Political Science
Arts & Sciences
Duke University
| |
Faculty Database Political Science Arts & Sciences Duke University |
|
| HOME > Arts & Sciences > Political Science > Faculty | Search Help Login |
|
| Publications of Christopher Johnston :chronological by type listing:
%%
@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}
}
@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}
}
@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}
}
@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}
}
@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}
}
@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}
}
@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}
}
@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{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}
}
@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}
}
@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{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}
}
@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}
}
@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}
}
@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}
}
@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}
}
@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}
}
@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}
}
@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}
}
@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}
}
@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}
}
| |
Duke University * Arts & Sciences * Political Science * Faculty * Staff * Grad * Master * Foreign Exchange * Reload * Login | ||
