Faculty Database Political Science Arts & Sciences Duke University |
||
HOME > Arts & Sciences > Political Science > Faculty | Search Help Login |
| Publications of Christopher Johnston :chronological combined listing:%% Books @book{fds363457, Author = {Bartels, BL and Johnston, CD}, Title = {Curbing the court: Why the public constrains judicial independence}, Pages = {1-318}, Publisher = {Cambridge University Press}, Year = {2020}, Month = {August}, ISBN = {9781107188419}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/9781316979754}, Abstract = {What motivates political actors with diverging interests to respect the Supreme Court's authority? A popular answer is that the public serves as the guardian of judicial independence by punishing elected officials who undermine the justices. Curbing the Court challenges this claim, presenting a new theory of how we perceive the Supreme Court. Bartels and Johnston argue that, contrary to conventional wisdom, citizens are not principled defenders of the judiciary. Instead, they seek to limit the Court's power when it suits their political aims, and this inclination is heightened during times of sharp partisan polarization. Backed by a wealth of observational and experimental data, Bartels and Johnston push the conceptual, theoretical, and empirical boundaries of the study of public opinion of the courts. By connecting citizens to the strategic behavior of elites, this book offers fresh insights into the vulnerability of judicial institutions in an increasingly contentious era of American politics.}, Doi = {10.1017/9781316979754}, Key = {fds363457} } @book{fds336484, 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 = {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 identities.}, Key = {fds336484} } @book{fds287731, Author = {Lavine, HG and Johnston, CD and Steenbergen, MR}, Title = {The Ambivalent Partisan: How Critical Loyalty Promotes Democracy}, 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 = {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 loyalty.}, Doi = {10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199772759.001.0001}, Key = {fds287731} } %% Chapters in Books @misc{fds367078, Author = {Bartels, BL and Johnston, CD}, Title = {A Deep Dive into Supreme Court Evaluation and Support}, Pages = {60-92}, Booktitle = {CURBING THE COURT: WHY THE PUBLIC CONSTRAINS JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE}, Year = {2020}, ISBN = {978-1-107-18841-9}, Key = {fds367078} } @misc{fds367074, Author = {Bartels, BL and Johnston, CD}, Title = {General Policy Disagreement and Broadly Targeted Court-Curbing}, Pages = {93-125}, Booktitle = {CURBING THE COURT: WHY THE PUBLIC CONSTRAINS JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE}, Year = {2020}, ISBN = {978-1-107-18841-9}, Key = {fds367074} } @misc{fds367075, Author = {Bartels, BL and Johnston, CD}, Title = {Partisan Polarization and Support for Court-Curbing}, Pages = {175-214}, Booktitle = {CURBING THE COURT: WHY THE PUBLIC CONSTRAINS JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE}, Year = {2020}, ISBN = {978-1-107-18841-9}, Key = {fds367075} } @misc{fds367073, Author = {Bartels, BL and Johnston, CD}, Title = {Procedural Perceptions and Motivated Reasoning}, Pages = {215-244}, Booktitle = {CURBING THE COURT: WHY THE PUBLIC CONSTRAINS JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE}, Year = {2020}, ISBN = {978-1-107-18841-9}, Key = {fds367073} } @misc{fds367077, Author = {Bartels, BL and Johnston, CD}, Title = {Reconsidering the Public Foundations of Judicial Independence}, Pages = {245-278}, Booktitle = {CURBING THE COURT: WHY THE PUBLIC CONSTRAINS JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE}, Year = {2020}, ISBN = {978-1-107-18841-9}, Key = {fds367077} } @misc{fds367076, Author = {Bartels, BL and Johnston, CD}, Title = {Specific Policy Disagreement and Support for Court-Curbing}, Pages = {126-174}, Booktitle = {CURBING THE COURT: WHY THE PUBLIC CONSTRAINS JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE}, Year = {2020}, ISBN = {978-1-107-18841-9}, Key = {fds367076} } @misc{fds367079, Author = {Bartels, BL and Johnston, CD}, Title = {The Guardians of Judicial Independence}, Pages = {1-+}, Booktitle = {CURBING THE COURT: WHY THE PUBLIC CONSTRAINS JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE}, Year = {2020}, ISBN = {978-1-107-18841-9}, Key = {fds367079} } @misc{fds367072, Author = {Bartels, BL and Johnston, CD}, Title = {Theories of Public Support for Court-Curbing}, Pages = {27-59}, Booktitle = {CURBING THE COURT: WHY THE PUBLIC CONSTRAINS JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE}, Year = {2020}, ISBN = {978-1-107-18841-9}, Key = {fds367072} } %% Journal Articles @article{fds332977, Author = {Johnston, CD}, Title = {Authoritarianism, Affective Polarization, and Economic Ideology}, Journal = {Political Psychology}, Volume = {39}, Pages = {219-238}, Publisher = {WILEY}, Year = {2018}, Month = {February}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/pops.12483}, Abstract = {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} } @article{fds303780, 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} } @article{fds287730, Author = {Federico, CM and Johnston, CD and Lavine, HG}, Title = {Context, engagement, and the (multiple) functions of negativity bias.