Nature Research wishes to improve the reproducibility of the work that we publish. This form provides structure for consistency and transparency in reporting. For further information on Nature Research policies, see our Editorial Policies and the Editorial Policy Checklist.

No abstract

Community policing has aimed to restore the legitimacy of the police. Not only must the police have legitimacy to win public cooperation, but also a legitimate police institution fosters more widespread obedience of the law itself. Research indicates that community policing can improve citizen perceptions of the police. However, does community policing improve citizen perceptions of the police or is this improvement simply due to increased police visibility? Survey data from 1,347 residents from 41 South Carolina neighborhoods are used to determine whether policing tactics commonly associated with community policing influence resident perceptions of the police. Regression analysis indicates that police visibility results in improved resident perceptions.

No abstract

Does affective polarization—the tendency to view opposing partisans negatively and co-partisans positively—undermine support for democratic norms? We argue that it does, through two mechanisms. First, in an age of elite polarization, norms have been politicized. This leads affectively polarized partisans to oppose particular constitutional protections when their party is in power but support them when their party is out of power, via a cue-taking mechanism. Second, affective polarization may generate biases that motivate voters to restrict the other party’s rights. Using nationally representative surveys, we find strong support for the cue-taking argument. In 2019, with a Republican administration in power, affectively polarized Republicans opposed constitutional protections while affectively polarized Democrats supported them. The reverse was true in 2012 during a Democratic administration. The findings have important, albeit troubling, implications for American democracy, as affective polarization undermines support for basic democratic principles.

To disseminate research, scholars once relied on university media services or journal press releases, but today any academic can turn to Twitter to share their published work with a broader audience. The possibility that scholars can push their research out, rather than hope that it is pulled in, holds the potential for scholars to draw wide attention to their research. In this manuscript, we examine whether there are systematic differences in the types of scholars who most benefit from this push model. Specifically, we investigate the extent to which there are gender differences in the dissemination of research via Twitter. We carry out our analyses by tracking tweet patterns for articles published in six journals across two fields (political science and communication), and we pair this Twitter data with demographic and educational data about the authors of the published articles, as well as article citation rates. We find considerable evidence that, overall, article citations are positively correlated with tweets about the article, and we find little evidence to suggest that author gender affects the transmission of research in this new media. Social media provide academics with one of the most direct routes for sharing their work. To disseminate research, scholars once relied on university media services or journal press releases, but today any academic can turn to Twitter to share their published findings with a broader audience that stretches well beyond their friends, family, or even academic community. In this manuscript, we provide a broad empirical investigation of whether Twitter offers any advantage to academics who share their work via social media. We then turn to the more specific question of whether Twitter offers an equitable benefit to all academics who participate, or if instead it simply exacerbates inequalities in research dissemination that exist "offline." In considering these inequalities, we focus on the specific case of gender. Relying on social media, researchers can reach practitioners, journalists, and the public at large [1,2,3,4]. Twitter seems to offer tremendous benefits [5], especially given increasing

No abstract

Affective polarization—partisans’ dislike and distrust of those from the other party—has reached historically high levels in the United States. While numerous studies estimate its effect on apolitical outcomes (e.g., dating, economic transactions), we know much less about its effects on political beliefs. We argue that those who exhibit high levels of affective polarization politicize ostensibly apolitical issues and actors. An experiment focused on responses to COVID-19 that relies on pre-pandemic, exogenous measures of affective polarization supports our expectations. Partisans who harbor high levels of animus towards the other party do not differentiate the “United States’” response to COVID-19 from that of the Trump administration. Less affectively polarized partisans, in contrast, do not politicize evaluations of the country’s response. Our results provide evidence of how affective polarization, apart from partisanship itself, shapes substantive beliefs. Affective polarization has political consequences and political beliefs stem, in part, from partisan animus.