This article found that polarization intensifies the impact of party endorsements on opinions, decreases impact of substantive information and stimulates greater confidence in those less substantively grounded opinions, and that polarized environments fundamentally change how citizens make decisions.
Abstract:
Competition is a defining element of democracy. One of the most noteworthy events over the last quarter-century in U.S. politics is the change in the nature of elite party competition: The parties have become increasingly polarized. Scholars and pundits actively debate how these elite patterns influence polarization among the public (e.g., have citizens also become more ideologically polarized?). Yet, few have addressed what we see as perhaps more fundamental questions: Has elite polarization altered the way citizens arrive at their policy opinions in the first place and, if so, in what ways? We address these questions with a theory and two survey experiments (on the issues of drilling and immigration). We find stark evidence that polarized environments fundamentally change how citizens make decisions. Specifically, polarization intensifies the impact of party endorsements on opinions, decreases the impact of substantive information and, perhaps ironically, stimulates greater confidence in those—less substantively grounded—opinions. We discuss the implications for public opinion formation and the nature of democratic competition.
TL;DR: This paper conducted two studies of how experimental treatment effects obtained from convenience samples compare to effects produced by population samples and concluded that the utility of convenience samples can be justified by the similarity of treatment effects between convenience and nationally representative population-based samples.
TL;DR: The authors examined if the emergence of more partisan media has contributed to political polarization and led Americans to support more partisan policies and candidates, and found no evidence for a causal link between more partisan messages and changing attitudes or behaviors.
TL;DR: This article explored partisan motivated reasoning in a survey experiment focusing on support for an energy law and identified two politically relevant factors that condition partisan motivation: (1) an explicit inducement to form an “accurate” opinion, and (2) cross-partisan, but not consensus, bipartisan support for the law.
TL;DR: The authors argue that political misperceptions are typically rooted in directionally motivated reasoning, which limits the effectiveness of corrective information about controversial issues and political figures, and discuss factors known to affect the prevalence of directional motivated reasoning.
TL;DR: In this article, the authors focus on the demographic differences between MTurk samples and tester data and find that there is no demographic difference between tester samples and test data.
TL;DR: In this article, the authors extended recent research on motivated reasoning to test whether accuracy goals (i.e., reaching correct conclusions) and directional goals (e.g., reaching preferred conclusions) affect perceptions of majority pref- erences.
TL;DR: The authors examined the role of political parties in framing effects and found that voters judge the party frame according to their own beliefs about the problems surrounding the issue, even strong partisans do not follow the party line uncritically.
TL;DR: In this article, the authors argue that motivated decision makers bias their judgments more or less as needed to support the desired conclusion, subject to "reasonableness" constraints, and demonstrate that motivated participants exhibit confidence bolstering and remain at least as confident as non-motivated participants in their biased estimates.
TL;DR: In this paper, a conceptualization applies to any object of evaluation (and, thus, any set of objects over which individuals have preferences) over which they have expressed their preferences.
TL;DR: This article showed that when partisan debate on an important issue receives extensive media coverage, partisanship systematically affects and is affected by issue attitudes, while when the issue is not being contested, dynamic updating between party ties and issue attitudes ceases.
Q1. What contributions have the authors mentioned in the paper "How elite partisan polarization affects public opinion formation" ?
The authors discuss the implications for public opinion formation and the nature of democratic competition.
Q2. What are the future works in "How elite partisan polarization affects public opinion formation" ?
Clearly, the timing, nature, and intensity of competition affect preference formation, and future work that fails to incorporate these political realities will also fail to come to grips with the dynamics of opinion formation.
Q3. How many people correctly recalled the pro and con positions of the parties?
On the drilling issue, on average 89% of participants correctly recalled the pro and con positions of the parties (ranging from 85% to 94% across the eight conditions with party cues), and on the immigration issue 87% correctly recalled party positions.
Q4. How did the economic argument affect the support for drilling?
In other words, the strong economic argument, when pitted against the weak regulation frame, increased support for drilling by nearly 19% among Democrats and 14% among Republicans.
Q5. What is the effect of polarized parties on people's attitudes?
In the long term, overconfidence may speak to the stability of political parties in general (Johnson and Fowler 2011), which may be of concern: Polarized parties lead to more confidence in opinions; that is, people consider29
Q6. What does the author think about the effect of competition on the way people form opinions?
because politics takes place over time and hence so does competition, one should not presume that competition works perfectly in how it shapes opinions.
Q7. What is the key to the dynamic uncovered by Iyengar, Sood,?
This is the type of dynamic uncovered by Iyengar, Sood, and Lelkes (2012) who find that negative campaigning between parties, which stems from increased polarization, is “an especially important contextual factor that heightens the salience of partisan identity.”
Q8. What did the researchers find when they encountered a mix of strong and weak frames?
When another group of respondents encountered a mix of these frames, only the strong frames affected their opinion (e.g., a single exposure to the strong economic frame moved opinion by 41%), even in the face of multiple negative moral value frames (also see Aarøe 2011).
Q9. what is the role of political parties in a democracy?
In addition to discussions of opinion quality, their results also have implications for research on the role of political parties in a democracy.