}, Journal = {The 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 engagement.}, Doi = {10.1017/s0140525x13002550}, Key = {fds287730} } @article{fds287735, 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 Author.}, Doi = {10.1093/poq/nft004}, Key = {fds287735} } @article{fds318536, 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 = {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} } @article{fds318535, 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 = {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} } @article{fds318537, 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 = {September}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1065912915593644}, Abstract = {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 judgment.}, Doi = {10.1177/1065912915593644}, Key = {fds318537} } @article{fds325141, 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} } @article{fds352646, Author = {Johnston, CD and Newman, BJ and Velez, YR}, Title = {Erratum: Ethnic change, personality, and polarization over immigration in the American public (Public Opinion Quarterly (2020) DOI: 10.1093/poq/nfv022)}, Journal = {Public Opinion Quarterly}, Volume = {84}, Number = {1}, Pages = {182-187}, Year = {2020}, Month = {March}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfaa003}, Abstract = {In Johnston, Newman and Velez (2015), we examine how personality traits related to uncertainty aversion moderate the effect of local ethnic change on perceived cultural threat from immigrants and on immigration-related policy preferences. In two studies-one observational and one experimental-we find that ethnic change increases perceptions of threat and decreases support for immigration among uncertainty-averse citizens but has the opposite effect for the uncertainty tolerant. Neither study finds evidence for similar associations with levels of ethnic diversity. The experimental analyses reported in the original published paper draw on three waves of data collected from Amazon Mechanical Turk and erroneously include responses from workers who participated in the study more than once. In this erratum, we report results from identical models with a corrected dataset that excludes repeat survey takers. The primary conclusion of the study-that ethnic change polarizes immigration opinion by citizen personality-is not affected by this error. However, the corrected results suggest that a randomly assigned experimental treatment containing only ethnic cues-that is, without information about changes in ethnic composition-may also induce personality-based polarization of immigration attitudes relative to a control condition. We discuss possible interpretations of this result.}, Doi = {10.1093/poq/nfaa003}, Key = {fds352646} } @article{fds287729, Author = {Johnston, CD and Newman, B 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 = {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} } @article{fds366404, Author = {Johnston, CD and Ollerenshaw, T}, Title = {How different are cultural and economic ideology?}, Journal = {Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences}, Volume = {34}, Pages = {94-101}, Year = {2020}, Month = {August}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.01.008}, Abstract = {While a single left-right dimension is often used for elites, many scholars have found it useful to distinguish mass political ideology along two dimensions: an ‘economic’ dimension concerning issues of redistribution, regulation, and social insurance, and a ‘cultural’ (or ‘social’) dimension concerning issues of national boundaries and traditional morality. While economic and cultural ideology do not reduce to a single left-right dimension, they are often moderately — and sometimes strongly — correlated. These correlations vary in magnitude and direction across individuals and countries. The association of these dimensions is due, in part, to shared antecedents in psychological needs for security and certainty. However, these needs explain more variance in cultural than economic ideology, and their relationship with the latter varies across individuals and countries. Traits related to empathy, compassion, and agreeableness are an additional source of variation in mass ideology and are especially important to orientations toward inequality and thus to economic ideology.