Political Science Faculty Database
Political Science
Arts & Sciences
Duke University

 HOME > Arts & Sciences > Political Science > Faculty    Search Help Login pdf version printable version 

Publications of Christopher Johnston    :chronological  alphabetical  combined listing:

%% Books   
   Author = {Johnston, CD and Lavine, HG and Federico, CM},
   Title = {Open versus Closed: Personality, identity, and the politics
             of redistribution},
   Pages = {1-282},
   Year = {2017},
   Month = {February},
   ISBN = {9781107120464},
   Abstract = {© Christopher D. Johnston, Howard G. Lavine, and
             Christopher M. Federico 2017. All rights reserved. Debates
             over redistribution, social insurance, and market regulation
             are central to American politics. Why do some citizens
             prefer a large role for government in the economic life of
             the nation while others wish to limit its reach? In Open
             versus Closed, the authors argue that these preferences are
             not always what they seem. They show how deep-seated
             personality traits underpinning the culture wars over race,
             immigration, law and order, sexuality, gender roles, and
             religion shape how citizens think about economics, binding
             cultural and economic inclinations together in unexpected
             ways. Integrating insights from both psychology and
             political science - and twenty years of observational and
             experimental data - the authors reveal the deeper
             motivations driving attitudes toward government. They find
             that for politically active citizens these attitudes are not
             driven by self-interest, but by a desire to express the
             traits and cultural commitments that define their
   Key = {fds336484}

   Author = {Lavine, HG and Johnston, CD and Steenbergen, MR},
   Title = {The Ambivalent Partisan: How Critical Loyalty Promotes
   Pages = {1-318},
   Publisher = {Oxford University Press},
   Year = {2013},
   Month = {January},
   ISBN = {9780199772759},
   url = {http://www.amazon.com/The-Ambivalent-Partisan-Democracy-Psychology/dp/0199772754/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1354054334&sr=8-1&keywords=the+ambivalent+partisan},
   Abstract = {© Oxford University Press 2012. All rights reserved. Over
             the past half-century, two overarching topics have dominated
             the study of mass political behaviour: How do ordinary
             citizens form their political judgments, and how good are
             they from a normative perspective? This book provides a
             novel goal-based approach to these questions, one that
             compels a wholesale rethinking of the roots of responsible
             democratic citizenship. The central claim of the book is
             that partisan identity comes in qualitatively different
             forms, with distinct political consequences. Blind partisan
             loyalty, as the pejorative label implies, facilitates bias
             and reduces attention to valuable information. Critical
             loyalty, by doing the opposite, outperforms standard
             measures of political engagement in leading to normatively
             desirable judgments. Drawing on both experimental and survey
             methods-as well as five decades of American political
             history-this book examines the nature and quality of mass
             political judgment across a wide range of political
             contexts, from perceptions of the economy, to the formation,
             updating, and organization of public policy preferences, to
             electoral judgment and partisan change. Contrary to much
             previous scholarship, the empirical findings reveal that
             rational judgment-holding preferences that align with one's
             material interests, values, and relevant facts-does not
             hinge on cognitive ability. Rather, breaking out of the
             apathy-versus-bias prison requires critical involvement, and
             critical involvement requires critical partisan
   Doi = {10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199772759.001.0001},
   Key = {fds287731}

%% Journal Articles   
   Author = {Johnston, CD},
   Title = {Authoritarianism, Affective Polarization, and Economic
   Journal = {Political Psychology},
   Volume = {39},
   Pages = {219-238},
   Publisher = {WILEY},
   Year = {2018},
   Month = {February},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/pops.12483},
   Abstract = {© 2018 International Society of Political Psychology I
             consider two theories of affective polarization between
             Democrats and Republicans in the United States: (1)
             ideological divergence on size-of-government issues (Webster
             & Abramowitz,) and (2) authoritarianism-based partisan
             sorting (Hetherington & Weiler,). I argue that these
             alternatives cannot be easily disentangled, because
             politically engaged citizens seek out and assimilate
             information about economic policy from elites who are
             perceived to share their core traits and cultural values. In
             this way, the economic preferences emphasized by the first
             view are partly endogenous to the worldview divide
             emphasized by the second. Elite position taking on economic
             issues may elicit strong emotions among citizens because it
             reliably signals a commitment to one worldview or the other.
             I review new and existing evidence for this claim in both
             observational survey data and two experimental studies. I
             also consider the broader implications of these results for
             the distribution of economic opinion across indicators of
             human capital.},
   Doi = {10.1111/pops.12483},
   Key = {fds332977}

