Mass belief systems & Internal sources of political attitudes

Peffley, PS 473

Clean up!

Sex Better Than Money for Happiness

More Money Doesn't Mean More Sex, but More Sex Can Make You Feel RicherBy Sid Kirchheimer

WebMD Health News

July 16, 2004 -- Good news for folks whose bedrooms have more activity than their bank accounts: New research shows that sex is better for your happiness than money.

Dartmouth College economist David Blanchflower and Andrew Oswald of the University of Warwick in England report that sex "enters so strongly (and) positively in happiness equations" that they estimate increasing intercourse from once a month to once a week is equivalent to the amount of happiness generated by getting an additional $50,000 in income for the average American.

"The evidence we see is that money brings some amounts of happiness, but not as much as what economists might have thought," says Blanchflower. "We had to look to psychologists and realize that other things really matter.“

Their paper, "Money, Sex, and Happiness: An Empirical Study," recently published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, essentially puts an estimated dollar amount on the happiness level resulting from sex and its trappings.

Overall, the happiest folks are those getting the most sex -- married people, who report 30% more between-the-sheets action than single folks. In fact, the economists calculate that a lasting marriage equates to happiness generated by getting an extra $100,000 each year. Divorce, meanwhile, translates to a happiness depletion of $66,000 annually.

Whether that hefty happiness income boost is the result of marital bliss or more sex is up for debate. But their

"econometric" calculations confirm what psychologists have long known: People who consider themselves happy are usually richer in sexual activity.

Does sex lead to happiness, or are happy people just more likely to lead each other to the bedroom? That's still under investigation, but there is evidence that psyche and sex feed off each other.

Take that study in the May 2001 issue of the Journal of Sex Research, in which Georgia State University researchers found that people who are involuntarily celibate are frequently afflicted with nonhappy feelings -- anger, frustration, self-doubt, and even depression. They conclude it's the result of "missed opportunities" of living without sex.

Go to “Consequences of Political Knowledge”

Mass belief systems“Ideological innocence”Internal sources of political attitudes

Political ideologies

http://typology.people-press.org/typology/

Ideological innocence

Political elites & attentive masses use ideologies to talk about politics & organize their political attitudes. However: Mass public not consistently liberal &

conservative across different issue domains

Don’t know the meaning of liberal and conservative

Often have difficulty determining the liberal and conservative sides of political issues

Other internal structuring elements:Group identifications, General beliefs, etc.

Group identifications Partisan identification Ideological identification Other group identifications (e.g., racial, ethnic,

religious, gender) structure attitudes toward political objects (e.g., candidates, policies) associated with ingroups & outgroups

General beliefs Values Worldview Personality

Political attitudes organized within separate policy domains versus ideologies that cut across policy domains

Specific policy attitudes organized by domain-specific heuristics, such as values, general beliefs and attitudes toward groups associated with the policy.

Policy Attitudes and Mass Belief Systems

Theoretically, ideologies cut across policy domains, so liberals on foreign policy are also liberal on social & economic policies

In Practice: Domain-Specific Opinion Molecules

Individualism,Egalitarianism,

Humanitarianis

m

Beliefs about

Welfare

Welfare Opposition or Support

Patriotism,

Morality of Warfare

Dovish or Hawkish Posture

Iraq War Opposition or Support

Economic Attitudes Foreign Policy Attitudes

Values

General Beliefs & Postures

Policy Attitudes

At the individual level: emotional, "easy" heuristics; value priorities predict policy attitudes.

At the societal level: value consensus identifies political culture.

Value structures or hierarchies, value conflict or ambivalence (Rokeach).

Characteristics of Political Values

Individualism, work ethic and beliefs about economic opportunity, values and beliefs that some call the “American Dream,” the belief that: Success is determined by hard work & Opportunities for success are available to

everyone

i.e., what some call the Horatio Alger myth, the rags to riches story in America

Economic values and Core beliefs

Intensity Measures of ValuesE.g., Economic Values: Individualism

Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree with the following statements? Any person who is willing to work hard has a good

chance of succeeding? Hard work offers little guarantee of success? Most people who don't get ahead should not blame the

system; they really have only themselves to blame? Even if people are ambitious, they often cannot

succeed. If people work hard, they almost always get what they want?

Even if people try hard, they often cannot reach their goals?