}, Doi = {10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.01.008}, Key = {fds366404} } @article{fds357558, Author = {Guay, B and Johnston, CD}, Title = {Ideological Asymmetries and the Determinants of Politically Motivated Reasoning}, Journal = {American Journal of Political Science}, Volume = {66}, Number = {2}, Pages = {285-301}, Year = {2022}, Month = {April}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12624}, Abstract = {A large literature demonstrates that conservatives have greater needs for certainty than liberals. This suggests an asymmetry hypothesis: Conservatives are less open to new information that conflicts with their political identity and, in turn, political accountability will be lower on the right than the left. However, recent work suggests that liberals and conservatives are equally prone to politically motivated reasoning (PMR). The present article confronts this puzzle. First, we identify significant limitations of extant studies evaluating the asymmetry hypothesis and deploy two national survey experiments to address them. Second, we provide the first direct test of the key theoretical claim underpinning the asymmetry hypothesis: epistemic needs for certainty promote PMR. We find little evidence for the asymmetry hypothesis. Importantly, however, we also find no evidence that epistemic needs promote PMR. That is, although conservatives report greater needs for certainty than liberals, these needs are not a major source of political bias.}, Doi = {10.1111/ajps.12624}, Key = {fds357558} } @article{fds287727, Author = {Johnston, CD and Hillygus, DS and Bartels, BL}, Title = {Ideology, the Affordable Care Act Ruling, and Supreme Court Legitimacy}, 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} } @article{fds287737, Author = {Newman, BJ and Johnston, CD and Strickland, AA and Citrin, J}, Title = {Immigration Crackdown in the American Workplace: Explaining Variation in E-Verify Policy Adoption Across the U.S. States}, Journal = {State Politics and 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} } @article{fds318538, 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 and Society Review}, Volume = {49}, Number = {3}, Pages = {761-794}, Publisher = {WILEY}, Year = {2015}, Month = {September}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12154}, Abstract = {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} } @article{fds370715, Author = {Hjermitslev, IB and Johnston, CD}, Title = {Mixed evidence for a relationship of cognitive fatigue to political engagement}, Journal = {Electoral Studies}, Volume = {83}, Year = {2023}, Month = {June}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2023.102621}, Abstract = {Daily cognitive fatigue is widespread, yet we are still learning about its influence on political behavior. Existing research suggests fatigue will reduce consumption of politics at the margin. Moreover, when fatigued individuals do engage with political material, they should be more likely to choose content and decision rules that require minimal effort. We find mixed empirical evidence for these claims. In observational data, we find a negative relationship between fatigue and engagement, on average, but the coefficients are typically small and statistically insignificant and we find substantial variation across different measures of fatigue. In three experiments, we find mixed evidence that manipulated fatigue reduces the demand for political content over sports and other non-political entertainment. In a fourth experiment, we find no evidence that manipulated fatigue shapes heuristic versus systematic processing. We discuss the limitations of our study, its relationship to existing work, and avenues for future research.}, Doi = {10.1016/j.electstud.2023.102621}, Key = {fds370715} } @article{fds363318, Author = {Johnston, CD and Madson, GJ}, Title = {Negativity bias, personality and political ideology.}, Journal = {Nature human behaviour}, Volume = {6}, Number = {5}, Pages = {666-676}, Year = {2022}, Month = {May}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01327-5}, Abstract = {Research suggests that right-wing ideology is associated with negativity bias: a tendency to pay more attention and give more weight to negative versus positive stimuli. This work typically relies on either self-reported traits related to negativity bias in large, often-representative, samples or physiological and behavioural indicators of negativity bias in small convenience samples. We extend this literature and examine the relationship of negativity bias to political ideology using five distinct behavioural measures of negativity bias in four national samples of US residents with a total analytical sample size of about 4,000 respondents. We also examine the association of these behavioural measures to four of the most common self-report measures of personality in the literature on ideology. Across a wide range of tests, we find no consistent evidence for a relationship of negativity bias to either ideology or self-reported personality.}, Doi = {10.1038/s41562-022-01327-5}, Key = {fds363318} } @article{fds287734, 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 Association.