Election Outcome and Tax Compliance: The Role of Political Party Affiliation,Affect Balance,and Trust in Government

The present study examines partisan reactions to presidential election outcomes. Our model investigates the interactive role of political party affiliation on the relationship between identification with the winning party and affect balance. We subsequently examine how tax compliance intentions are influenced by this moderation relationship through affect balance and trust in government. We conducted a quasi-experiment one week prior to the first mass 2016 presidential primary, where 12 of the 50 US states voted to decide which candidates would represent the Republican and Democratic parties in the 2016 US presidential election. Our sample consisted of 205 Republicans and Democrats. We manipulated press releases showing various presidential candidates winning the presidency to examine how matches / mismatches between partisans’ political party affiliation and the party winning the election influence citizens’ overall feelings, beliefs, and intentions. We find election outcomes generate significant overall positive or negative feelings (i.e., affect balance) among partisans, which influences beliefs about trust in government, and subsequently their tax compliance intentions. Political party moderates the relationship between election outcomes and affect balance in such a way that Democrats experience greater overall positive affect balance when their party wins the election compared to Republicans.     

Judging a Book by its Cover: The Effects of Candidate Party Label and issue Stands on Voting Behavior

Americans vote party lines; nothing predicts election outcomes as well. People may vote party lines because party candidates have views that accurately reflect the positions of their members, because party identification acts as a convenient cue that eliminates the need for greater information search or cognitive processing, or because party classification biases interpretation of other information people have about the candidates. To investigate these competing hypotheses for party effects on voter decision making, participants were presented with a choice between 2 candidates whose policy positions were more inconsistent than consistent with their party identification (Study l), or completely inconsistent with their party identification (Study 2). People voted as a function of party label in Study I, but issue stand emerged as a stronger predictor in Study 2 (although Democrats were more likely to cross party lines than Republicans). These results suggest that party identification influences how other information about the candidate is perceived and processed. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.     

The politics of color: Preferences for Republican red versus Democratic blue

The present study reveals that Election Day differentially affects the color preferences of US Republicans and Democrats. Voters’ preferences for Republican red and Democratic blue were assessed, along with several distractor colors, on and around the 2010 interim and 2012 presidential elections. On non-Election Days, Republicans and Democrats preferred Republican red equally, and Republicans actually preferred Democratic blue more than Democrats did. On Election Day, however, Republicans’ and Democrats’ color preferences changed to become more closely aligned with their own party’s colors. Republicans liked Republican red more than Democrats did, and no longer preferred Democratic blue more than Democrats did. These results are consistent with the hypothesis that color preferences are determined by people’s preferences for correspondingly colored objects/entities (Palmer & Schloss in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107:8877–8882, 2010). They further suggest that color preferences are calculated at a given moment, depending on which color–object associations are currently most activated or salient. Color preferences are thus far more dynamic and context-dependent than has previously been believed.     

Fear and Implicit Racism: Whites’ Support for Voter ID laws

Oftentimes, Whites are unaware that they may have slighted Blacks. Although researchers have spent a considerable amount of attention disentangling this form of implicit (unconscious) racial bias from explicit (conscious) racial bias, we are less clear about the conditions that cause implicit racism to matter in American politics. In this article, we offer a theory of how fear and Whites' unconscious racial bias are tightly linked in memory, and triggering this emotion can make these implicit attitudes more salient in public opinion. To test our theory, we focus on Whites’ opinions toward voter ID laws. Our expectation is that inducing fear should cause implicit racism to play an important role in Whites’ evaluation of the policy. Using an adult national experiment over two waves, we induced several emotions to elicit fear, anger, or relaxation. The findings show that the fear condition causes Whites high in implicit racism to be more supportive of voter ID laws than similar individuals in the anger and control conditions. On the other hand, fear does not cause Whites high in explicit racism to be more supportive of voter ID laws.     

A test of vaccine endorsement by political in- versus out-group sources: Effect on vaccination likelihood and exploration of mediation through perceived bias and liking

This study investigated whether political endorsements from in- versus out-group political elites would influence likelihood of COVID-19 vaccination. In March 2021, we ran an experiment with Democrats and Republicans in the United States to examine whether they would be more likely to get vaccinated following endorsements by former Presidents Obama or Trump. Participants reported greater likelihood of getting vaccinated if the vaccine was endorsed by an elite from their own rather than the opposing party. This effect was driven by Trump, who increased vaccination likelihood among Republicans but decreased it among Democrats. We also investigated the mechanisms underlying this persuasion effect and found that perceived bias and liking were plausible mediators, whereas perceived trustworthiness and expertise were not. This study highlights the potential of having endorsements from both Democrat and Republican political elites to increase support for health behaviors in a politically charged climate.     

