Benjamin R. Knoll

Implicit Nativist Attitudes, Social Desirability, and Immigration Policy Preferences

While previous research on immigration attitudes among the American public has focused on factors such as economic threat, social context, and racial prejudice, fewer studies have examined the psychological determinants of immigration policy preferences. This study analyzes the results of an implicit association test (IAT) procedure that measures automatic nativist preferences for a traditional American culture versus a Latino-American culture {i.e., implicit nativist attitudes). In brief, this study demonstrates that implicit nativist attitudes are fairly common, that they are an independent predictor of immigration policy attitudes, and that they affect those who are not explicitly nativist but who still hold restrictionist policy views.

Immigration Enforcement and the Redistribution of Political Trust

Social construction theory argues that public policy creates powerful feedback effects and that groups burdened by policy feel alienated. We reevaluate this argument by examining how immigration enforcement policies affect Latino immigrants, native-born Latinos, and Anglos. Using data from a 2012 survey of Texas residents and government statistics on the Secure Communities program, we find that higher removal rates, especially among noncriminal populations, are associated with negative political orientations among native- and foreign-born Latinos. We also extend social construction theory by arguing that the attitudes of individuals outside the target group are affected by enforcement. Our findings show that Anglos living in high-enforcement contexts are the most trusting of government and externally efficacious. We conclude that immigration policy enforcement redistributes trust in government from resource-deprived immigrants to Anglos. Enforcement practices thus perpetuate existing political inequalities.

Learning by Doing: Mentoring Group-Based Undergraduate Research Projects in an Upper-Level Political Science Course

Undergraduate research (UGR) is a “high-impact practice” that has been consistently shown to effectively promote desirable student-learning outcomes (SLOs) including critical thinking, logic, written and oral communication, problem solving, and interpretation of evidence, especially among minority and disadvantaged students. Mentoring quality UGR experiences in regular upper-level political science courses, however, is a difficult and time-consuming activity. This article describes an attempt to provide an intensive, semester-long, and group-based UGR experience in an upper-level American politics course. It discusses how this experience was designed to deliberately foster specific institutional UGR SLOs and summarizes student perceptions of the overall effectiveness of the experience.

Physiological responses and political behavior: Three reproductions using a novel dataset

One of the most provocative recent findings in our understanding of political behavior is the link between physiological responses to environmental stimuli and political attitudes and behavior. This line of research holds much promise in explaining some of the foundational evolutionary origins of basic political orientations. Much of this recent research focused specifically on skin conductance response to threatening and disgusting stimuli, however, is based on analyses of a data collection sample of approximately 200 study participants drawn from the same community at a single point in time. Herein we attempt to reproduce many of the basic findings of recent research on skin conductance response and political behavior using data collected from a novel and unique dataset in a different context. In brief, we fail to reproduce many of the basic findings from this incipient line of research which suggests that the link between skin conductance and political behavior may be more contingent than previously assumed.

Response to "Framing unauthorized immigrants: the effects of labels on evaluations," by Ommundsen, et al. (2014).

Ommundsen, Larsen, van der Veer, and Eilertsen (2014) presented evidence that varying how immigrants are described in surveys can lead to differences in how respondents to those surveys change their self-reported orientations toward those immigrants and immigration policy. We argue that the apparent conflict between their findings and those of Knoll, Redlawsk, and Sanborn (2011) should be interpreted as complementary rather than contradictory. In particular, differences in samples, timing, and dependent variables limit direct comparisons between the studies. Moreover, because Ommundsen, et al. (2014) do not have a measure of partisanship and did not test for interaction effects between ideology and frames, their broader conclusions are limited given that immigration is such a highly charged political issue that is strongly affected by political ideology and partisan cues.