}, Doi = {10.1111/j.1540-5907.2012.00616.x}, Key = {fds287734} } @article{fds325142, 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 = {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} } @article{fds318539, 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} } @article{fds287733, Author = {Bartels, BL and Johnston, CD}, Title = {Political justice? Perceptions of politicization and public preferences toward the supreme court appointment process}, 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 2011.}, Doi = {10.1093/poq/nfr032}, Key = {fds287733} } @article{fds287738, 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}, 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 reserved.}, Doi = {10.1093/poq/nfp096}, Key = {fds287738} } @article{fds363709, Author = {Ollerenshaw, T and Johnston, CD}, Title = {The Conditional Relationship of Psychological Needs to Ideology}, Journal = {Public Opinion Quarterly}, Volume = {86}, Number = {2}, Pages = {369-380}, Publisher = {Oxford University Press (OUP)}, Year = {2022}, Month = {January}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfac004}, Abstract = {We offer novel tests of hypotheses regarding the conditional relationship of psychological needs to political ideology. Using five personality measures and a large national sample, our findings affirm that political engagement plays an important moderating role in the relationship between needs for certainty and security and political identification, values, and policy preferences. We find that needs for certainty and security are strongly associated with right-wing political identification and cultural values and policy preferences, particularly among politically engaged citizens. In the economic domain, however, we find that needs for certainty and security are typically associated with left-wing values and policy preferences among politically unengaged citizens. It is only among politically engaged citizens that such needs are associated with right-wing economic values and policy preferences. Our findings confirm the importance of heterogeneity across both ideological domain and political engagement for how psychological needs translate into political ideology in the American mass public.}, Doi = {10.1093/poq/nfac004}, Key = {fds363709} } @article{fds365151, Author = {Hassell, HJG and Johnston, CD and Khan, J and Cook, E}, Title = {The nature and impact of emotional content in congressional candidate emails to supporters}, Journal = {Electoral Studies}, Volume = {79}, Pages = {102501-102501}, Publisher = {Elsevier BV}, Year = {2022}, Month = {October}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2022.102501}, Abstract = {Previous research suggests that appeals to anger and enthusiasm increase voter participation but decrease deliberation and openness to persuasion, while appeals to anxiety increase information-seeking and deliberation but not participation. Thus, campaigns have incentives to consider the emotional nature of their communications with voters and to differentiate distinct emotions that share valence categories. We examine the emotional content of emails sent by candidates for the US House to partisan supporters and test the effects of these appeals on voter behavior. Overall, emails contain more enthusiasm and anger relative to a set of political “letters to the editor” drawn from major US newspapers and, in some cases, relative to a set of randomly generated “pseudo-emails” based on word frequency in typical discourse. We do not, however, find any consistent differences in emotional language across candidate or campaign factors, such as incumbency and competitiveness. In a unique quasi-experimental study fielded during the 2018 election, using actual campaign emails, we also find little evidence that the emotional content of campaign communications influences citizens. This is true regardless of whether we measure emotional content using objective codings or subjective judgments by human coders. We discuss methodological difficulties encountered in our work and possible lessons for future research on this topic.}, Doi = {10.1016/j.electstud.2022.102501}, Key = {fds365151} } @article{fds287736, 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} } %% Other @misc{fds287726, 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} } @misc{fds303781, Author = {Johnston, CD}, Title = {Review of Competing Motives in the Partisan Mind: How Loyalty and Responsiveness Shape Party Identification and Democracy}, Journal = {Political Science Quarterly}, Volume = {129}, Number = {3}, Pages = {547-548}, Publisher = {Oxford University Press (OUP)}, Year = {2014}, Month = {September}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/polq.12231}, Doi = {10.1002/polq.12231}, Key = {fds303781} } @misc{fds287725, 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} } | |
Duke University * Arts & Sciences * Political Science * Faculty * Staff * Grad * Master * Foreign Exchange * Reload * Login |