Revoking a leader's “license to fail”: downgrading evaluations of prototypical in‐group leaders following an intergroup failure

Drawing on the social identity theory of leadership, we examined how leadership as an identity function alters perceptions and evaluations of in‐ and out‐group political leaders over time. Participants responded to two online questionnaires, before and after the 2012 U.S. Presidential election between Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Mitt Romney. We assessed respondents' strength of party identification, perceptions of each candidate's prototypicality, and evaluations of each candidate. Results supported the hypothesis: after his loss, Romney was presumably perceived as less prototypical of the Republican Party among strong identifiers, who symbolically revoked Romney's “license to fail.” Weakly identified Republicans were unaffected by his defeat, granting him a “license to fail.” Unexpectedly, Democrats and Republicans following his electoral success evaluated Obama more harshly.     

Overestimating Reported Prejudice Causes Democrats to Believe Disadvantaged Groups Are Less Electable

Four studies show that Democrats overestimate the explicit prejudice reported by the American electorate, leading them to perceive presidential candidates from disadvantaged groups as less electable. Study 1 (MTurk; n = 728) found that Democrats overestimated the percentage of Americans who say they would not vote for presidential candidates from disadvantaged groups. Study 2 (MTurk; n = 597) replicated this finding and demonstrated that Democrats who perceive high levels of explicit prejudice toward a group also believe presidential candidates from that group are less electable. Moreover, Democrats who more frequently interacted with Republicans were more accurate in estimating the amount of explicit prejudice reported by Republicans, Democrats, and Americans in general. Studies 3A (Prolific; n = 930) and 3B (YouGov; n = 747) found that presenting information about true levels of reported prejudice made Democrats believe generic presidential candidates from disadvantaged groups would be more electable. We did not find evidence that information about true levels of reported prejudice affected Democrats' beliefs about the electability of specific candidates in the 2020 Democratic Primary or their support for these candidates.     

How Do Religion and Sexual Orientation Affect Support for U.S. Presidential Candidates? Evidence from a Survey Experiment

A growing body of research has examined how candidates’ religion or sexual orientation affect voting likelihood among the U.S. public. No systematic study, however, has focused on the combined effect of these traits. We draw on the intersectionality literature to develop and test hypotheses for this neglected, but important, combination. Results from an original survey experiment conducted in late June 2019 demonstrate that all respondents, as well as the Republican subgroup, tend to disapprove of a gay, religious candidate relative to other options (i.e., gay, nonreligious; straight, religious; and straight, nonreligious). Even Democrats expressed little support except when a straight, religious candidate was the alternative. Our findings underscore the need to study how overlapping—rather than discrete—traits influence political views and behaviors. They also raise important questions about the future of U.S. identity politics. Efforts to rally Republican and Democrat voters by mixing particular types of traits may not be a very effective strategy.     

The psycho‐physical laws of intentionality

Intentional mental states have causes and effects. Davidson has shown that this fact alone does not entail the existence of psycho‐physical laws, but his anomalism makes the connection between the content and causation of intentional states utterly mysterious. By defining intentional states in terms of their causes and effects, functionalism promises to explain this connection. If intentional states have their causes and effects in virtue of their contents, then there must be intrinsic states (of the people who have them) which are ‘local causal surrogates’ for the propositions believed, desired, or whatever. We can define these intrinsic states in terms of the laws that govern them, but these laws alone are not sufficient to account for intentional content. To do that we need to invoke laws which link these intrinsic states with their contents. Such a ‘wide’ functional account is sketched; it combines a suggestion of Ramsey's about truth conditions with a ‘feedback’ account of the content of desires.     

Our Followers Are Lions,Theirs Are Sheep: How Social Identity Shapes Theories About Followership and Social Influence

Two studies examine how self‐categorization theory can be used to refine our understanding of people's implicit theories about followership and social influence. Results from Study 1 show that perceivers regard followers of a group they themselves identify strongly with (rather than not at all) to be more representative of the prototype of effective followers (displaying enthusiasm, industry, good citizenship) and to be less representative of the antiprototype of effective followers (displaying conformity, incompetence, and insubordination). Results are replicated in a second experiment in which we compare the views of those self‐categorizing as either Republican or Democrat responding to followers of the Republican and Democratic Party. Results of Study 2 replicate those of Study 1 and also reveal qualitative differences in the preferred influence strategy for dealing with followers. Specifically, respondents seek to engage in persuasion when trying to change the behavior of ingroup followers, while resorting to coercion when trying to change the behavior of outgroup followers. Our results are the first to provide evidence that perceivers' theories about what followers are like and how they are influenced most effectively are structured by perceivers' identification (and dis‐identification) with the particular groups that leaders are championing.     