Economic Values: Egalitarianism

Economic Values: Humanitarianism

Rokeach’s Value System, Value Hierarchy, 1 to 18

A comfortable life (a prosperous life) An exciting life (a stimulating, active life) A sense of accomplishment (lasting contribution) A world at peace (free of war and conflict) A world of beauty (beauty of nature and the arts) Equality (brotherhood, equal opportunity for all) Family security (taking care of loved ones) Freedom (independence, free choice) Happiness (contentedness) Inner harmony (freedom from inner conflict) Mature love (sexual and spiritual intimacy) National security (protection from attack) Pleasure (an enjoyable, leisurely life) Salvation (saved, eternal life) Self-respect (self-esteem) Social recognition (respect, admiration) True friendship (close companionship) Wisdom (a mature understanding of life)

Other Measures of Values: Value Ranking Scales

Rokeach: Values, Value Conflict and Political Culture

Low Equality Hi Equality

Hi Freedom

Low Freedom

Socialism

CommunismFascism

Capitalism

Schwartz’s Value System

Authoritarianism: Three Phases of Research

The Authoritarian Personality

THE PREJUDICED PERSONALITY INTOLERANT PERSONALITY UNDEMOCRATIC PERSONALITY

Research on authoritarianism

1. Adorno et al., The Authoritarian Personality (1950)

Psychoanalytic interpretation Problems with the F-scale: yea-saying, right-wing

2. Bob Altemeyer, Right-Wing Authoritarianism

Correction for yea-saying (see scale) Three traits▪ Authoritarian submission▪ Authoritarian aggression▪ Conventionalism

Authoritarian responses (Altemeyer)

Common law breakers are seen as a lower form of life which do not deserve fairness and protection under the law

MIRROR IMAGE TRIALS WILLINGNESS TO JOIN A

HYPOTHETICAL POSSE ACTS OF INTOLERANCE

The Two Trials of William Langley: Authoritarian Aggression

Version 1: Langley is leading a pro-gay demonstration to support a law prohibiting discrimination against gays. He incites an attack against counterdemonstrators. What should be his punishment?

Imagine that you are the judge presiding over the trial of Mr. William Langley. Mr. Langley is a 44-year-old civil servant who is also the founder and president of the Winnipeg chapter of Canadians for Gay Rights, a noted prohomosexual organization. A few years ago Mr. Langley was leading a demonstration on the steps of the Manitoba Legislature, supporting a proposed law which would have prohibited discrimination against homosexuals in housing and certain fields of employment. A crowd of approximately 100, mainly members of Mr. Langley's organization, had gathered around his speaker's stand. A large banner which read "GAY POWER" was tied between two columns immediately behind…, a group of about 30 counterdemonstrators appeared and began to walk slowly and silently around the outside of Mr. Langley's audience. They carried signs which read "THE FAMILY IS SACRED" and "NO GAY RIGHTS." …according to several witnesses, Mr. Langley said,…” I say we run them out of here right now. Let's show everybody we mean business."

  Version 2: Langley is leading an anti-gay demonstration to support allowing

discrimination against gays. Otherwise the rest of the narrative is the same.

The Two Trials of William Langley: Hi RWAs use double standard to punish progay Langley

Posse: Authoritarian aggression against communists and the KKK

Criticisms of Altemeyer Local Manitoba samples, usually

students No theory of when authoritarianism is

activated His measure confounds authoritarianism

with social conservatism (conventionalism)

Research on Manitoba students’ sexual behavior

Social Conformity Versus Autonomy (Feldman, 2003)

Social Conformity Versus Autonomy (Feldman, 2003)Conformity Versus AutonomyA. We should admire people who go their own way without worrying about what others think.B. People need to learn to fit in and get along with others.Freedom Versus Fear of DisorderA. It is most important to give people all the freedom they need to express themselves.B. Our society will break down if we allow people to do or say anything they want.Respect for Common Norms and ValuesA. Rules are there for people to follow, not to change.B. Society's basic rules were created by people and so can always be changed by people.Social CohesionA. Society should aim to protect citizens' right to live any way they choose.B. It is important to enforce the community's standards of right and wrong.Socialization and Child-Rearing ValuesA. The most important values children should learn are obedience and respect for authority.B. The most important values children should learn are independence and self-reliance. Note: Respondents were asked whether they strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree

with the above statements. Survey items were administered randomly.

Authoritarianism and Polarization in AmericaMarc J. Hetherington& Jonathan Weiler

Putting Polarization in PerspectiveHetherington & Weiler, Ch 2

Everyone agrees Congress has become polarized since the 1960s

Fiorina’s view: Mass polarization is a myth

1. Moderation. Today as in the past, most Americans are ideological moderates, holding a mixture of liberal and conservative views on different issues.

2. Partisan Polarization. Partisan polarization is largely an elite phenomenon—i.e., elected officials and activists.

3. Geographical Polarization. Cultural and political differences between red states and blue states are actually fairly small. (The similarities between voters in these two sets of states are much more striking than the differences.)