   Author = {Newman, BJ and Johnston, CD and Lown, PL},
   Title = {Erratum},
   Journal = {American Journal of Political Science},
   Volume = {60},
   Number = {3},
   Pages = {805-806},
   Publisher = {WILEY},
   Year = {2016},
   Month = {July},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12254},
   Doi = {10.1111/ajps.12254},
   Key = {fds325141}

   Author = {Johnston, CD and Mak, M and Sidman, AH},
   Title = {On the Measurement of Judicial Ideology},
   Journal = {Justice System Journal},
   Volume = {37},
   Number = {2},
   Pages = {169-188},
   Publisher = {Informa UK Limited},
   Year = {2016},
   Month = {April},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2015.1084249},
   Abstract = {© 2016 National Center for State Courts. Researchers cannot
             assess the importance of ideology to judicial behavior
             without good measures of ideology, and great effort has been
             spent developing measures that are valid and precise. A few
             of these have become commonly used in studies of judicial
             behavior. An emphasis has naturally been placed on
             developing continuous measures of ideology, like those that
             exist for other institutions. There are, however, concerns
             with using continuous measures because they are built on two
             assumptions that may be untenable when examining judicial
             decision-making: that the level of precision assumed by
             these measures is capturing true ideological distinctions
             between judges, and that the effects of ideology as measures
             are uniform across levels. We examine these assumptions
             using different specifications of ideology finding that
             categorical measures are more valid and better depict the
             impact of ideology on judicial decision-making at the U.S.
             Courts of Appeals, but not the Supreme Court.},
   Doi = {10.1080/0098261X.2015.1084249},
   Key = {fds325142}

   Author = {Johnston, CD and Ballard, AO},
   Title = {Economists and public opinion: Expert consensus and economic
             policy judgments},
   Journal = {Journal of Politics},
   Volume = {78},
   Number = {2},
   Pages = {443-456},
   Publisher = {University of Chicago Press},
   Year = {2016},
   Month = {April},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/684629},
   Abstract = {© 2015 by the Southern Political Science Association. All
             rights reserved. How do citizens view economists, and how do
             they respond to consensus in the profession? We examine the
             responsiveness of the American public to information
             regarding the distribution of opinion among economists on
             five economic policy issues. We also examine the extent and
             role of citizens' trust in economists. We find that trust is
             tepid and find correspondingly small-To-moderate changes in
             public opinion when citizens are given information about
             expert opinion. Indeed, we provide evidence that
             responsiveness is larger when the consensus is attributed to
             a generic sample of people than when it is attributed to
             economists. We also find heterogeneity in responsiveness
             across issues, such that opinion change is smaller on
             symbolic policy issues than technical ones. Further, on the
             former, but not the latter, we find that citizens use
             judgments of trust in economists in a motivated fashion, to
             reinforce prior opinions.},
   Doi = {10.1086/684629},
   Key = {fds318535}

