Experimental tests of an attitudinal theory of the gender gap in voting

This research examined the hypothesis that gender gaps in voting stem from differences in the extent to which men and women agree with candidates' issue stances. Two initial experiments portraying candidates by their sex and attitudes and a third experiment that also included information about political party produced the predicted attitudinal gender-congeniality effect: Participants of each sex reported greater likelihood, compared with participants of the other sex, of voting for the candidate who endorsed positions typically favored more by their own sex than the other sex. In addition, this gender-congeniality effect was present among Republican and independent participants but absent among Democratic participants because Democratic men as well as women favored candidates who advocated the positions typically favored by women. Interpretation invoked the importance of group interest based on gender as an influence on women's voting.     

Do Attitudes Affect Memory? Tests of the Congeniality Hypothesis

Social psychologists have usually hypothesized that attitudinal selectivity biases people's memory in favor of information that is congenial to their attitudes, because they are motivated to defend their attitudes against uncongenial information. However, our meta-analysis found that such effects have been only inconsistently obtained. One reason for these inconsistencies is that the defense of attitudes against attacks does not necessarily entail avoiding the uncongenial information. As shown by our experiments, people often expose themselves to attitudinally uncongenial information, attend to it, scrutinize it carefully, encode it accurately, and remember it fairly well, even though they dislike the information and are not persuaded by it. Given sufficient motivation and capacity, people mount an active defense that enhances memory for the information.     

Accuracy and Bias in Stereotypes about the Social and Political Attitudes of Women and Men

In three experiments examining the accuracy of gender stereotypes about attitudes, male and female participants estimated the attitudes of men or women on items that had been administered in the General Social Survey to assess attitudes on social and political issues. Demonstrating moderate stereotypic accuracy were correlations between (a) participants' estimates of these attitudes and (b) the criterion attitudes of male and female survey respondents and sex differences in the criterion attitudes. Nevertheless, analyses of discrepancies between the estimated and criterion attitudes revealed a systematic bias by which participants consistently underestimated men's support for female-stereotypic positions on issues. Further analyses of these data suggested that this error rose from perceptions that men would oppose policies that favored women's interests. In contrast, perceived female group interest functioned as a cue to accuracy in estimating women's attitudes.     

Preemption and a counterfactual analysis of divine causation

International Journal for Philosophy of Religion - This paper aims to outline a counterfactual theory of divine atemporal causation that avoids problems of preemption. As a result, the presentation...