4. Social Cleavages. Divisions within the public based on social characteristics (age, race, gender, and religious affiliation) have been diminishing, not increasing and are smaller than traditional economic divisions between the parties.

5. Political Turnoff. Growing polarization of party elites and activists turns off large numbers of voters and depresses turnout in elections.

Fiorina: Close elections without mass polarization

Fiorina’s definition of popular polarization

A wide dispersion of preference between groups moving toward a bimodal distribution, or a clustering of preferences near the poles.

In statistical terms, this rendering requires 1) a large difference of means (or

proportions) between two groups and 2) large and increasing standard

deviations in distributions of interest

Fiorina’s critics: What Fiorina’s view misses

Statistical definitions of popular polarization (bi-modal distributions) are hard to find in the real world, especially across average issues and average people.

Types of issues: Statistical definitions do not take into account new issues, issue salience, strong feelings, and an inability or unwillingness to understand contrary points of view (e.g., gay rights, terrorism and the Iraq war)

Types of people: Party sorting looks like polarization among engaged partisans, not just the party elite (activists and politicians)

Fiorina’s critics find more polarization on some issues

Abramowitz (critic of Fiorina):Ideological polarization

Abramowitz (critic of Fiorina):Polarization among Politically Engaged Partisans in 2004

Abramowitz (critic of Fiorina):Increasing Religious Polarization among Partisans

Abramowitz (critic of Fiorina):Polarization of Red vs. Blue States, 2004

Abramowitz (critic of Fiorina):Polarization of Red vs. Blue States, 2004

Whither political science & public opinion?

Coburn, an OB/GYN, claimed his advice to a GOP Senate colleague, John Ensign, who was having a long-term affair with his top aide’s wife (and paid off the husband with campaign funds) was protected by “physician-patient privilege.”

Coburn’s claim: Analysts on CNN, Fox News, etc. do the SAME THING as political scientists who study elections.  By Coburn’s logic, we can just go ahead and do away with government funding of medical research too, since CNN’s got Dr. Sanjay Gupta on the case.

Authoritarianism & Non-Authoritarianism: Concepts & Measures

Hetherington & Weiler, Ch 3

Characteristics of Authoritarianism

AU is fundamentally motivated by a need for order & support for authorities seen as best able to secure that order against a variety of threats to social cohesion.

AU is associated with a belief in Biblical inerrancy A tendency to rigid thinking and an

unwillingness or inability to process new information that might challenge such thinking

AU forms the basis for a worldview, not a personality trait

AU & conservatism aren’t the same thing Situationism

Characteristics of non-authoritarians

Several features are common to non-authoritarians: a strongly held notion of fairness that

manifests itself as outgroup preference; a tendency toward accuracy motivation; an aversion to prejudicial thinking, valuing personal autonomy over social

conformity (Feldman) an aversion to judgments, making them

relativistic, a tendency to be broadly opinionated

Hetherington & Weiler’s Ranking measure of authoritarianism (from Feldman and Stenner)

Values in Children vs Actual childrearing practices.

“I am going to read you pairs of values. Which value is more important for a child to have?” (p. 48)

1. Independence? or Respect for elders? 2. Curiosity? or Good manners? 3. Being considerate or Being well-behaved?4. Obedience or Self-Reliance?

Construct validity of the measure of AU

Construct validity refers to whether a scale measures or correlates with the theorized psychological construct (e.g., “authoritarianism") that it purports to measure.

AU is correlated with: Need for cognition (low AU agree)▪ “I would prefer complex to simple problems.”▪ “I like to have the responsibility of handling a situation that requires a lot

of thinking.”▪ “I have opinions on most things.”

Intelligence (interviewer rating), education, political knowledge Need for order▪ “Personally, I tend to think that there is a right way and a wrong way to

do almost everything”▪ “Nothing gets accomplished in this world unless you stick to some basic

rules” Political & social tolerance toward unpopular groups

Average Authoritarianism by Relevant Party Coalition Groups (Table 3.2)

Would someone in a bar be more attracted to an AU or a non-AU?

Is there still a pejorative element to defining these two groups? Could you define these characteristics in different ways to alter the relative appeal of the two groups?

An Historical Account of the Roots of Worldview EvolutionChapter 4

Important terms

Issue evolution (Carmines and Stimson) & its key intervening steps: party sorting to win elections, mass change in response to elite changes

Worldview Worldview evolution

Hetherington’s Key Issue Clusters

1) Racial & ethnic difference 2) Crime, law & order, and civil

liberties 3) ERA/feminism/family structure 4) American militarism, diplomacy

and the aftermath of Vietnam.

What do these issues have in common, both historically and currently?