   Author = {Johnston, CD and Newman, BJ},
   Title = {Economic Inequality and U.S. Public Policy Mood Across Space
             and Time},
   Journal = {American Politics Research},
   Volume = {44},
   Number = {1},
   Pages = {164-191},
   Publisher = {SAGE Publications},
   Year = {2016},
   Month = {January},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1532673X15588361},
   Abstract = {© 2015, © The Author(s) 2015. While classic theories
             suggest that growing inequality will generate mass support
             for redistribution, recent research suggests the opposite:
             increases in inequality in the United States are associated
             with decreases in support for redistribution among both low
             and high income citizens. We reconsider this conclusion.
             First, we examine the methods of this research, and find
             that the claims made are not robust to important corrections
             in model specification. We then utilize a distinct
             methodological approach, leveraging spatial variation in
             local inequality, and examine average differences in
             preferences across geographic context. Here we find a small,
             but positive relationship of inequality to support for
             redistribution. In both our reexamination of previous work
             and our extensions, we find little support for the claim
             that inequality reduces the demand for redistribution.},
   Doi = {10.1177/1532673X15588361},
   Key = {fds318536}

   Author = {Newman, BJ and Johnston, CD and Lown, PL},
   Title = {False Consciousness or Class Awareness? Local Income
             Inequality, Personal Economic Position, and Belief in
             American Meritocracy},
   Journal = {American Journal of Political Science},
   Volume = {59},
   Number = {2},
   Pages = {326-340},
   Year = {2015},
   Month = {April},
   ISSN = {0092-5853},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12153},
   Abstract = {©2014, Midwest Political Science Association. Existing
             research analyzes the effects of cross-national and temporal
             variation in income inequality on public opinion; however,
             research has failed to explore the impact of variation in
             inequality across citizens' local residential context. This
             article analyzes the impact of local inequality on citizens'
             belief in a core facet of the American ethos-meritocracy. We
             advance conditional effects hypotheses that collectively
             argue that the effect of residing in a high-inequality
             context will be moderated by individual income. Utilizing
             national survey data, we demonstrate that residing in more
             unequal counties heightens rejection of meritocracy among
             low-income residents and bolsters adherence among
             high-income residents. In relatively equal counties, we find
             no significant differences between high- and low-income
             citizens. We conclude by discussing the implications of
             class-based polarization found in response to local
             inequality with respect to current debates over the
             consequences of income inequality for American
   Doi = {10.1111/ajps.12153},
   Key = {fds287728}

   Author = {Johnston, CD and Lavine, H and Woodson, B},
   Title = {Emotion and Political Judgment: Expectancy Violation and
             Affective Intelligence},
   Journal = {Political Research Quarterly},
   Volume = {68},
   Number = {3},
   Pages = {474-492},
   Publisher = {SAGE Publications},
   Year = {2015},
   Month = {January},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1065912915593644},
   Abstract = {© 2015, © 2015 University of Utah. What factors prompt
             citizens to switch from a partisan judgment strategy, one in
             which they reflexively side with the in-group in policy and
             electoral contests, to a more thoughtful one, in which they
             pause to consider additional information? Previous work
             suggests that variation in political reasoning is triggered
             by the experience of anxiety. In this research, we examine a
             broader consideration: whether the overall pattern of
             experienced emotions confirms or violates one’s partisan
             expectations. Using both cross-sectional and panel data from
             the American National Election Studies, we examine how the
             emotions of anxiety, anger, and enthusiasm influence the
             manner in which voters appraise presidential candidates and
             update their opinions on salient policy issues. In line with
             an expectancy violation framework, the results consistently
             indicate that expectancy-violating emotions (e.g.,
             experiencing enthusiasm toward the other party’s
             candidate) heighten deliberative reasoning and suppress
             partisan cue-taking, and that expectancy-confirming emotions
             (e.g., experiencing anxiety toward the other party’s
             candidate) have the reverse set of effects. We discuss the
             implications of our findings for American politics and for
             theories of political information processing and
   Doi = {10.1177/1065912915593644},
   Key = {fds318537}