Individuating information influences partisan judgments

Three studies examined whether Democrats and Republicans expressed favoritism toward an ingroup political candidate, even when the candidates were presented as positive and bipartisan. Participants rated electability and traits, after reading party consistent (Passage 1) and positive, bipartisan information (Passage 2). Conservatism (Studies 1–3), the cognitive reflection test (Studies 2–3), and ingroup loyalty (Study 3) were examined. Republicans showed initially higher favoritism after the first passage. Both Republicans and Democrats showed lower ingroup favoritism after reading the second passage, although Republicans continued to show more favoritism than Democrats in some circumstances. Conservatism was associated with greater favorability toward the Republican candidate. Our results showed no evidence that CRT or ingroup loyalty mediated these associations.     

A Below‐Average Effect with Respect to American Political Stereotypes on Warmth and Competence

The “above‐average effect” is the phenomenon that people tend to judge themselves above average on desirable traits. Based on social identity theory, we propose that a “below‐average effect” may arise when individuals rate themselves and the average ingroup member on traits stereotypically associated with the ingroup. In two studies, Republican and Democrat participants rated themselves and the average political ingroup member on possession of desirable traits related to warmth and competence. Current political stereotypes in America associate the former dimension with Democrats and the latter with Republicans. Consistent with our hypothesis, the above‐average effect was moderated by political group and dimension in interaction. In particular, Democrats rated themselves below the average Democrat on warmth and Republicans rated themselves below the average Republican on competence.     

LICENSURE FOR BEHAVIOR ANALYSTS: THE PATH TO RESPONSIBLE AND COOPERATIVE ACTION

The increase in the prevalence of autism spectrum disorders in the last decade has contributed to growth in the field of applied behavior analysis (ABA). This growth has been spurred by consumer demand for access to this evidence‐based treatment for those with an autism spectrum disorder. Presently, there are at least 34 states that have laws or regulations in place that mandate insurance coverage for autism spectrum disorders. There are also 14 states that have passed licensure or a similar regulatory mechanism for identifying competent providers of ABA. The following paper documents the process of insuring consumer advocacy and protection in the states of Missouri and Wisconsin through the passage of legislation that established licensure for practitioners of ABA. The evolution of this process in both of these states will be detailed as well as a number of lessons learned that should prove to be helpful as additional states move toward licensure for practitioners of ABA. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

“Family Values” and Political Persuasion: Impact of Kin-Related Rhetoric on Reactions to Political Campaigns1

Within the framework of dual-process models of persuasion, it was hypothesized that including references to kin in a persuasive speech might either (a) promote greater scrutiny of the message by making it seem more value-relevant, or (b) serve as a simple peripheral cue of value congruence. Republicans, Democrats, and Independents read a political speech that varied by argument quality (strong/weak), kin terms (absent/present), and the speaker's party affiliation. Results indicated that Democrats scrutinized the message more when kin terms were used, whereas such terms appeared to discourage message elaboration on the part of Republican participants, but only when used by an in-group member. Results are discussed in terms of their implications for the efficacy of political rhetoric using kin terms.     

Motivated Suspicion: Asymmetrical Attributions of the Behavior of Political Ingroup and Outgroup Members

Suspicious attributional thought was assessed in the context of the political behavior of ingroup and outgroup politicians. Strong Democrats and Republicans read a newspaper article describing a Democratic or Republican politician's support of a bill. Half the participants read that the politician may have been motivated by an ulterior motive, obtaining campaign support from companies that benefited from the bill. In two studies, interaction effects revealed that participants discounted the behavior of an outgroup politician when an ulterior motive was salient. In contrast, they failed to discount the behavior of an ingroup politician when an ulterior motive was salient or either politician when no ulterior motive was salient. Study 2 also revealed evidence that negative, other-directed affect mediated the bias in attributional judgments.     

When does dual identity predict protest? The moderating roles of anti‐immigrant policies and opinion‐based group identity

Dual identities are defined as immigrants' identification with their ethnic ingroup as well as the national community in their country of residence. Dual identities have been argued to increase protest, because they make immigrants feel entitled to advocate for their disadvantaged ethnic group as part of a larger national community. In a study of Latino immigrants to the United States, however, we found that dual identities no longer predict protest when immigrants learn that other members of the national community have passed laws or enacted policies that would exclude immigrants or restrict their rights, through deportation and detention. Further, we found that immigrants who identify with those fighting to change such anti‐immigrant policies support protest regardless of the level of their dual identity and regardless of policy salience. We argue that these results point to the importance of dual identity recognition for research on immigrant protest. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Quantum No-Go Theorems and Consciousness

Our conscious minds exist in the Universe, therefore they should be identified with physical states that are subject to physical laws. In classical theories of mind, the mental states are identified with brain states that satisfy the deterministic laws of classical mechanics. This approach, however, leads to insurmountable paradoxes such as epiphenomenal minds and illusionary free will. Alternatively, one may identify mental states with quantum states realized within the brain and try to resolve the above paradoxes using the standard Hilbert space formalism of quantum mechanics. In this essay, we first show that identification of mind states with quantum states within the brain is biologically feasible, and then elaborating on the mathematical proofs of two quantum mechanical no-go theorems, we explain why quantum theory might have profound implications for the scientific understanding of one’s mental states, self identity, beliefs and free will.     

