1 / 18

Religion and Presidential Politics in Florida: A List Experiment

Religion and Presidential Politics in Florida: A List Experiment. Stephen C. Craig James G. Kane Kenneth D. Wald Published in Social Science Quarterly 85 (June, 2004), 281-293.

vhiggins
Télécharger la présentation

Religion and Presidential Politics in Florida: A List Experiment

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Religion and Presidential Politics in Florida:A List Experiment Stephen C. Craig James G. Kane Kenneth D. Wald Published in Social Science Quarterly 85 (June, 2004), 281-293.

  2. Occasion for Research:August 8, 2000:Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Connecticut)BecomesFirst Jewish Nominee for National Office by a Major PartyOther Comparable Firsts:Al Smith – 1928John Kennedy – 1960Geraldine Ferraro - 1984

  3. Gallup Poll:“If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be [religion/race/gender], would you vote for that person?”

  4. Reason for Skepticism Prior research suggests that abstract sentiments in favor of intergroup harmony often mask antipathy or reluctance to grant benefits to specific minorities.

  5. Reasons for Doubting Sincerity of Answers to Gallup-Type Questions: Social Desirability- often prompts survey respondents to disguise negative feelings toward members of other races lest they be perceived negatively by interviewers

  6. Research Question: Is the expressed willingness of Americans to consider Jewish candidates based on their individual merits a genuine belief likely to be backed by action – or an artifact of social desirability?

  7. Measurement: The List Experiment • Adapted from Studies of Racial Attitudes (Kuklinski, Sniderman, Carmines Etc.) • Representative Sample Randomly Divided into Equivalent Half-Samples

  8. Question: “Now I’m going to read you four (five) things that sometimes make people angry or upset. After I read all four statements, just tell me how many of them upset you. I don’t want to know which ones, just how many.”

  9. Baseline Group: “One: the way gasoline prices keep going up.” “Two: professional athletes getting million-plus salaries.” “Three: requiring seat belts be used when driving.” “Four: large corporations polluting the environment.”

  10. Test Group: Study 1: Likely Voters (Florida), October 2000, N=606 “Five: a Jewish candidate running for vice president.” Study 2: Registered Voters (Florida), May/June 2002, N=601 “Five: a Jewish candidate running for president.”

  11. Estimating Percentage of Respondents Who Are Angry Or Upset at the Idea of a Jewish Candidate for President or Vice President: • Calculate Mean Number of Anger-Generating Statements for Both Baseline and Test Conditions • Subtract the Former from the Latter • Multiply by 100 Example: 2.71 mean for test group minus 2.44 percent for baseline=0.27 x 100 =27 percent angry or upset

  12. Pros and Cons of the Method • Advantage: Social Desirability Element Removed by Disguising Intent • Disadvantage: Can Only Estimate Aggregate Level Of Negative Group Affect, No Analysis of Individual Respondents Possible

  13. Group DifferencesGreater Negative Affect Expected Among: Socially Marginal (Less Educated, Poorer, Older, Less Urban) Evangelical Protestants Men Republicans Conservatives

  14. Conclusion:Negative affect for Jewish candidates in not widespread. It does exist however, and could be decisive in a close race.

More Related