Authoritarianism's Structuring of Contemporary IssuesChapter 5

Contemporary issues

Gay Rights The War on Terror

Support for Gay Rights Agenda Items, by Authoritarianism, 2004 (Table 5.1a)

Problem of inferring causality: Have we included all (or most) factors that could influence both AU & Gay Rights?

Political, Social Chars

Gay RightsAU

Same analysis, With controls:(the impact of AU remains intact, even after including various controls for political and social characteristics)

Graphing the influence of AU on supporting Gay Rights: As AU increases, support for gay rights decreases, even after removing the influence of all control variables.

Limiting civil liberties to fight terrorism

1. As you may know, federal government agencies have recently been given more power to use electronic surveillance to monitor phone calls and emails within the United States without first getting a court warrant to do so. Do you consider this an acceptable or unacceptable way for the federal government to investigate terrorism?

2. Some people think installing video cameras in public places is a good idea because they may help to reduce the threat of terrorism. Other people think this is a bad idea because surveillance cameras may infringe on people's privacy rights. What do you think? Would you say this it is a good idea or a bad idea to install surveillance cameras in public places?

3. These days, if someone disagrees with the president on issues relating to terrorism, do you think it is okay to criticize him publicly, or should people not criticize the president on issues relating to terrorism?

4. Do you think the news media should - or should not - report information it obtains about the secret methods the government is using to fight terrorism?

Graphing the influence of AU on limiting civil liberties, controlling for other factors

Graphing the influence of AU on taking a hawkish position on using force, when perceive a threat, controlling for other factors

Offended by "Happy Holidays!" rather than "Merry Christmas!“ (%)

Ev-ery-one

High AU Low Au0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Offended at Happy Holidays vs. Merry Christmas

Perc

en

t

Threat and Authoritarianism: Polarization or Convergence of Hi & Low AUs?Chapter 6

What is an interaction?

The impact of one independent variable (AU) on the dependent variable (gay rights) depends on the level of another independent variable (perceived threat).

How important is AU in predicting people’s behavior & opinions when perceived threat is low vs. high? Examples: Men kissing, Terrorism (Fig 6.1) A negative

interaction between overall perceived threat (terrorism) & AU: •When overall threat is so high that non-AUs perceive more threat, they act more like authoritarians, so knowing whether someone is high or low on the AU scale doesn’t help predict their behavior. •When overall threat is lower, hi AU’s & low-AUs differ a lot (only hi AUs perceive threat), so knowing where a person is on the AU scale is more helpful in predicting their behavior.

A positive interaction between perceived threat & AU: •Conventional wisdom in the Lab: The influence of AU should increase when threat is increases because hi-AUs are more likely to perceive the threat. •In the real world, this is not likely, according to H&W.

low hi

The Influence of Authoritarianism on Support for Gay Adoption at Various Levels of Perceived Threat, 2004

In 2004, the interaction between AU & perceived threat was negative. •For people who perceived high threat from alternative lifestyles (> .5), AU made no difference•For those who perceived little threat (<.5) , AU had the greatest impact on Gay Adoption.

Perceived threat = “The newer lifestyles are contributing to the breakdown of our society".

The Effect of Authoritarianism on Support for Wiretapping Without Warrants at Various Levels of Perceived Threat, 2004

Perceived Threat = "How worried are you that you personally might become a victim of a terrorist attack?"

•If people were very worried about a terrorist attack, they supported curtailing civil liberties, regardless of AU. •If they were not worried, AU had the biggest impact on support for curtailing civil liberties.

The Effect of Authoritarianism on the Probability of Approving of President Bush, at Various Levels of Perceived Threat, 2006

If people were very worried about a terrorist attack, they approved of GWB regardless of AU. If they were not worried, AU had the biggest impact on GWB approval.

Perceived Threat = "How worried are you that you personally might become a victim of a terrorist attack?"

The Effect of Authoritarianism on Preferring Strength over Diplomacy, at Various Levels of Perceived Threat, 2006

If people were very worried about a terrorist attack, they preferring strength vs diplomacy regardless of AU. If they were not worried, AU had the biggest impact on Preferring Strength vs Diplomacy.

Perceived Threat = "How worried are you that you personally might become a victim of a terrorist attack?"

Summary

Increased threat often increases the number of people supporting policies or candidates that promise to impose more order.

Because people who score high in AU already tend to support such initiatives, higher levels of threat narrow the differences between high & low AUs—i.e., makes AU less predictive of political attitudes.

Evidence of Worldview EvolutionChapter 7

Steps of issue evolution, Chs 4 & 7 Extension to worldview evolution and

the widening of the cleavage formed along racial issues

Reflected in voting behavior, partisanship & party sorting, and an asymmetry among non-authoritarians