In 1974 an article appeared in Science magazine with the dry-sounding title “Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases” by a pair of psychologists who were not well known outside their discipline of decision theory. In it Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman introduced the world to Prospect Theory, which mapped out how humans actually behave when faced with decisions about gains and losses, in contrast to how economists assumed that people behave. Prospect Theory turned Economics on its head by demonstrating through a series of ingenious experiments that people are much more concerned with losses than they are with gains, and that framing a choice from one perspective or the other will result in decisions that are exactly the opposite of each other, even if the outcomes are monetarily the same. Prospect Theory led cognitive psychology in a new direction that began to uncover other human biases in thinking that are probably not learned but are part of our brain’s wiring.

Thinking fast and slow.

Originally published in Contemporary Psychology: APA Review of Books, 1994, Vol 39(2), 225. Reviews the book, The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion by John Zaller (1992). The author's commendable effort to specify a model of mass opinion formation offers readers an introduction to the prevailing vi

The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion.

A morphable model for the synthesis of 3D faces

Definition: To what extent does the study allow us to draw conclusions about a causal effect between two or more constructs? Issues: Selection, maturation, history, mortality, testing, regression towrd the mean, selection by maturation, treatment by mortality, treatment by testing, measured treatment variables Increase: Eliminate the threats, above all do experimental manipulations, random assignment, and counterbalancing.

Reliability and validity

While previously polarization was primarily seen only in issue-based terms, a new type of division has emerged in the mass public in recent years: Ordinary Americans increasingly dislike and distru...

https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034

The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States

Polarizing Cues: POLARIZING CUES

Although dramatic partisan change among the electorate is infrequent, the issue agendas of parties may produce large shifts. A major cause of such change is the politics of race. In a political environment charged with racially oriented issues, racial groups often align themselves with different parties (as witnessed most recently in the American South). Yet, if racial appeals violate norms of equality, these appeals may rebound on the party using them. Consequently, members of the (white) racial majority and racially targeted minority may both move away from the offending party. Using data from the California Field Poll, we find that racially charged ballot propositions sponsored by the Republican party during the 1990s in California reversed the trend among Latinos and Anglos toward identifying as Republican, ceteris paribus, by shifting party attachments toward the Democratic party. Our results raise serious questions about the long-term efficacy of racially divisive strategies for electoral gain.

Earthquakes and Aftershocks: Race, Direct Democracy, and Partisan Change

Studies that examine whether voters make informed decisions on direct legislation and whether direct legislation enhances civic engagement presume a basic awareness of ballot propositions, yet little is known about why some ballot propositions are more widely known than others. Despite the fact that research on awareness of ballot propositions and political awareness focus on individual factors, the political environment plays a vital role. This study seeks to advance our understanding of environmental factors in explaining awareness of ballot propositions. Using data on California ballot elections between the years 1956 and 2000, I find that the political environment has a substantial effect on voter awareness. Specifically, I find that the electoral cycle, media coverage, campaign spending, voter fatigue, the number of days before an election, and issues that concern morality, civil liberties, and civil rights contribute to ballot proposition awareness.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3186105.pdf

The Political Environment and Ballot Proposition Awareness

Scholars have found source cues—the political actors behind a policy issue—to be a potent cause of opinion change. The implication is an easily persuaded public. I advance the argument that the public is not so easily persuaded. A policy featuring group beneficiaries provides a highly informative cue, one that is likely to dominate source cues. This insight is based on research demonstrating that people ignore source cues if they engage the subject matter at hand. Using a variety of experiments, I find that group beneficiary cues often dominate source cues. However, I also find that source cues affect opinion if they provide unexpected information about (1) an endorsement that is contrary to the source’s beliefs or (2) feature an extreme, disliked outgroup.

Dominating Cues and the Limits of Elite Influence

Public support for political actors and institutions depends on the frames emphasized in elite debate, especially following a political controversy. In the aftermath of Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court made itself the object of political controversy because it effectively ended the 2000 presidential election. Opponents of the decision framed the Supreme Court ruling as partisan and “stealing the election,” while supporters framed it as a principled vote based on legal considerations. Using survey data, we examine how framing the controversy in these terms shaped the Court's public support. In so doing, we examine the distinction between specific support (e.g., confidence in officeholders) and diffuse support (e.g., institutional legitimacy). We find that framing the decision in terms of partisan decision making influences specific support, but it does not affect diffuse support. However, framing the justices' motives in terms of ending the election, a specific consequence of the decision, reduces diffuse s...

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1111/1468-2508.00207

Stephen P. Nicholson

Papers

Polarizing Cues: POLARIZING CUES

Earthquakes and Aftershocks: Race, Direct Democracy, and Partisan Change

The Political Environment and Ballot Proposition Awareness

Dominating Cues and the Limits of Elite Influence

Framing Support for the Supreme Court in the Aftermath of Bush v. Gore