Shot by the Messenger: Partisan Cues and Public Opinion Regarding National Security and War

Baum, Matthew; Groeling, Tim

doi:10.1007/s11109-008-9074-9

Cited by 138 publications

(100 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…By contrast, for non-conservatives, agreement went from 22% to 13% (n = 97). 22 More generally, Hartman and Weber (2009) and Baum and Groeling (2009) find that messages from sources that match a subject's ideological or partisan affiliation are more persuasive than those that do not.…”

Section: Study 2: Spring 2006mentioning

confidence: 99%

When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An extensive literature addresses citizen ignorance, but very little research focuses on misperceptions. Can these false or unsubstantiated beliefs about politics be corrected? Previous studies have not tested the efficacy of corrections in a realistic format. We conducted four experiments in which subjects read mock news articles that included either a misleading claim from a politician, or a misleading claim and a correction. Results indicate that corrections frequently fail to reduce misperceptions among the targeted ideological group. We also document several instances of a ''backfire effect'' in which corrections actually increase misperceptions among the group in question.

show abstract

Section: Study 2: Spring 2006mentioning

confidence: 99%

When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Further, several researchers explain causal inferences in terms of expectancies (Baum and Groeling, 2009;Eagly and Chaiken, 1975;Eagly et al, 1978;Vermeulen and Seegers, 2009;Wood and Eagly, 1981). Specifically, it has been suggested that, the more a communicator's position advocated in the persuasive message is expected based on the communicator's dispositional characteristics, the more recipients of the message will discount factual evidence as a plausible cause, and the less persuasive will be the message.…”

Section: H1mentioning

confidence: 99%

Consumer reviews: reviewer avatar facial expression and review valence

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to explore how the facial expression of the reviewer's avatar interacts with the valence of the consumer review to influence consumer purchase decisions. Design/methodology/approach -A 2 (facial expression of the reviewer's avatar) Â 2 (valence of the consumer review) between-subjects online experimental design was used. Findings -It was found that when the consumer review was positive, participants exposed to the reviewer's angry-looking avatar were more likely to attribute the review to the product's performance than those exposed to the happy-looking avatar. The causal attribution toward product performance, in turn, influenced the strength of intention to purchase the brand positively. When the consumer review was negative, however, there were no differential effects between the happy-looking and the angry-looking avatars. Originality/value -This study contributes to the literature on consumer reviews by identifying an important source characteristic that consumers consider when processing consumer reviews -the facial expression of the reviewer's avatar.

show abstract

“…See also Lacina and Lee (2012), who examine how regime type affects perceptions of threat, and Geva and Hanson (1999), who focus on sociocultural similarity. 2 For other recent examples of experiments about international security, see Herrmann, Tetlock, and Visser (1999); Herrmann and Shannon (2001); Berinsky (2007; ;Gartner (2008); Baum and Groeling (2009) ;Gelpi, Feaver, and Reifler (2009) ;Grieco et al (2011); Horowitz and Levendusky (2011);McDermott (2011); Tingley (2011); Tingley and Walter (2011);Tomz (2007); Trager and Vavreck (2011); Levendusky and Horowitz (2012), and Press, Sagan, and Valentino (2013). hypothesis that the preferences of ordinary voters contribute to peace among democracies.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Public Opinion and the Democratic Peace

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ew findings in political science have received as much attention as the "democratic peace," the discovery that democracies almost never fight other democracies (Doyle 1986;Russett 1993). To some, the absence of military conflict among democracies is so consistent that it approaches the status of an "empirical law" (Levy 1988).Some authors have attempted to explain the democratic peace by highlighting the role of public opinion. They observe that democratic leaders are beholden to voters and claim that voters oppose war because of its human and financial costs. This argument, which dates to Immanuel Kant, predicts that democracies will behave peacefully in general-avoiding war not only against democracies but also against autocracies. History shows, however, that democracies frequently fight autocracies.A different possibility is that democratic publics are primarily averse to war against other democracies. If leaders are responsive to voters and voters are more reluctant to fight democracies than otherwise equivalent autocracies, then public opinion could play an important role in the dyadic democratic peace. To date, however, surprisingly few studies have investi- gated whether democratic publics are more reluctant to attack democracies than autocracies.1 Moreover, the small body of existing work has not accounted for variables that could confound the relationship between shared democracy and public support for war, nor has it investigated the mechanisms by which the regime type of the adversary affects the public mood. Despite decades of research on the democratic peace, we still lack convincing evidence about whether and how public opinion contributes to the absence of war among democracies.We used experiments to shed new light on these important questions.2 Our experiments, embedded in public opinion polls that were administered to nationally representative samples of British and American citizens, involved a situation in which a country was developing nuclear weapons. When describing the situation, we randomly and independently varied four potential sources of peace: the political regime, alliance status, economic ties, and military power of the adversary. We then asked individuals whether they would support or oppose a preventive military strike against the country's nuclear facilities.Participants in our experiments were substantially less supportive of military strikes against democracies than against otherwise identical autocracies. Moreover, because we randomly and independently manipulated the regime type of the adversary, the observed preference for peace with other democracies was almost certainly causal, rather than spurious. Our findings therefore provide empirical microfoundations for the 1 For exceptions, see Geva, DeRouen, and Mintz (1993); Johns and Davies (2012);Rousseau (2005). See also Lacina and Lee (2012), who examine how regime type affects perceptions of threat, and Geva and Hanson (1999), who focus on sociocultural similarity. 2 For other recent examples of experiments about internatio...

show abstract

Shot by the Messenger: Partisan Cues and Public Opinion Regarding National Security and War

Cited by 138 publications

References 32 publications

When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions

When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions

Consumer reviews: reviewer avatar facial expression and review valence

Public Opinion and the Democratic Peace

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About