Values-based Political Messages and Persuasion: Relationships among Speaker, Recipient, and Evoked Values

The persuasive power of values-based political messages may depend on recipients having (1) shared values with the speaker (a type of personal identity match ); (2) shared political party identifications with the speaker (a type of social identity match ); and/or (3) expectations about values traditionally associated with different political parties (an expectancy violation/confirmation ). The independent and joint effects of these factors on the success of a persuasive message were examined, using the theoretical framework of dual-process models of persuasion. Participants (N = 301), classified according to their party identifications and primary value orientations, read a political speech that varied by argument quality, speaker party, and values evoked. Results indicated that value matching promotes close attention to the message, while party mismatching increases message rejection. These effects depend to some extent, however, on expectancies about values traditionally associated with different parties. Participants especially rejected messages from rival party members when the speaker evoked unexpected values. Results are discussed in terms of their implications for the efficacy of values-based political communication.     

Intergroup anxiety and political loss: The buffering effects of believing in the open marketplace of ideas and openness to diverse political discussions

The polarized divide in current U.S. politics continues to separate citizens and impede political decision‐making. Ameliorating this polarization may require addressing intergroup anxiety. The current work examines the buffering effect of endorsing the open marketplace of ideas and openness to engaging in political conversations with people who hold opposing political views on partisans' intergroup anxiety. In Study 1 (N = 319), openness to diverse political discussions negatively predicted postelection intergroup anxiety among Obama supporters in the 2012 U.S. election. Among Romney supporters, endorsement of the open marketplace and openness to diverse political discussions negatively predicted intergroup anxiety. Study 2 (N = 349 Democrats and Republicans), employed an experimental design and produced results consistent with Study 1. For Democrats and Republicans, openness to participating in political discussions characterized by multiple political perspectives was associated with reduced intergroup anxiety. Regardless of the threat of their candidate losing the 2016 election, Republicans (compared to Democrats) expressed reduced intergroup anxiety when endorsing the open marketplace of ideas and being open to engaging in diverse political discussions. Results are discussed in terms of contact theory within the context of the American political system.     

Teaching conversational speech to children with autism spectrum disorder using text‐message prompting

The present study was designed to teach conversational speech using text‐message prompts to children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in home play settings with siblings and peers. A multiple baseline design across children was used. Children learned conversational speech through the text‐message prompts, and the behavior generalized across peers and settings. Maintenance of treatment gains was seen at 1‐month follow‐up probes. Social validity measures indicated that parents of typically developing children viewed the participants' conversational speech as much improved after the intervention. Results are discussed in terms of the efficacy of text‐message prompts as a promising way to improve conversational speech for children with ASD.     

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.     

Beyond “Heartless Conservative” and “Bleeding Heart Liberal” Caricatures: How Religiosity Shapes the Relationship Between Political Orientation and Empathy

Is political orientation associated with self‐reported empathy? Popular caricatures frame political orientation in terms of the “heartless conservative” and the “bleeding heart liberal.” Yet, previous research has produced findings that present mixed evidence to support these caricatures. Using data from the 2004 General Social Survey, analyses show that the caricatures of the caring liberal and the cold‐hearted conservative are supported by results for empathy—in which conservatives have lower levels of empathy than liberals—but this pattern holds only when individuals also have low levels of religiosity. In the context of high religiosity, self‐identified conservatives do not have lower empathy than self‐identified liberals, net of a host of sociodemographic characteristics. Our observations demonstrate that patterns in empathy across political orientation are evident only when levels of different forms of religiosity are considered.     

The Emotional Foundation of Political Cognition: The Impact of Extrinsic Anxiety on the Formation of Political Tolerance Judgments

Common sense recognizes emotion's ability to influence judgments. We argue that affective processes, in addition to generating feeling states, also influence how political cognition is manifested. Drawing on the theory of affective intelligence, we examine the role that anxiety plays in how and when people rely on predispositions and when they rely on contemporaneous information in making political tolerance judgments. We report on two experimental studies to test our arguments. In the first study we find that extrinsic anxiety generates a resistance response among subjects who hold a strong predisposition and a receptive response among those who do not. In the second study we present subjects with explicit "frames" exposing them to a pro- or anti-free speech message. We find that extrinsic anxiety enhances responsiveness to frames while an absence of anxiety diminishes the impact of these frames. Taken together these results show that affective processes shape how people make political judgments.     

