Matching Items (5)
Filtering by
- Genre: Doctoral Dissertation
Description
Voting in presidential primaries, compared to general elections, provides a challenging task for voters given the lack of party cues, the similarity of the candidates' policy positions, and the relatively low information levels. As trustworthy sources of local information, local news media in presidential primaries have a profound potential to shape voters' evaluations of candidates. I argue that the proximity of local news, its local nature, makes it a trusted and influential source of candidate information, moderated by candidates' prominence. Furthermore, variation in local news across states as a result of differences in standards of newsworthiness and organizational resources helps clarify the distinct role that local news plays in voter opinion of presidential primary candidates. Relying on an original content analysis of news coverage in 11 battleground and early primary states, and utilizing an extensive panel survey of 5,301 respondents over the course of the 2008 primary campaign, I am able to match primary voters with their local news content. I examine the influence of the quantity and tone of local news coverage on voters' evaluations of presidential candidates over the course of the primary season. The findings suggest that local news outlets provide voters with vastly different amounts and types of campaign news. I find that the amount of local news coverage influences people's willingness to evaluate presidential candidates. In addition, evaluations of low tier presidential candidates are significantly influenced by the tone of local news coverage, even after controlling for voters' ideological predispositions and local candidate activities. These findings suggest that local news coverage has a powerful effect on voters' evaluations of low tier candidates in particular, consistently shaping voters' recognition and evaluations of these candidates. The availability and bias of candidate information in presidential primaries may ultimately impact electoral outcomes in both nominating contests and general elections.
ContributorsCarle, Jill (Author) / Fridkin, Kim (Thesis advisor) / Kenney, Patrick (Committee member) / Espino, Rodolfo (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2014
Description
ABSTRACT
Although the US government has been using remotely piloted aircraft (RPA), more commonly referred to as drones, to conduct military strikes against terrorists and insurgents since at least 2001, only around 2011 did media outlets and polling organizations began assessing the attitudes of Americans towards the use of drones as a weapon of war. Initially, public support for drone strikes was robust with nearly 70 percent of Americans expressing approval. As the discussion of drone strikes intensified however, public support declined over 10 percentage points.
Only a handful of studies have examined public opinion and drone strikes, and all have focused exclusively on explaining support. This study seeks to fill this gap in the literature and explain opposition to drone strikes. The primary argument put forth in this dissertation is that people’s beliefs determine their opinions, and their morality determines their beliefs. Although independent opinion formation is often considered a cognitive process, I argue that, at least in the case of drone strikes, the opinion formation process is largely an affective one.
By examining media coverage and elite discourse surrounding drone strikes, I isolate three narratives which I believe communicate certain messages to the public regarding drone strikes. I argue that the messages produced by elite discourse and disseminated by the media to the public are only influential on opinion formation once they have been converted to beliefs. I further argue that conversion of message to belief is largely dependent on individual moral attitudes.
To test my arguments, I conduct a survey-experiment using subjects recruited from Arizona State University’s School of Politics and Global Studies student subject pool. My research findings lead to two key conclusions. First, opposition to drone strikes is largely the product of the belief(s) that drone strikes are not necessary for protecting the United States from terrorist attack, and that drone strikes kill more civilians than do strikes from conventional aircraft. Second, whether an individual expresses support or opposition to drone strikes, moral attitudes are a relatively good predictor of both beliefs and disposition.
Although the US government has been using remotely piloted aircraft (RPA), more commonly referred to as drones, to conduct military strikes against terrorists and insurgents since at least 2001, only around 2011 did media outlets and polling organizations began assessing the attitudes of Americans towards the use of drones as a weapon of war. Initially, public support for drone strikes was robust with nearly 70 percent of Americans expressing approval. As the discussion of drone strikes intensified however, public support declined over 10 percentage points.
Only a handful of studies have examined public opinion and drone strikes, and all have focused exclusively on explaining support. This study seeks to fill this gap in the literature and explain opposition to drone strikes. The primary argument put forth in this dissertation is that people’s beliefs determine their opinions, and their morality determines their beliefs. Although independent opinion formation is often considered a cognitive process, I argue that, at least in the case of drone strikes, the opinion formation process is largely an affective one.
By examining media coverage and elite discourse surrounding drone strikes, I isolate three narratives which I believe communicate certain messages to the public regarding drone strikes. I argue that the messages produced by elite discourse and disseminated by the media to the public are only influential on opinion formation once they have been converted to beliefs. I further argue that conversion of message to belief is largely dependent on individual moral attitudes.
To test my arguments, I conduct a survey-experiment using subjects recruited from Arizona State University’s School of Politics and Global Studies student subject pool. My research findings lead to two key conclusions. First, opposition to drone strikes is largely the product of the belief(s) that drone strikes are not necessary for protecting the United States from terrorist attack, and that drone strikes kill more civilians than do strikes from conventional aircraft. Second, whether an individual expresses support or opposition to drone strikes, moral attitudes are a relatively good predictor of both beliefs and disposition.
