| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
171280
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Accusations of conspiracy are nothing new in American politics, but examples in which the government—usually cast as a key player in conspiracy theories—goes on record to corroborate that a conspiracy occurred are rare. I leveraged an experiment that randomly exposes both college-student and general-public subject pools to information about the 1979 House Select Committee on Assassination report of a probable conspiracy in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. I find that those exposed to government corroboration of a conspiracy (1) are more prone to anger in response to the government report; (2) engage in an increased search of available media information about the assassination; and (3) are more likely to agree with the conclusion of a conspiracy in Kennedy’s murder. Implications for additional research about government pronouncements on controversial issues and follow-on public reaction also are discussed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
126345
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
A persistent challenge for minority candidates is mitigating negative effects attributed to their unpopular group identity. This was precisely the case for Mitt Romney, a Mormon, as he sought and captured the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. We draw on existing public opinion data about the tepid reaction to Romney's Mormonism from within Republican ranks. Then, we review our own experimental data to examine a potential mitigation strategy, "God Talk," and its emotional costs to the GOP. We find that Romney and similar candidates may avoid direct penalty by party rank-and-file for their minority attributes when using God Talk, but the associated affective response supporters direct at their party may carry yet-unknown putative costs for both party and candidate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
159531
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The use of field experiments in political science has become extensive, but the promise of conducting a randomized intervention in a “real world” setting also raises perils for researchers. Partnering with organizations to deliver a randomized intervention may be a cost effective route to data collection, but a long-distance partnership presents certain challenges. In particular, the researcher needs to be especially vigilant about treatment application given the potential for noncompliance with the random assignment schedule. I provide an evaluation of a field intervention’s effectiveness where the long-distance partner organization inadvertently violated the random assignment of voter precincts in a canvassing effort prior to a citizen vote to repeal a non-discrimination housing ordinance protecting LGBT residents of a Midwestern city. I then provide recommendations for researchers to help mitigate treatment noncompliance when they cannot be present during treatment delivery.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|