Third-Party Labels Bias Evaluations of Political Platforms and Candidates

Munro, Geoffrey; Zirpoli, Julia B.; Schuman, Adam; Taulbee, Jeff

doi:10.1080/01973533.2013.764299

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This effect (referred to as the minimal group paradigm) suggests that there is something inherent in group membership that causes people to be automatically biased in their assessments of relative group merits (Otten and Wentura ). In fact, party labels have recently been shown to induce bias in the evaluation of two candidates with identical issue stances (Munro et al ). Partisans, therefore, may say that they prefer their party because of the party's positions on issues, but at some level they also prefer the party simply because it is their home team.…”

Section: Effects Of Partisan Identitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“I Disrespectfully Agree”: The Differential Effects of Partisan Sorting on Social and Issue Polarization

Mason

2014

American J Political Sci

833

633

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Disagreements over whether polarization exists in the mass public have confounded two separate types of polarization. When social polarization is separated from issue position polarization, both sides of the polarization debate can be simultaneously correct. Social polarization, characterized by increased levels of partisan bias, activism, and anger, is increasing, driven by partisan identity and political identity alignment, and does not require the same magnitude of issue position polarization. The partisan-ideological sorting that has occurred in recent decades has caused the nation as a whole to hold more aligned political identities, which has strengthened partisan identity and the activism, bias, and anger that result from strong identities, even though issue positions have not undergone the same degree of polarization. The result is a nation that agrees on many things but is bitterly divided nonetheless. An examination of ANES data finds strong support for these hypotheses.

show abstract

Section: Effects Of Partisan Identitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“I Disrespectfully Agree”: The Differential Effects of Partisan Sorting on Social and Issue Polarization

Mason

2014

American J Political Sci

833

633

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This hypothesis rests on the assumption that people tend to protect their political attitudes and not be readily open to persuasion attempts (e.g., Kunda, 1990; Lord et al, 1979). However, this hypothesis also expects that people’s political attitudes can change (e.g., Bryan, Dweck, Ross, Kay, & Mislavsky, 2009; Cohen, 2003; Jost, 2006; Landau et al, 2004; Munro, Zirpoli, Schuman, & Taulbee, 2013; Oppenheimer & Trail, 2010). Specifically, people’s existing attitudes may increase after exposure only to relevant moral frames of pro-attitudinal issues.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Shifting Liberal and Conservative Attitudes Using Moral Foundations Theory

Day

Fiske

Downing

et al. 2014

Pers Soc Psychol Bull

150

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People’s social and political opinions are grounded in their moral concerns about right and wrong. We examine whether five moral foundations—harm, fairness, ingroup, authority, and purity—can influence political attitudes of liberals and conservatives across a variety of issues. Framing issues using moral foundations may change political attitudes in at least two possible ways: 1. Entrenching: relevant moral foundations will strengthen existing political attitudes when framing pro-attitudinal issues (e.g., conservatives exposed to a free-market economic stance). 2. Persuasion: mere presence of relevant moral foundations may also alter political attitudes in counter-attitudinal directions (e.g., conservatives exposed to an economic regulation stance). Studies 1 and 2 support the entrenching hypothesis. Relevant moral foundation-based frames bolstered political attitudes for conservatives (Study 1) and liberals (Study 2). Only Study 2 partially supports the persuasion hypothesis. Conservative-relevant moral frames of liberal issues increased conservatives’ liberal attitudes.

show abstract

“…But there's more to the story, for partisan sorting is not the only manifestation of societal divisions; affective polarization has also intensified. Indeed, “fear and loathing across party lines” (Iyengar & Westwood, 2015) are so extreme that when confronted with two policies—say, on healthcare—that are otherwise identical except for the party endorsing them, Americans rate their own party's policy far more favorably (e.g., Munro et al, 2013). Partisan loyalty, in other words, beats out policy considerations.…”

Section: Explaining President Win Ratesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is the US Supreme Court a reliable backstop for an overreaching US president? Maybe, but is an overreaching (partisan) court worse?

Brown

Epstein

2023

Pres Stud Q

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Roberts Court has been called the most “___” Court in history, with many different adjectives being offered. Surprisingly, our study of voting data from Supreme Court terms 1937–2021 shows that the Roberts Court is the most “anti‐president” Court in that period: It has ruled against the president at a greater rate than any other Court. Should we take this to mean that the Court will be there to protect democracy if an overreaching president tries to trample constitutional limits? Not necessarily. Additional analysis and a deep dive into the cases and reasoning reveal a more complicated picture, of a Court exhibiting historic levels of partisan and loyalty bias as well as a strong penchant for judicial supremacy.

show abstract

Third-Party Labels Bias Evaluations of Political Platforms and Candidates

Cited by 7 publications

References 40 publications

“I Disrespectfully Agree”: The Differential Effects of Partisan Sorting on Social and Issue Polarization

“I Disrespectfully Agree”: The Differential Effects of Partisan Sorting on Social and Issue Polarization

Shifting Liberal and Conservative Attitudes Using Moral Foundations Theory

Is the US Supreme Court a reliable backstop for an overreaching US president? Maybe, but is an overreaching (partisan) court worse?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About