Do Presidential Primary Debates Increase Political Polarization?

This study presents the results of a quasi-experiment to assess the effects of viewing a strategically manipulated portion of a 2020 Democratic Primary debate. Our aim was to assess the polarizing potential of primary debates on both ingroup (Democratic) and outgroup (Republican) viewers. Viewing the primary debate resulted in less perceived closeness with members of the opposing political party, greater feelings of social distance, and more attribution of malevolent intentions. These effects were consistent regardless of whether the viewer was a member of the political ingroup (Democrats) or outgroup (Republicans). Conversely, there was no effect of debate viewing on evaluations of outparty candidates (with respect to negative trait attributions or lower feeling thermometer evaluations)., nor did support for political compromise change as a result of viewing the debate. Both Democrats and independents reported improved evaluations of participating candidates, though Republican evaluations did not change.

Effects of a Comprehensive Pulmonary Rehabilitation in Severe Post-COVID-19 Patients

Background: Severe COVID-19 infection often leads to impairments requiring pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) following the acute phase. Little is known about the efficacy of PR in these patients. We therefore compared post-COVID-19 patients (PG) referred to PR patients with other lung diseases (LG). Methods: 99 PG were admitted to PR. In a prospective design, the results of PG were collected and compared to the results of LG of 2019 (n = 419) according to Functional Independence Measurement (FIM), Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS), 6-min walk test (6-MWT), duration of PR, and Feeling Thermometer (FT). Results: According to age, sex, and CIRS, both groups showed no significant differences. The improvements in the 6-MWT in the pre to post comparison were on average 180 (±101) meters for PG and 102 (±89) meters for LG (p < 0.001). FT showed a significant enhancement for PG of 21 (±14) points and for LG of 17 (±16) points (p < 0.039), while FIM significantly increased by 11 (±10) points in PG and 7 (±8) points in LG (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Comprehensive PR in PG is very effective according to the results in FIM, 6-MWT and FT. Therefore, we recommend PR following severe post-COVID-19 infections.

More than Meets the Eye: Understanding Perceptions of China Beyond the Favorable–Unfavorable Dichotomy

How is China viewed by citizens of other countries? Popular polling data based on the feeling thermometer scale can reveal overall patterns of public sentiment toward China, but they do not necessarily capture the multidimensional preferences of the public. This article takes a deeper dive into a series of surveys conducted in Canada that covered a wide range of topics, from trade and investment to international leadership. Two broad conclusions follow. First, public perceptions of China are much more nuanced and conflicted than can be quickly gleaned from the simple dichotomy of “favorable versus unfavorable,” especially as one moves from overall impressions to more specific policy issues. Second, misperceptions of China are widespread and may be difficult to overcome, especially among those who already view China negatively. At a time when countries around the world are grappling with the rise of China and its expanding global footprint, failure to account for these features in public opinion about China may lead to misguided policies.

Problems of conceptualisation and operationalisation of attitudes toward immigrants in cross-national comparative research

The paper continues the ongoing discussion among experts by considering in detail the problematic inconsistency in the conceptualisation and operationalisation of attitudes toward immigrants in cross-national comparative research. The sources of the identified problems, which are primarily associated with a theoretical impasse, namely the isolation and replication of the tradition of the theory of competitive threat and excessive reliance on literature (especially American) on racial prejudice (but attitudes toward immigrants and attitudes toward the African American population of the United States are far from the same thing). Suggestions are being raised regarding the need for a clear definition of the boundaries between groups (immigrants and host population), applying group-specific approach, overcoming terminological diversity, greater differentiation of related constructs, transition from reflective approach to measurement models to formative one to compile a special comparative index of attitudes toward immigrants taking into account country (regional) specifics, solving the measurement problem in the framework of the survey method when selecting items for the questionnaire (including avoiding double-barreled items). It is also considered options for applied conceptualisation of attitudes toward immigrants within metaphors of distance (social distance) and temperature («feeling thermometer») and related issues of their operationalisation. If necessary, illustrations and examples relevant to Russian reality are given.

Backfiring Frames: Abortion Politics, Religion, and Attitude Resistance

Following recent insight into how citizens respond to attempts to correct political and salient misperceptions (Nyhan and Riefler, 2010, Political Behavior 32 (2): 303–330), we also expect that certain characteristics will predispose citizens to react strongly to messaging on highly contentious issues. Specifically, we expect that respondents will express an opinion that is even stronger in line with their predispositions when exposed to frames that challenge their position. Using an experiment on abortion opinion embedded in the 2010 Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES), we find little indication that Pro-Abortion Access and Anti-Abortion Access frames move opinion on abortion in the aggregate, but there is evidence that specific characteristics correlate with a “backfire” effect identified by Nyhan and Riefler (2010, Political Behavior 32 (2): 303–330). In particular, gender, religiosity, and “Born-Again” Christian affiliation are all predictive of responding to either the Anti-Abortion Access or Pro-Abortion Access frame by moving the opposite direction as intended on the feeling thermometer.

