1,720,976 research outputs found
An Online experiment during the 2020 US–Iran crisis shows that exposure to common enemies can increase political polarization
Full text linkA longstanding theory indicates that the threat of a common enemy can mitigate conflict between members of rival groups. We tested this hypothesis in a pre-registered experiment where 1670 Republicans and Democrats in the United States were asked to complete an online social learning task with a bot that was labeled as a member of the opposing party. Prior to this task, we exposed respondents to primes about (a) a common enemy (involving Iran and Russia); (b) a patriotic event; or (c) a neutral, apolitical prime. Though we observed no significant differences in the behavior of Democrats as a result of priming, we found that Republicans—and particularly those with very strong conservative views—were significantly less likely to learn from Democrats when primed about a common enemy. Because our study was in the field during the 2020 Iran Crisis, we were able to further evaluate this finding via a natural experiment—Republicans who participated in our study after the crisis were even less influenced by the beliefs of Democrats than those Republicans who participated before this event. These findings indicate common enemies may not reduce inter-group conflict in highly polarized societies, and contribute to a growing number of studies that find evidence of asymmetric political polarization in the United States. We conclude by discussing the implications of these findings for research in social psychology, political conflict, and the rapidly expanding field of computational social science
Consequences and Corrections of Misperceptions in Intergroup Relations
No full textIn an age witnessing the coinciding of increasing connectedness facilitated by the advent of the internet and social media and growing mobility due to technological efficiency gains and rising economic prosperity, optimistic observers might expect to find accompanying increases in societal harmony and mutual understanding among social groups. In contrast to such an optimistic vision, contemporary societies are experiencing expanding polarization between political and societal groups and a widening appeal of exclusionary ideas that had marked more contentious times. The scholarly literature has developed a number of economic and individual psychological explanations for this divergence of the idealized and observed path of contemporary societies, but at root the phenomenon derives from collective identities of “us” and “them” which are based on perceptions of in- and outgroups. Such perceptions are subject to well-studied biases that tend to elevate the ingroup and debase the outgroup.While such biased perceptions and their connection to intergroup relations are well understood in relation to racial minority-majority relations, this is not the case for the increasingly important relations between native- and foreign-born populations. Similarly, for relations among political subgroups in a given society such misperceptions have been well documented, but it the most efficacious strategy to tackle such misperceptions remains an open debate. Specifically, scholars debate in how far misperceptions that fulfill social-psychological functions of affirming individuals’ group memberships can be overcome with corrective information or whether such attempts lead individuals to retreat into their groups’ corner. With prior evidence for both predictions, the literature lacks a clear understanding of the scope conditions occasioning either reaction. The studies in this dissertation set out to address these gaps providing evidence from representative cross-national surveys and experimental work at the intersection of perceptions, immigration, and intergroup relations.Chapter 2 investigates the role of misperceptions in shaping the relations between the native- and foreign-born population, asking first whether such misperceptions extend beyond innumeracy and how such misperceptions affect the native-born populations attitudes toward immigration. Descriptive analyses of the native-born population of ten European countries reveal widespread misperceptions about migrants’ motives. In multilevel models, these misperceptions predict threat perceptions and concern about immigration as well as anti-immigration policy preferences and voting behavior. Chapter 3 departs from the existence of group-based misperceptions and examines the conditions under which such misperceptions are amenable to corrective information or conversely liable to deteriorate when challenged by such information. In an online experiment designed to approximate real world exposure to counter-attitudinal information, I manipulate the level of perceived choice in exposure and engagement with such information participants have. Results are suggestive for the role of choice in moderating the effect of corrective information on misperceptions and support the theorized mechanism of counter-arguing for backfire effects, in that extreme conservatives prompted to reflect on counter-attitudinal information more strongly endorse misperceptions.In sum, this dissertation provides evidence that misperceptions about outgroups extend to the perceptions of immigrants where they are associated with broader anti- immigration attitudes and behavior. Such immigration related misperceptions are generally amenable to corrective information except for those individuals who strongly identify with a group whose status depends on the misperception, in which case attempts to correct the misperceptions carry the risk of backfiring.</p
How Many Replicators Does It Take to Achieve Reliability:Investigating Researcher Variability in a Crowdsourced Replication