   Author = {Bartels, BL and Johnston, CD and Mark, A},
   Title = {Lawyers' Perceptions of the U.S. Supreme Court: Is the Court
             a "Political" Institution?},
   Journal = {Law & Society Review},
   Volume = {49},
   Number = {3},
   Pages = {761-794},
   Publisher = {WILEY},
   Year = {2015},
   Month = {January},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12154},
   Abstract = {© 2015 Law and Society Association. Do legal elites-lawyers
             admitted to federal appellate bars-perceive the Supreme
             Court as a "political" institution? Legal elites
             differentiate themselves from the mass public in the amount
             and sources of information about the Court. They also hold
             near-universal perceptions of Court legitimacy, a result we
             use to derive competing theoretical expectations regarding
             the impact of ideological disagreement on various Court
             perceptions. Survey data show that many legal elites
             perceive the Court as political in its decision making,
             while a minority perceive the Court as activist and
             influenced by external political forces. Ideological
             disagreement with the Court's outputs significantly elevates
             political perceptions of decision making, while it exhibits
             a null and moderate impact on perceptions of activism and
             external political influence, respectively. To justify
             negative affect derived from ideological disagreement,
             elites highlight the political aspects of the Court's
             decision making rather than engage in "global
             delegitimization" of the institution itself.},
   Doi = {10.1111/lasr.12154},
   Key = {fds318538}

   Author = {Johnston, CD and Newman, BJ and Velez, Y},
   Title = {Ethnic Change, Personality, and Polarization Over
             Immigration in the American Public},
   Journal = {Public Opinion Quarterly},
   Volume = {79},
   Number = {3},
   Pages = {662-686},
   Publisher = {Oxford University Press (OUP)},
   Year = {2015},
   Month = {January},
   ISSN = {0033-362X},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfv022},
   Abstract = {© 2015 The Author. This article explores the interplay
             between ethnic change and individual psychology in shaping
             mass opinion on immigration. Recent research suggests that
             personality traits related to uncertainty aversion structure
             left-right orientation in American politics, and we argue
             that this personality cleavage should shape citizens'
             reactions to ethnic change. Using national survey data and a
             survey experiment, our analysis reveals that ethnic change
             polarizes citizens by personality, as those averse to
             uncertainty feel heightened cultural threat from ethnic
             change, while those open to uncertainty feel less
             threatened. The association of traits related to uncertainty
             aversion with left-right orientation suggests that
             polarization over immigration is exacerbated by the
             interaction of citizen personality and ethnic context. While
             the opinion literature on immigration is replete with
             studies analyzing the separate effects of ethnic context and
             individual differences, this article contributes to the
             literature by analyzing the two in conjunction.},
   Doi = {10.1093/poq/nfv022},
   Key = {fds287729}

   Author = {Johnston, CD},
   Title = {Context, Engagement, and the (Multiple) Functions of
             Negativity Bias},
   Journal = {Behavioral and Brain Sciences},
   Volume = {37},
   Pages = {311-312},
   Publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
   Year = {2014},
   Month = {October},
   ISSN = {1469-1825},
   Key = {fds303780}

   Author = {Federico, CM and Johnston, CD and Lavine, HG},
   Title = {Context, engagement, and the (multiple) functions of
             negativity bias.},
   Journal = {Behavioral and Brain Sciences},
   Volume = {37},
   Number = {3},
   Pages = {311-312},
   Year = {2014},
   Month = {June},
   ISSN = {0140-525X},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x13002550},
   Abstract = {Hibbing and colleagues argue that political attitudes may be
             rooted in individual differences in negativity bias. Here,
             we highlight the complex, conditional nature of the
             relationship between negativity bias and ideology by arguing
             that the political impact of negativity bias should vary as
             a function of (1) issue domain and (2) political
   Doi = {10.1017/s0140525x13002550},
   Key = {fds287730}