Populism as Dog-Whistle Politics: Anti-Elite Discourse and Sentiments toward Out-Groups

Past research has devoted more attention to the consequences of populism for party politics and governance than to the effects of populist claims on public attitudes—and particularly, to how populism interacts with nationalism to exacerbate exclusionary beliefs among the public. Using online survey experiments, we examine whether exposure to populism increases out-group antipathy among white Democrats and Republicans. In Study 1, we randomly assign respondents to three conditions featuring vignettes based on political speeches: a morally neutral argument, a populist critique of political elites, and a morally framed anti-immigration appeal. We then assess respondents’ sentiments toward Latinos, an ethnic group commonly vilified in U.S. right-wing political discourse. The results demonstrate that exposure to populist rhetoric alone results in lower feeling-thermometer ratings of Latinos, but only among Republicans. Study 2 uses a similar design to evaluate the link between left-wing economic populism and economic nationalism: the populist condition features a critique of economic elites, the nationalist condition blames China for the offshoring of U.S. jobs, and the outcome variable measures respondents’ sentiments toward China. Economic nationalism generates increased chauvinism among conservative Democrats but economic populism does not. Together these findings suggest that the cross-domain spillover effects between nationalism and populism observed in Study 1 are driven by the discursive bundling of anti-elite talk with ethno-nationalism on the right, which stands in contrast to the decoupling of economic populism and economic nationalism on the left. The former has effectively turned populism into a form of dog-whistle politics among Republicans.

Person-positivity bias, social category labels, and attitudes toward gays and lesbians

This study assesses how social category labels influence public opinion toward gay and lesbian attitude objects. The results provide some support for the existence of person-positivity bias whereby people express more positive attitudes toward attitude objects that are personalized. In a survey experiment, respondents rated attitude objects where the question wording was manipulated to include either person descriptors or sexuality construct descriptors and either colloquial or clinical terminology. In particular, the findings show that respondents express significantly colder feeling thermometer scores toward the clinical construct “homosexuality” than the person descriptor “gays and lesbians.” The results suggest, first, that survey researchers should be mindful of these terminology effects in question wording, and that the strategic choice of using more or less personalized terminology in elite rhetoric has the potential to marginally influence public opinion. However, the effects of terminology should not be overstated. The effects of using person descriptors or sexuality construct descriptors are not significant in all cases and are generally smaller than differences in attitudes between respondents of different social and political backgrounds.

Mentally ill, HIV-positive, or sexual predator? Determining myths perceived as representative of transgender people

The present study explored possible stereotypical beliefs, or myths, related to prejudice and discrimination toward transgender individuals in the US. In a 5 x 2 x 3 mixed factorial design, Amazon Mechanical Turk workers ( N = 1,450) read a description of a target depicted as a sexual predator, HIV-positive, having a mental illness, an ally of transgender people, or unfair to others. They then completed an intuitive judgment task regarding the target’s gender (male or female) and identity stigma detail (transgender, sexual minority, or no stigmatized detail), and provided feeling thermometer ratings for various groups. Results indicated that participants perceived mental illness as relatively representative of transgender people, but not HIV-status or sexual predation. Feeling thermometer ratings for transgender people were significantly lower than those for other gender/stigma categories and were negatively correlated with participant religiosity and conservatism. We discuss these findings in terms of gendered assumptions and present implications for gender-related stigma and the role of perceived mental illness in antitransgender prejudice.

Stochastic Process Models of Preference Change

This chapter gives an informal summary of a research program aiming to develop and test stochastic process models of preference change. What does it take to develop a formally precise and descriptively valid model of persuasion? Any such model should specify formally concise definitions of hypothetical constructs such as preferences or attitudes. The chapter reviews weak order and semiorder models of preferences that are grounded in decision theory. Such a model should also spell out how hypothetical constructs relate to observable behavior, such as feeling thermometer ratings. The chapter reviews response processes that, in some cases, accommodate within and across respondent heterogeneity in overt behavior. The model should furthermore specify formally what it means to change one’s preference over time and how that change relates to the persuasive environment. The chapter treats preference change as a continuous time stochastic process on a graph of preference states. The most innovative feature of the approach is to model the (perceived) persuasive environment itself also as a hypothetical construct that is not directly/objectively observable by the researcher. Last but not least, the chapter discusses how to accommodate partisan differences, how to incorporate respondents with immutable preferences, and the possibility that respondents may tune in and out of a persuasive campaign. The emphasis of the chapter lies in explaining key conceptual ideas grounded in decision theory and mathematical psychology.