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.     

The “Clean for Gene” Phenomenon: The Effect of Students' Appearance on Political Campaigning1

Field experiments investigated the relationship between a political campaigner's dress and appearance and his campaign effectiveness. In one study deviant, “freaky” appearing campaigners attempting to hand out innocuous leaflets in a shopping center had a lower acceptance rate than did more conventionally dressed campaigners. Those shoppers who did accept leaflets from “freaks” were more likely to throw them away unread. The first experiment suggested that deviant-appearing campaigners have difficulty communicating information to potential voters, but it was argued that, in another sense, they convey all too much information. Knowing only that the campaigners for one candidate were deviant and “hippy” in appearance as compared to the conventionally dressed campaigners supporting a second candidate, voters in a second experiment were willing to ascribe more radical opinions to the deviants' candidate. Voters then used their inferences as the basis on which to select a candidate. The rationality of inferring beliefs from appearances is discussed in terms of correspondent inference theory.     

Political Party, Strength of Identification, and Knowledge and Evaluation of Bush v. Gore

Two studies examined knowledge of and attitudes toward Bush v. Gore , the Supreme Court decision that ended Election 2000, to examine the effects of a strong counterattitudinal message about a high-relevance issue. Republicans reported the most positive attitudes, while high-identification Democrats possessed the most accurate knowledge (Study 1); high-identification participants rated Bush v. Gore as more important and personally relevant than those less identified. Upon persuasion, high-identification Republicans maintained positive attitudes unrelated to knowledge and issue importance, while Democrats and low-identification Republicans reported negative attitudes predicted by persuasion (Study 2). High-identification Republicans reported more positive and fewer negative emotions upon persuasion, with emotions most predictive of attitudes. Implications for the role of emotions in resistance to persuasion are discussed.     

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.     

The Political Relevance of Emotions: “Reassessing” Revisited

Ladd and Lenz (2008 ) question a central claim of affective intelligence theory (AIT), namely that anxiety affects political judgments indirectly by reducing the role of predispositions and increasing the role of contemporary information. They claim that alternative hypotheses, especially the notion that emotions are simply rationalizations of political preferences, better explain the role of emotion in politics. Their ultimate conclusions, however, rest on an overly narrow view of both theory and evidence. Even if one accepts Ladd and Lenz's reanalysis of survey data, there is insufficient evidence to cast aside either AIT or the hypothesis that anxiety affects the mode of political judgment. AIT explains a broad range of political relationships that are unchallenged by the reassessment and which cannot be explained by the offered alternatives. Moreover, numerous experimental studies reject the alternative explanations in favor of an exogenous, often interactive role for anxiety. AIT will surely require amendment, if not abandonment, someday. Competing theories of emotion already exist and, unlike the alternative championed by Ladd and Lenz, these theories too suggest a meaningful role for emotion in political judgment and behavior. For now, given all of the research to date, AIT is a robust competitor, scarcely in need of being “salvaged.” Burgeoning research on the political relevance of emotions will benefit from further debates, replications, and extensions, as long as new claims and evidence are put in proper perspective.     

Character Attacks and Their Effects on Perceptions of Male and Female Political Candidates

The study examined the perceptions of political candidates (male and female) who make negative statements about the personality and integrity of their political opponents. Male and female participants (Sex of Participant factor) indicated their impressions of a male or female political candidate (Sex of Candidate factor) who either attacked or did not attack the character of his/her opponent (Attack factor) in a political leadership debate. Participants who read a speech given by a candidate of their own gender tended to rate the candidate as having greater integrity when the candidate attacked his/her opponent than when he/she did not. When judging a candidate of the opposite gender, participants tended to rate the candidate who attacked his/her opponent as having less integrity than a candidate who did not attack his/her opponent. Results are discussed with regard to the impact that aggressive campaign tactics can have on voter perceptions, and how similarity between voters and candidates may affect perceptions of such tactics.     

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.     