   Author = {Feldman, S and Johnston, C},
   Title = {Understanding the determinants of political ideology:
             Implications of structural complexity},
   Journal = {Political Psychology},
   Volume = {35},
   Number = {3},
   Pages = {337-358},
   Publisher = {WILEY},
   Year = {2014},
   Month = {January},
   ISSN = {0162-895X},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/pops.12055},
   Abstract = {There has been a substantial increase in research on the
             determinants and consequences of political ideology among
             political scientists and social psychologists. In
             psychology, researchers have examined the effects of
             personality and motivational factors on ideological
             orientations as well as differences in moral reasoning and
             brain functioning between liberals and conservatives. In
             political science, studies have investigated possible
             genetic influences on ideology as well as the role of
             personality factors. Virtually all of this research begins
             with the assumption that it is possible to understand the
             determinants and consequences of ideology via a
             unidimensional conceptualization. We argue that a
             unidimensional model of ideology provides an incomplete
             basis for the study of political ideology. We show that two
             dimensions-economic and social ideology-are the minimum
             needed to account for domestic policy preferences. More
             importantly, we demonstrate that the determinants of these
             two ideological dimensions are vastly different across a
             wide range of variables. Focusing on a single ideological
             dimension obscures these differences and, in some cases,
             makes it difficult to observe important determinants of
             ideology. We also show that this multidimensionality leads
             to a significant amount of heterogeneity in the structure of
             ideology that must be modeled to fully understand the
             structure and determinants of political attitudes. © 2013
             International Society of Political Psychology.},
   Doi = {10.1111/pops.12055},
   Key = {fds287736}

   Author = {Johnston, CD and Hillygus, DS and Bartels, BL},
   Title = {Ideology, the Affordable Care Act Ruling, and Supreme Court
   Journal = {Public Opinion Quarterly},
   Volume = {78},
   Number = {4},
   Pages = {963-973},
   Publisher = {Oxford University Press (OUP)},
   Year = {2014},
   ISSN = {0033-362X},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfu036},
   Doi = {10.1093/poq/nfu036},
   Key = {fds287727}

   Author = {Johnston, CD},
   Title = {Dispositional sources of economic protectionism},
   Journal = {Public Opinion Quarterly},
   Volume = {77},
   Number = {2},
   Pages = {574-585},
   Publisher = {Oxford University Press (OUP)},
   Year = {2013},
   Month = {June},
   ISSN = {0033-362X},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/poq/nft004},
   Abstract = {Despite the increasing salience of issues related to free
             trade, research on citizen preferences over trade is sparse,
             and largely limited to economic explanations related to
             objective exposure. The present paper extends this
             literature by examining the psychological sources of the
             protectionist impulse. More specifically, I theoretically
             and empirically examine how citizens' chronic needs for
             security and certainty, key traits identified by recent work
             in the political realm, influence their preferences for
             protectionism. Examining data from three different national
             surveys in the U.S. context, I find strong support for the
             role of these dispositions. In addition to extending our
             understanding of the antecedents of trade preferences, the
             present paper has implications for the study of personality
             and politics, suggesting heterogeneity in the relationship
             of dispositions to ideology across issue domains. I also
             discuss the broader implications for American politics,
             arguing that these findings suggest latent tensions within
             contemporary party coalitions. © 2012 The
   Doi = {10.1093/poq/nft004},
   Key = {fds287735}

   Author = {Bartels, BL and Johnston, CD},
   Title = {On the Ideological Foundations of Supreme Court Legitimacy
             in the American Public},
   Journal = {American Journal of Political Science},
   Volume = {57},
   Number = {1},
   Pages = {184-199},
   Publisher = {WILEY},
   Year = {2013},
   Month = {January},
   ISSN = {0092-5853},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2012.00616.x},
   Abstract = {Conventional wisdom says that individuals' ideological
             preferences do not influence Supreme Court legitimacy
             orientations. Most work is based on the assumption that the
             contemporary Court is objectively conservative in its
             policymaking, meaning that ideological disagreement should
             come from liberals and agreement from conservatives. Our
             nuanced look at the Court's policymaking suggests rational
             bases for perceiving the Court's contemporary policymaking
             as conservative, moderate, and even liberal. We argue that
             subjective ideological disagreement-incongruence between
             one's ideological preferences and one's perception of the
             Court's ideological tenor-must be accounted for when
             explaining legitimacy. Analysis of a national survey shows
             that subjective ideological disagreement exhibits a potent,
             deleterious impact on legitimacy. Ideology exhibits sensible
             connections to legitimacy depending on how people perceive
             the Court's ideological tenor. Results from a survey
             experiment support our posited mechanism. Our work has
             implications for the public's view of the Court as a
             "political" institution. © 2012, Midwest Political Science
   Doi = {10.1111/j.1540-5907.2012.00616.x},
   Key = {fds287734}

