Jennifer L. Merolla

“Illegal,” “Undocumented,” or “Unauthorized”: Equivalency Frames, Issue Frames, and Public Opinion on Immigration

Immigration has been a salient and contentious topic in the United States, with a great deal of congressional debate, advocacy efforts, and media coverage. Among conservative and liberal groups, there is a vigorous debate over the terms used to describe this population, such as “undocumented” or “illegal,” as both sides perceive significant consequences to public opinion that flow out of this choice in equivalency frames. These same groups also compete over the ways in which immigration policies are framed. Here, for the first time, we examine the use of both types of frames (of immigrants themselves, and the policies affecting them) in media coverage. Importantly, we also test for whether these various frames affect preferences on three different policies of legalization. Our results suggest that efforts to focus on the terms used to describe immigrants have limited effect, and that efforts to frame policy offer greater promise in swaying public opinion on immigration.

Sex, Stereotypes, and Security: A Study of the Effects of Terrorist Threat on Assessments of Female Leadership

This project examines the extent to which terrorist threat shapes affect assessments of female political leadership and whether these assessments are affected by the characteristics of the evaluated leader. Using experimental and survey data, we find that conditions of terrorist threat increase the expression of certain gender-trait stereotypes and negatively affect evaluations of female Democratic leaders. Our analysis further suggests that Republican women and/or those with strong national security experience may be able to overcome the otherwise negative implications of security threats and gender-trait stereotypes.

Can Canadians Take a Hint? The (In)Effectiveness of Party Labels as Information Shortcuts in Canada

This paper represents a first look at the usefulness of Canadian political parties as information shortcuts. We present results from a student experiment that tested whether knowing a party’s position on an issue influenced opinion formation. We find that, contrary to the findings in other countries, Canadian political parties are not consistently useful as information cues. The Liberal Party cue is hardly useful, and the Conservative Party cue can be effective, but appears to push partisans toward a more liberal stance on selected opinions. Only the NDP cue appears to fulfill the cue-providing role that the literature expects. Acknowledgements. We would like to thank the IGA Junior Faculty Research Program at UC Davis for providing funding for the project, and Anna Esselment and Josh Morgan for research assistance. Studies of Canadian politics have begun to acknowledge a significant trend toward lower political information levels in Canada (Gidengil et al. 2004, Howe 2003, Fournier 2002). If this is so, how are Canadians determining their political preferences? In common conceptions of democratic governance, citizens elect representatives who reflect their policy preferences (e.g., Ranney 1962). Yet for electoral mandates to be meaningful, citizens must first have opinions on relevant political issues, which requires that the citizens have information. How can citizens overcome this deficiency? Or do they? Of the many suggestions that have been put forward (see Gidengil et al. 2004, ch. 4 for a review), the possibility of using party labels as information shortcuts has yet to be evaluated. It is possible that Canadians could use party labels, and the ideological information they contain, as cues to develop their own opinions. This idea was promoted by Downs (1957) and has found significant support in the American context (Popkin 1994). Party labels are purportedly one of the most useful heuristic aids because they are very accessible and “travel so well” across different decision domains (Huckfeldt et al. 1999). In the United States, party labels help individuals to predict the issue positions of political candidates, determine and organize their own issue positions, and “correctly” select political leaders without possessing “encyclopedic” levels of information (e.g., Downs 1957; Huckfeldt et al. 1999; Lau and Redlawsk 2001; Lodge and Hamill 1986; Popkin 1994; Sniderman, Brody, and Tetlock 1991). In the Canadian context, Jenson (1976) suggested that partisan identification should be viewed through the lens of party labels as voting shortcuts, but despite musings about the possibility of such an information shortcut being utilized by voters (see Gidengil et al. 2004), there has yet to be a systematic investigation of its effectiveness. This paper addresses this gap in the literature, using data collected from an experimental study implemented in the spring of 2004 that sought to understand if and how party labels (Liberal, Conservative, NDP) are used as political cues across a range of political issues by a selected group of Canadian citizens. Extant Theoretical Perspectives In an early study of the United States, Converse found that citizens’ opinions on policy items were unrelated to each other, that people failed to respond to many pressing issues, and that opinions over time were inconsistent (Converse 1964). The implication of these and related findings was that the electorate was hardly capable of making reasonable political decisions. Other research, much of it coming later in time, challenged these claims by arguing that citizens could make reasonable choices with limited information if they rely on information short-cuts, or heuristics (e.g., Downs 1957; Hinich and Munger 1994; McKelvey and Ordeshook 1985, 1986; Neuman 1986; Page and Shapiro 1992; Popkin 1994; Sniderman, Brody and Tetlock 1991). One potential heuristic aid, universally found in competitive party systems, is the party label. Beginning with Downs (1957), it has been argued that one of the primary purposes of political parties is to provide an information short-cut for voters, to help them understand the issue positions and/or ideology of political actors. The utility of party labels has been investigated in a variety of domains, primarily in the U.S. context. In terms of voting, people rely on partisan cues in the voting booth (Lau and Redlawsk 2001; Popkin 1994; Rahn 1993), especially in low information elections (Schaffner and Streb 2002; Squire and Smith 1988). As long as candidates hold issue positions consistent with those of their party, voters are likely to select the “correct” candidate if they are told the party of the candidate (Lau and Redlawsk 2001; Rahn 1993). Furthermore, party cues can help citizens to predict the issue positions of candidates and to place them on an ideological spectrum (e.g., Conover and Feldman 1989; Huckfeldt et al. 1999; Kahn 1994; Koch 2001; Lodge and

