find that, consistent with previous research, expected disagreement is indeed the strongest factor contributing to opinion expression. Specifically, participants were seven points more likely to report that they would express their true opinions in a conversation with someone who was a copartisan compared to an out-partisan. However, they also reported being more likely to express their opinions in faceto-face conversations than online, as well as with people with whom they had a close relationship. Where potential discussants learn about politics also was influential: participants reported being less likely","PeriodicalId":48096,"journal":{"name":"Ps-Political Science & Politics","volume":"127 1","pages":"245 - 249"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2023-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86412224","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Religious Freedom Backlash: Evidence from Public Opinion Experiments about Free Expression","authors":"A. R. Lewis, Eric L. McDaniel","doi":"10.1017/S1049096522001251","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096522001251","url":null,"abstract":"Religious-freedom conflicts are prominent throughout US history (Sehat 2011); however, for much of the past century, religious freedom represented a pluralist, egalitarian aspiration. This correspondedwith growing levels of religious tolerance and support for the broad contours of religious liberty (Putnam and Campbell 2010). In recent decades, consensus has turned to division because religious freedom has taken center stage in our partisan culture wars and constitutional disputes (Bennett 2017; Lewis 2017; Wilson and Djupe 2020). Although activists and elites are at the helm of these debates over religious liberty, the mass public also is polarized over prominent religious-freedom issues, especially concerning LGBTQ rights and COVID-19 policies (Castle 2019; Mitchell 2016; Nortey 2022). In describing the polarization of religious liberty, academic and journalistic accounts have argued that support for religious freedom is related to preference from group-based exclusivity, such as Christian nationalism, social dominance, and traditionalism (Castle 2017; Gillman and Chemerinsky 2020; Goidel, Smentkowski, and Freeman 2016; Whitehead and Perry 2020). Although these ideological and psychological factors often are attributed to the mass public’s support for religious freedom, the mechanisms have not been tested directly. This study used an experimental survey design to examine how presenting vignettes that emphasize egalitarianism, religious nationalism, and social dominance affects support for three type of religious freedom. We found that reading messages about equality, nationalism, and social dominance does not increase support for religious freedom; however, it does spark backlash in certain cases, particularly among Independents and the non-religious.","PeriodicalId":48096,"journal":{"name":"Ps-Political Science & Politics","volume":"30 14 1","pages":"227 - 233"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2023-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90520471","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Policing Protest: An Examination of Support for Police Suppression of Protest","authors":"Tony E. Carey, Ángel Saavedra Cisneros","doi":"10.1017/S1049096522001354","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096522001354","url":null,"abstract":"The freedom of peaceful assembly is a key component of a healthy democracy. However, even democratic nations sometimes respond forcefully—and even violently—against demonstrations of public dissent. According to Barker, Baker, and Watkins (2021), in the United States, the state response to protests surrounding several highly visible incidents of police violence directed toward Black citizens illustrates the degree to which state force may be used to thwart peaceful protest. These responses are in contrast to the state response to violent protests aimed at overturning the results from the 2020 presidential election. They have heightened concerns that suppression of social protests varies depending on the racial background of the protesters involved (Chason and Schmidt 2021). Media reporting on demonstrations can profoundly affect the way the public reacts not only to protest but also the state response to protest. The extensive literature on media framing (see Chong and Druckman 2007 for a review) found that how the media choose to frame a story plays an important role in the public’s evaluation of protestors and the reaction from authorities to the protests (Nelson, Clawson, and Oxley 1997) and institutional legitimacy (Nicholson and Howard 2003)—and even can shape how voters decide on ballot questions related to the relevant news (García-Perdomo, Harlow, and Brown 2022). For this study, we considered the role that the media framing of protest events, issues, and race of protesters has on support for police suppression. Using a 3 (i.e., race of protester: white, Black, or Latina/o) x 2 (i.e., media frame: social order or free speech) x 2 (i.e., issue: policing or the environment) factorial experimental design, we find little evidence that the characteristics of protest events shaped support for police suppression. Instead, the race of the respondent had the strongest effect on attitudes toward protest suppression. White respondents reported significantly higher levels of support for police intervention than Black respondents. Latinas/os reported lower levels of support than white respondents but not as low as Black respondents. Ultimately, we conclude that whereas characteristics of a protest did not shape attitudes, the effect of the respondents’ race likely reflects fundamental differences in the faith that each racial group places in police authority and, consequently, in their actions to suppress protest activities. MEDIAFRAMING, ISSUES, ANDTHERACEOFPROTESTERS","PeriodicalId":48096,"journal":{"name":"Ps-Political Science & Politics","volume":"66 1","pages":"234 - 239"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2022-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88401770","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}