   Author = {Johnston, CD and Wronski, J},
   Title = {Personality Dispositions and Political Preferences across
             Hard and Easy Issues},
   Journal = {Political Psychology},
   Volume = {36},
   Number = {1},
   Pages = {35-53},
   Year = {2013},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/pops.12068},
   Abstract = {A wealth of theoretical and empirical work suggests that
             conservative orientations in the mass public are
             meaningfully associated with personality dispositions
             related to needs for certainty and security. Recent
             empirical research, however, suggests that (1) associations
             between these needs and economic conservatism are
             substantially weaker than associations with conservative
             identifications and social conservatism, and (2) political
             sophistication plays an important role in moderating the
             translation of needs into political preferences within the
             economic domain. The present article extends this work by
             offering a theoretical model of the heterogeneous
             translation of personality dispositions into political
             preferences across issues and issue domains. We argue that
             these needs structure preferences directly for highly
             symbolic issues like those in the social domain, but they
             structure preferences indirectly through partisanship for
             difficult issues like those in the economic domain. We test
             this theory utilizing a national survey experiment in the
             United States and explore its broader implications for both
             the literature on the psychological determinants of
             political ideology and for debates over the "culture war" in
             the United States. © 2013 International Society of
             Political Psychology.},
   Doi = {10.1111/pops.12068},
   Key = {fds318539}

   Author = {Newman, BJ and Johnston, CD and Strickland, AA and Citrin,
   Title = {Immigration Crackdown in the American Workplace: Explaining
             Variation in E-Verify Policy Adoption Across the U.S.
   Journal = {State Politics & Policy Quarterly},
   Volume = {12},
   Number = {2},
   Pages = {160-182},
   Publisher = {SAGE Publications},
   Year = {2012},
   Month = {June},
   ISSN = {1532-4400},
   url = {http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000305183700004&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=47d3190e77e5a3a53558812f597b0b92},
   Abstract = {Immigration remains a powerful and recurrent feature of
             American politics. Of the issues related to immigration,
             controversy over government policy for controlling illegal
             immigration occupies a central position in the debate. One
             increasingly important and prevalent type of control policy
             that has received little scholarly attention is worksite
             employment eligibility enforcement, otherwise known as
             E-Verify Laws. In the present article, we analyze variation
             in E-Verify policy adoption across the U.S. states,
             approaching the topic from multiple theoretical perspectives
             and testing several hypotheses pertaining to policy
             enactment. Our analysis points to the critical role of
             proportionate change in a state's immigrant population, as
             well as the political activity of immigrant-employing
             industries, in leading to policy adoption. Despite the use
             of multiple objective indicators, we fail to find strong
             evidence supporting the hypothesis that economic distress
             within a state increases its likelihood of enacting E-Verify
             legislation. Overall, our analysis contributes to an
             underdeveloped area of immigration policy research and sheds
             light on an important contemporary immigration issue, while
             drawing broader conclusions concerning the factors
             influencing the emergence of anti-immigration policies more
             generally. © The Author(s) 2012.},
   Doi = {10.1177/1532440012442910},
   Key = {fds287737}