In the Eye of the Beholder: Accounting for Variability in Attitudes and Cognitive/Affective Reactions Toward the Threat of Nuclear War1

The present study was designed to evaluate four characteristics of subjects [i.e., generation (students vs. parents), gender, nuclear threat orientation, and political affiliation] in terms of potential differences in attitudes and cognitive/affective reactions toward the threat of nuclear war. Subjects were 297 college students and their parents (n= 546), who completed a multifaceted questionnaire concerning nuclear-related thoughts, feelings, opinions, and predictions. Multivariate analyses suggested that college students were more distressed than parents about the threat of nuclear war, that men were less anxious than women and more supportive of a “peace through strength” perspective, that individuals endorsing the Disarmist orientation were more worried about nuclear war yet more optimistic than other groups concerning their ability to help reduce the nuclear threat, and that Republicans and Democrats were split along party lines in terms of their attitudes and cognitive/affective responses. Results are discussed with regard to the potential influence of sex-role socialization processes and the importance of optimism in a nuclear world.     

A conceptual replication examining the risk of overtly listing eligibility criteria on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk

Recent scholarship indicates that explicitly listing eligibility requirements on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk can lead to eligibility falsification. Offering a conceptual replication of prior studies, we assessed the prevalence of eligibility falsification and its impact on data integrity. A screener survey collected the summer before the 2016 presidential election assessed political affiliation. Participants were then randomly assigned to be exposed to a second survey link for which they were eligible or ineligible. There was a significant interaction such that the differences between self‐reported Republicans and Democrats on outcome measures (e.g., attitudes toward Hillary Clinton), were smaller among participants that were falsifying eligibility (i.e., imposters) than those that were not (i.e., genuine participants). Moreover, for most outcomes, imposters put forth responses that were significantly different from the responses put forth by those in the political party with which imposters were pretending to be affiliated. Imposters’ responses were also significantly different from participants in the political party with which imposters initially claimed to genuinely belong. For example, those who self‐reported themselves as Democrats on the screener survey but responded to a survey for “only Republicans” (i.e., imposter Republicans), reported more favorable attitudes toward Donald Trump than genuine Democrats, but indicated less favorable attitudes toward Donald Trump than genuine Republicans. These results highlight the potential harms of explicitly listing eligibility requirements and emphasize the importance of minimizing imposter participation.     

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.     

Legitimizing the “War on Terror”: Political Myth in Official‐Level Rhetoric

This paper argues that mythical discourse affects political practice by imbuing language with power, shaping what people consider to be legitimate, and driving the determination to act. Drawing on Bottici's (2007 ) philosophical understanding of political myth as a process of work on a common narrative that answers the human need to ground events in significance, it contributes to the study of legitimization in political discourse by examining the role of political myth in official‐level U.S. war rhetoric. It explores how two ubiquitous yet largely invisible political myths, American Exceptionalism and Civilization vs. Barbarism, which have long defined America's ideal image of itself and its place in the world, have become staples in the language of the “War on Terror.” Through a qualitative analysis of the content of over 50 official texts containing lexical triggers of the two myths, this paper shows that senior officials of the Bush Administration have rhetorically accessed these mythical representations of the world in ways that legitimize and normalize the practices of the “War on Terror.”     

Effects of audio-visual integration on the detection of masked speech and non-speech sounds

Integration of simultaneous auditory and visual information about an event can enhance our ability to detect that event. This is particularly evident in the perception of speech, where the articulatory gestures of the speaker's lips and face can significantly improve the listener's detection and identification of the message, especially when that message is presented in a noisy background. Speech is a particularly important example of multisensory integration because of its behavioural relevance to humans and also because brain regions have been identified that appear to be specifically tuned for auditory speech and lip gestures. Previous research has suggested that speech stimuli may have an advantage over other types of auditory stimuli in terms of audio-visual integration. Here, we used a modified adaptive psychophysical staircase approach to compare the influence of congruent visual stimuli (brief movie clips) on the detection of noise-masked auditory speech and non-speech stimuli. We found that congruent visual stimuli significantly improved detection of an auditory stimulus relative to incongruent visual stimuli. This effect, however, was equally apparent for speech and non-speech stimuli. The findings suggest that speech stimuli are not specifically advantaged by audio-visual integration for detection at threshold when compared with other naturalistic sounds.     

KNOWING WHEN TO “SECOND-GUESS”

Studies on social information gathering typically investigate how an interactant actively elicits needed information from another source. An alternative approach would focus on how a hearer gathers selected bits of information from the message(s) at hand. The process of second-guessing is proposed as one such interpretive approach to information gathering. Previous research confirmed that social actors do use this strategy and use it reasonably effectively. This article extends our knowledge of second-guessing by looking at the conditions or “cues” that provoke the process, and by showing that participants in an experimental study second-guess when confronted with those cues.