No full textThe paper reports findings from a crowdsourced replication. Eighty-four replicator teams attempted to verify results reported in an original study by running the same models with the same data. The replication involved an experimental condition. A “transparent” group received the original study and code, and an “opaque” group received the same underlying study but with only a methods section anddescription of the regression coefficients without size or significance, and no code. The transparent group mostly verified the original study (95.5%), while the opaque group had less success (89.4%). Qualitative investigation of the replicators’ workflows reveals many causes of non-verification. Two categories ofthese causes are hypothesized, routine and non-routine. After correcting non-routine errors in the research process to ensure that the results reflect a level of quality that should be present in ‘real-world’ research, the rate of verification was 96.1% in the transparent group and 92.4% in the opaque group. Twoconclusions follow: (1) Although high, the verification rate suggests that it would take a minimum of three replicators per study to achieve replication reliability of at least 95% confidence assuming ecological validity in this controlled setting, and (2) like any type of scientific research, replication is prone to errors that derive from routine and undeliberate actions in the research process. The lattersuggests that idiosyncratic researcher variability might provide a key to understanding part of the “reliability crisis” in social and behavioral science and is a reminder of the importance of transparent and well documented workflows
Observing Many Researchers Using the Same Data and Hypothesis Reveals a Hidden Universe of Uncertainty
No full textThis study explores how analytical choices of researchers affect the reliability of scientific findings. Current lack-of-reliability discussions focus on systematic biases. We broaden the lensto include idiosyncratic decisions in data analysis that lead researchers to diverging results and conclusions. We coordinated and observed decisions among 73 research-teams as theyindependently tested the same hypothesis using the same data. Results show that in this typicalsecondary data research situation, the universe of pathways from data to results is so vast that eachanalysis was unique in some way. Teams reported divergent findings with contradictorysubstantive implications that could not be explained by differences in researchers’ expertise, priorbeliefs, and expectations. This calls for greater humility and clarity in presentation of scientificfindings. Idiosyncratic variation may also be a cause for why many hypotheses remain highlycontested, particularly in large-scale social and behavioral research.This study explores how analytical choices of researchers affect the reliability of scientificfindings. Current lack-of-reliability discussions focus on systematic biases. We broaden the lensto include idiosyncratic decisions in data analysis that lead researchers to diverging results andconclusions. We coordinated and observed decisions among 73 research-teams as theyindependently tested the same hypothesis using the same data. Results show that in this typicalsecondary data research situation, the universe of pathways from data to results is so vast that eachanalysis was unique in some way. Teams reported divergent findings with contradictorysubstantive implications that could not be explained by differences in researchers’ expertise, priorbeliefs, and expectations. This calls for greater humility and clarity in presentation of scientificfindings. Idiosyncratic variation may also be a cause for why many hypotheses remain highlycontested, particularly in large-scale social and behavioral researc
Socioeconomic Status and Diet Quality in College Students
No full textObjectiveTo investigate the existence and trajectory of diet disparities among college students from different socioeconomic statuses (SESs).MethodsA random sample of freshman and sophomore students was invited to participate in an online survey on eating behaviors. Ordinary least squares regressions were fit to 148 complete responses to examine the association between family income ≤200% of the federal poverty level and overall, healthy, and unhealthy food consumption.ResultsLow-SES students reported eating significantly more unhealthy food during their freshman year than their non–low-SES peers. This difference is not statistically significant for second-year students and robust to on-campus spending power.Conclusions and ImplicationsDisparities in diets for students from different socioeconomic backgrounds that were observed in the freshman year of college were absent in the sophomore year. Awareness of these disparities and trend is important to broadly promote healthy eating
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Using Internet search data to examine the relationship between anti-Muslim and pro-ISIS sentiment in U.S. counties.
No full textImmigration and Public Support for Social Policy:Accounting for the Gender Composition of Immigrant Populations
No full textWith increasing global mobility, scholars have debated whether immigration undermines welfare states. So far, no conclusive evidence of a consistent association between immigration and social policy support has emerged. This might be due to treating immigrants as a monolithic mass. To begin addressing this, the authors account for the gender composition of immigrant populations. Drawing on research on attitudes toward immigration, immigration policy, and gendered tropes of immigrants, the authors develop two hypotheses detailing how the share of women among immigrants moderates that population's impact on individuals' social policy support. Testing these hypotheses on International Social Survey Programme and United Nations data, the authors find no evidence of a predominant demographic or coexisting immigrant threats. Instead, the results show a consistent pattern between immigration and social policy support aligning with a dominant trope of "deviant immigrant men" posing a criminal threat. Specifically, increasing immigrant populations predict reduced support as the share of women among them decreases
Variations on the Author
Full text link“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
- …