Terrorist Threat, Male Stereotypes, and Candidate Evaluations

How does the threat of terrorism affect evaluations of female (vs. male) political leaders, and do these effects vary by the politician’s partisanship? Using two national surveys, we document a propensity for the U.S. public to prefer male Republican leadership the most in times of security threat, and female Democratic leadership the least. We theorize a causal process by which terrorist threat influences the effect of stereotypes on candidate evaluations conditional on politician partisanship. We test this framework with an original experiment:a nationally representative sample was presented with a mock election that varied the threat context and the gender and partisanship of the candidates. We find that masculine stereotypes have a negative influence on both male and female Democratic candidates in good times (thus reaffirming the primacy of party stereotypes), but only on the female Democratic candidate when terror threat is primed. Republican candidates—both male and female—are unaffected by masculine stereotypes, regardless of the threat environment.

From Coverage to Action: The Immigration Debate and Its Effects on Participation

The past decade has witnessed a proliferation of media stories about immigration as a result of increases in authorized and unauthorized immigration to the United States. Scholars know little about how this coverage influences political participation across different groups in society. This study employs an experimental design to test the effects of different media frames on immigration in spurring political participation among recent immigrant-rooted communities and non-immigrant-rooted communities. The authors find strong mobilizing effects among Latinos, particularly for frames that highlight social costs and national security concerns, and weak to no effects on Asians, African Americans, and whites.

What is the Difference between a Hockey Mom and a Pit Bull? Presentations of Palin and Gender Stereotypes in the 2008 Presidential Election

This study explores what effect different campaign information frames have on voters’ evaluations of Sarah Palin using data from an online experiment. We show that descriptions highlighting more stereotypically feminine attributes cause individuals to perceive Palin as holding more feminine traits, while those highlighting more masculine attributes lead to higher assessments of her masculine traits. Those that mix feminine and masculine attributes lead to higher assessments of Palin’s masculine traits and null effects on her feminine traits. We show that Palin benefits the most in overall evaluations by being perceived as high on both masculine and feminine traits.

The Nature, Determinants, and Consequences of Chávez’s Charisma: Evidence From a Study of Venezuelan Public Opinion

Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez is frequently labeled “charismatic,” but this aspect of his leadership has mostly escaped direct argument and analysis. The authors offer a measure of charisma and a reciprocal account of the relationship between charisma and performance evaluations. Data from a national survey of Venezuelans confirm that perceptions of Chávez’s charisma in 2007 were comparatively high. Using three-stage least squares regression analysis the authors then document a highly dynamic process, by which poor performance erodes perceptions of Chávez’s charisma (and favors an opponent) while lingering beliefs in that charisma lead some to see better conditions than are perceived by those who do not subscribe to the charismatic sheen. The argument and analysis sharpen understandings of the nature, determinants, and consequences of charisma. The authors suggest that and explain why public support for Chávez is likely to recede at a slow, protracted pace rather than be abruptly withdrawn.

Evaluating Political Leaders in Times of Terror and Economic Threat: The Conditioning Influence of Politician Partisanship

We theorize that evaluations of leaders under terrorist and economic threat vary by both incumbency status and politician partisanship. This argument is based on insights from theories of rally effects, economic voting, and issue ownership, and we assess it with data from four national studies. The first two are experiments featuring hypothetical candidates; consistent with expectations based on issue ownership, the analyses show that Republican incumbents (Democratic challengers) are viewed comparatively better in times of terrorist (economic) threat. Then, with another experiment and with survey data, we consider evaluations of President Obama, whose image under terrorist threat should be helped by his incumbency but harmed by his partisanship, and the reverse for economic decline. We again find evidence supporting our argument and, further, individual-level evidence of issue ownership effects. We conclude that threats, incumbency status, and politician partisanship interact in important ways as they affect evaluations of political leaders.

Multiple Dimensions of Mobilization: The Effect of Direct Contact and Political Ads on Latino Turnout in the 2000 Presidential Election

Campaigns are not national, monolithic, one-size-fits-all events, but instead can be viewed as separate, segmented attempts to engage different groups of voters. This paper explores the effectiveness of different types of mobilization strategies among one group of voters, Latinos. Drawing from an integrated marketing communications framework, we argue that both direct contact and indirect contact should be effective in mobilizing Latinos, with the former having a stronger effect. In addition, we argue that targeted strategies should be more effective than general strategies among this segment of the population. We find support for these hypotheses using data from the 2000 TRPI survey and CMAG data.

The Paradox of Protestantism and Women in Elected Office in the United States

ABSTRACT In cross-national studies, scholars have found that wealthy countries and those with a Protestant tradition are more likely to have higher levels of women in elected office. Even though the United States should then be high in this domain, it lags behind many similarly situated countries. We posit that one reason for this paradox is that Protestantism in the United States is far more socially conservative than is typical in other Protestant countries. To test our argument, we use state-level data on the proportion of women in elected office from 2002 to 2004 and survey data on church membership. We find a negative relationship between the percentage of Protestants belonging to churches associated with the National Association of Evangelicals, a lobbying group representing socially conservative Protestant denominations, and the proportion of women in elected office.