   Author = {Bartels, BL and Johnston, CD},
   Title = {Political justice? Perceptions of politicization and public
             preferences toward the supreme court appointment
   Journal = {Public Opinion Quarterly},
   Volume = {76},
   Number = {1},
   Pages = {105-116},
   Publisher = {Oxford University Press (OUP)},
   Year = {2012},
   Month = {Spring},
   ISSN = {0033-362X},
   url = {http://home.gwu.edu/~bartels/BartelsJohnstonPOQ.pdf},
   Abstract = {To what extent should Supreme Court justices be appointed on
             the basis of ideology and politics as opposed to
             qualifications and experience only? We examine how
             Americans' preferences regarding this question are
             influenced by their perceptions of the Court as politicized
             in how it goes about its work. From a "backlash"
             perspective, such perceptions should diminish preferences
             for a political appointment process, whereas a "political
             reinforcement" perspective suggests an enhancement effect.
             National survey data show that a large segment of the public
             perceives of the Court in political terms and prefers that
             justices be chosen on political and ideological bases.
             Empirical evidence refutes the backlash hypothesis and
             supports the political reinforcement hypothesis; the more
             individuals perceive the Court in politicized terms, the
             greater their preferences for a political appointment
             process. Those who view the Court as highly politicized do
             not differentiate the Court from the explicitly political
             branches and therefore prefer that justices be chosen on
             political and ideological grounds. The results have
             implications for the public's perceptions and expectations
             of the Court as a "political" institution. © The Author
   Doi = {10.1093/poq/nfr032},
   Key = {fds287733}

   Author = {Johnston, CD and Bartels, BL},
   Title = {Sensationalism and sobriety differential media exposure and
             attitudes toward american courts},
   Journal = {Public Opinion Quarterly},
   Volume = {74},
   Number = {2},
   Pages = {260-285},
   Publisher = {Oxford University Press (OUP)},
   Year = {2010},
   Month = {Summer},
   ISSN = {0033-362X},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfp096},
   Keywords = {Media Effects • Supreme Court • Legitimacy •
             Public Opinion},
   Abstract = {While a great deal of research has focused on understanding
             the foundations of public support for American courts, scant
             attention has been paid to the role of the media for such
             attitudes. Given the media's demonstrated ability to
             influence public opinion, this remains a substantial gap in
             the literature. In the present paper we examine how
             different types of media - sensationalist (i.e., political
             radio and cable news) or sober (i.e., newspapers and network
             news) - influence individuals' attitudes toward both the
             U.S. Supreme Court and courts at the state level. In line
             with our predictions, we find that sensationalist media
             exposure depresses both diffuse and specific support for
             American courts. Additionally, our results call into
             question the unconditional nature of the ubiquitous
             sophistication-approval relationship. We find that
             sophistication's positive effect on court attitudes is
             conditional on an individual's particular source of
             political information. © The Author 2010. Published by
             Oxford University Press on behalf of the American
             Association for Public Opinion Research. All rights
   Doi = {10.1093/poq/nfp096},
   Key = {fds287738}

%% Other   
   Author = {Johnston, CD},
   Title = {Review of Competing Motives in the Partisan Mind: How
             Loyalty and Responsiveness Shape Party Identification and
   Journal = {Political Science Quarterly},
   Volume = {129},
   Number = {3},
   Pages = {547-548},
   Publisher = {WILEY},
   Year = {2014},
   Month = {September},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/polq.12231},
   Doi = {10.1002/polq.12231},
   Key = {fds303781}

   Author = {Johnston, CD},
   Title = {The Unexpected Impact of Coded Appeals},
   Journal = {New York Times Campaign Stops},
   Year = {2012},
   Month = {September},
   url = {http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/10/the-unexpected-impact-of-coded-appeals},
   Key = {fds287725}

   Author = {Johnston, CD and Hillygus, S},
   Title = {Perceptions of Supreme Court Legitimacy},
   Journal = {Yougov Model Politics},
   Year = {2012},
   Month = {July},
   url = {http://today.yougov.com/news/2012/07/15/perceptions-supreme-court-legitimacy/},
   Key = {fds287726}

Duke University * Arts & Sciences * Political Science * Faculty * Staff * Grad * Master * Foreign Exchange * Reload * Login