ContributorsDavis, Christopher Todd (Author) / Wood, Reed (Thesis advisor) / Fridkin, Kim (Committee member) / Kubiak, Jeffrey (Committee member) / Wright, Thorin (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2019
Description
In 1985 Schotland made the observation that judicial campaigns were becoming “nosier, nastier, and costlier.” Because judicial campaigns are one of very few occasions in which individuals receive information about the bench (Schaffner and Diascro 2007), there is a possibility that such negativity in judicial elections could harm individual perceptions of the legitimacy of state supreme courts (Gibson 2008). This dissertation seeks to uncover the amount of negativity present in judicial campaigns, and to understand the effects of such negativity on perceptions of state courts’ specific and diffuse legitimacy.
To accomplish this goal I first conduct a content analysis of all televised judicial advertisements aired from 2005-2016. While other scholars have examined the use of attack advertisements in judicial elections (Hall 2014), my study is the first to consider ads airing before and after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling that removed spending limits for political groups. I find that neither the use of attack nor contrast advertisements appears to be increasing, though the sponsors of such ads have changed such that candidates and political parties air far fewer negative advertisements, but political groups air more negative ads than they did before Citizens United.
I then conduct a unique experiment to examine the effects of negativity on perceptions of specific and diffuse legitimacy. Unlike previous studies, I include a treatment group for contrast advertisements, which are advertisements containing elements of negativity about a target, as well as positive information about the target’s opponent. I find that, perceptions of the court’s diffuse legitimacy are only moderately influenced by exposure to negative ads. I do however find that contrast advertisements appear to depress perceptions of the court’s diffuse legitimacy by a significant amount for individuals with high knowledge of the courts.
To accomplish this goal I first conduct a content analysis of all televised judicial advertisements aired from 2005-2016. While other scholars have examined the use of attack advertisements in judicial elections (Hall 2014), my study is the first to consider ads airing before and after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling that removed spending limits for political groups. I find that neither the use of attack nor contrast advertisements appears to be increasing, though the sponsors of such ads have changed such that candidates and political parties air far fewer negative advertisements, but political groups air more negative ads than they did before Citizens United.
I then conduct a unique experiment to examine the effects of negativity on perceptions of specific and diffuse legitimacy. Unlike previous studies, I include a treatment group for contrast advertisements, which are advertisements containing elements of negativity about a target, as well as positive information about the target’s opponent. I find that, perceptions of the court’s diffuse legitimacy are only moderately influenced by exposure to negative ads. I do however find that contrast advertisements appear to depress perceptions of the court’s diffuse legitimacy by a significant amount for individuals with high knowledge of the courts.
ContributorsThompson, Joshua Robert (Author) / Hoekstra, Valerie (Thesis advisor) / Fridkin, Kim (Committee member) / Ramirez, Mark (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2018
Description
A large amount of research examines the effect of partisan polarization on the institution of Congress, yet we know remarkably little about this political phenomenon’s precise effect on the political behavior of the American electorate. Some scholars argue that polarization is healthy for democracy because it allows political elites to send clear cues to the mass public, but other scholars postulate that polarization is bad for democracy. Decades of research on voter turnout resulted in a vast accumulation of knowledge on the subject. However, scholars must pay greater attention to data collection and measurement strategies because the prevalent technique to quantify voter turnout artificially deflates participation rates. I take two paths to uncover the effects of partisanship on the decision to vote. From the micro perspective, I utilize a variety of partisanship measures based on survey data. From the aggregate perspective, I argue that calculating voter turnout based on the voting eligible population (VEP) is a superior measurement strategy to other techniques. I adoopt a VEP measure of voter turnout for state-wide races (1994-2010). The results suggest that polarization is an important factor that increases voter turnout at both the individual and aggregate levels.
ContributorsBumgardner, Erik (Author) / Espino, Rodolfo (Thesis advisor) / Fridkin, Kim (Committee member) / Kenney, Patrick (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2016
Description
Do response advertisements influence individuals’ evaluations of political candidates and vote preferences? This dissertation explores the impact of response advertisements on citizens’ expressed vote preferences and favorability towards political candidates. This project utilized an original focus group to determine citizens feelings regarding American political campaigns more generally and attitudes towards negative campaigning more specifically, including how candidates should respond when attacked. Additionally, an experiment was conducted to determine which type of response advertisements influences citizen attitudes most.
ContributorsDempsey, Matthew (Author) / Fridkin, Kim (Thesis advisor) / Kenney, Patrick (Committee member) / Ramirez, Mark D. (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2020