On the Prospect of Linking Religious‐Right Identification with Political Behavior: Panacea or Snipe Hunt?

Although it is a popular topic, the religious right is understudied in two areas. First, scholars have not developed an agreed-upon profile of religious-right adherents at the individual level. Second, little is known about how religious-right status functions as a predictor of political behavior. There is a possibility that religious-right status functions similarly to party identification, as an indicator that is both related to a wide range of variables and capable of functioning independently of those variables as a predictor of political behavior. Using multivariate statistical techniques we analyze survey data that allows respondents to self-identify as members of the religious right. We find that religious-right identifiers are social and theological conservatives who demonstrate high levels of religious commitment. However, they are neither monolithically Republican nor ideologically conservative. Religious-right status does have cross-cutting characteristics, for it is fluid across partisan, ideological, and denominational lines. This status is not, however, politically distinguishing as whatever impact it has on political behavior is apparently subsumed by traditional political variables.     

Influencing Republicans’ and Democrats’ attitudes toward Obamacare: Effects of imagined vicarious cognitive dissonance on political attitudes

The field of experimental social psychology is appropriately interested in using novel theoretical approaches to implement change in the social world. In the current study, we extended cognitive dissonance theory by creating a new framework of social influence: imagined vicarious dissonance. We used the framework to influence attitudes on an important and controversial political attitude: U.S. citizens’ support for the Affordable Care Act (ACA). 36 Republicans and 84 Democrats were asked to imagine fellow Republicans and Democrats, respectively, making attitude discrepant statements under high and low choice conditions about support for the ACA. The data showed that vicarious dissonance, established by imagining a group member make a counterattitudinal speech under high-choice conditions (as compared to low-choice conditions), resulted in greater support for the Act by Republicans and marginally diminished support by Democrats. The results suggest a promising role for the application of vicarious dissonance theory to relevant societal issues and for further understanding the relationship of dissonance and people’s identification with their social groups.     

Perinatal substance abuse and human subjects research: are privacy protections adequate?

Privacy incursions in the clinical care of substance abusing pregnant women have gained lay and professional attention recently as the result of a high-profile Supreme Court finding in Ferguson vs City of Charleston et al. In March, 2001 the Supreme Court determined that nonconsensual drug screening of pregnant women by clinicians in a public hospital violated the women's Fourth Amendment rights to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure. Coercive or punitive policy approaches to perinatal substance abuse are often based on mistaken assumptions about the nature of addiction and the outcomes of punitive interventions. Much attention has been given to efforts to criminalize pregnancy for drug using women, and civil laws are also coming under increasing scrutiny. Although no state has passed a law criminalizing pregnancy and drug use, an estimated 250 women in more than 30 states have been prosecuted around the country on theories of "fetal abuse." A growing number of states (eighteen to date) have amended their civil child welfare laws to address specifically the subject of a woman's drug use during pregnancy. No one has examined how these laws and social policies could affect research that includes pregnant and parenting women; women (and their families) who stand to lose a great deal should their drug use be brought to the attention of child welfare or criminal justice authorities. We examine the adequacy of current protective mechanisms, such as federal certificates of confidentiality, in protecting research subjects (and investigators) who may be subject to punitive civil or criminal sanctions. We determine that current protective mechanisms may be insufficient to protect research subjects and that investigators and IRB members are often ignorant of the risks imposed by punitive policy approaches to perinatal substance abuse or fall prey to the same mistaken assumptions that inform punitive policies. We conclude that investigators and IRB members have a moral responsibility to understand local, state and national policies and laws governing perinatal substance abuse. Investigators and IRB members should balance the harms of punitive interventions against the protections that may, or may not be afforded to prospective research subjects as well as the prospective benefits, individual and social, of the research. In situations where criminal or punitive policies are in effect, investigators and IRB members should consider whether adequate protections can be achieved. In the context of inadequate protections, potential risks to prospective research subjects and their families may outweigh the individual or social benefits that accrue from the research. Clinical researchers are professionally obligated to work toward amending laws and policies that are not in the best interests of prospective research subjects.