More Like this

1. Tracing the Boundaries of Motivated Reasoning: How Deliberative Minipublics Can Improve Voter Knowledge

   https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12591  

   Már, Kristinn ; Gastil, John ( May 2019 , Political Psychology)

   A large body of work shows that reasoning motivated by partisan cues and prior attitudes leads to unreflective decisions and disparities in empirical beliefs across groups. Surprisingly little research, however, has tested the limits of motivated reasoning. We argue that the publicly circulated findings of deliberative minipublics can spark a more reflective motivation in voters when these bodies provide policy‐relevant factual information. To test that proposition, we conducted a survey experiment using information generated by one such minipublic during an election. Results showed that exposure to the minipublic's findings improved the accuracy of voters' empirical beliefs regarding a ballot proposition on the regulation of genetically modified seeds. This treatment effect transcended voters' partisan identities and prior environmental attitudes. In some instances, the respondents showing the greatest knowledge gains were those who a directional motivated‐reasoning account would have expected to resist the treatment most effectively, owing to party identity or prior attitudes.

    

   more » « less
2. Study on U.S. Parents' Divisions of Labor During COVID-19, Waves 1-2

   https://doi.org/10.3886/E183142V2  

   Carlson, Daniel L. ; Petts, Richard J. ( January 2022 , ICPSR - Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research)

   The COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically altered family life in the United States. Over the long duration of the pandemic, parents had to adapt to shifting work conditions, virtual schooling, the closure of daycare facilities, and the stress of not only managing households without domestic and care supports but also worrying that family members may contract the novel coronavirus. Reports early in the pandemic suggest that these burdens have fallen disproportionately on mothers, creating concerns about the long-term implications of the pandemic for gender inequality and mothers’ well-being. Nevertheless, less is known about how parents’ engagement in domestic labor and paid work has changed throughout the pandemic, what factors may be driving these changes, and what the long-term consequences of the pandemic may be for the gendered division of labor and gender inequality more generally.
   
   The Study on U.S. Parents’ Divisions of Labor During COVID-19 (SPDLC) collects longitudinal survey data from partnered U.S. parents that can be used to assess changes in parents’ divisions of domestic labor, divisions of paid labor, and well-being throughout and after the COVID-19 pandemic. The goal of SPDLC is to understand both the short- and long-term impacts of the pandemic for the gendered division of labor, work-family issues, and broader patterns of gender inequality.
   
   Survey data for this study is collected using Prolifc (www.prolific.co), an opt-in online platform designed to facilitate scientific research. The sample is comprised U.S. adults who were residing with a romantic partner and at least one biological child (at the time of entry into the study). In each survey, parents answer questions about both themselves and their partners. Wave 1 of SPDLC was conducted in April 2020, and parents who participated in Wave 1 were asked about their division of labor both prior to (i.e., early March 2020) and one month after the pandemic began. Wave 2 of SPDLC was collected in November 2020. Parents who participated in Wave 1 were invited to participate again in Wave 2, and a new cohort of parents was also recruited to participate in the Wave 2 survey. Wave 3 of SPDLC was collected in October 2021. Parents who participated in either of the first two waves were invited to participate again in Wave 3, and another new cohort of parents was also recruited to participate in the Wave 3 survey. This research design (follow-up survey of panelists and new cross-section of parents at each wave) will continue through 2024, culminating in six waves of data spanning the period from March 2020 through October 2024. An estimated total of approximately 6,500 parents will be surveyed at least once throughout the duration of the study.
   
   SPDLC data will be released to the public two years after data is collected; Waves 1 and 2 are currently publicly available. Wave 3 will be publicly available in October 2023, with subsequent waves becoming available yearly. Data will be available to download in both SPSS (.sav) and Stata (.dta) formats, and the following data files will be available: (1) a data file for each individual wave, which contains responses from all participants in that wave of data collection, (2) a longitudinal panel data file, which contains longitudinal follow-up data from all available waves, and (3) a repeated cross-section data file, which contains the repeated cross-section data (from new respondents at each wave) from all available waves. Codebooks for each survey wave and a detailed user guide describing the data are also available. Response Rates: Of the 1,157 parents who participated in Wave 1, 828 (72%) also participated in the Wave 2 study. Presence of Common Scales: The following established scales are included in the survey:
   

   • Self-Efficacy, adapted from Pearlin's mastery scale (Pearlin et al., 1981) and the Rosenberg self-esteem scale (Rosenberg, 2015) and taken from the American Changing Lives Survey
   • Communication with Partner, taken from the Marriage and Relationship Survey (Lichter & Carmalt, 2009)
     
   • Gender Attitudes, taken from the National Survey of Families and Households (Sweet & Bumpass, 1996)
     
   • Depressive Symptoms (CES-D-10)
   • Stress, measured using Cohen's Perceived Stress Scale (Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983)
     

   Full details about these scales and all other items included in the survey can be found in the user guide and codebook
   The second wave of the SPDLC was fielded in November 2020 in two stages. In the first stage, all parents who participated in W1 of the SPDLC and who continued to reside in the United States were re-contacted and asked to participate in a follow-up survey. The W2 survey was posted on Prolific, and messages were sent via Prolific’s messaging system to all previous participants. Multiple follow-up messages were sent in an attempt to increase response rates to the follow-up survey. Of the 1,157 respondents who completed the W1 survey, 873 at least started the W2 survey. Data quality checks were employed in line with best practices for online surveys (e.g., removing respondents who did not complete most of the survey or who did not pass the attention filters). After data quality checks, 5.2% of respondents were removed from the sample, resulting in a final sample size of 828 parents (a response rate of 72%).
   
   In the second stage, a new sample of parents was recruited. New parents had to meet the same sampling criteria as in W1 (be at least 18 years old, reside in the United States, reside with a romantic partner, and be a parent living with at least one biological child). Also similar to the W1 procedures, we oversampled men, Black individuals, individuals who did not complete college, and individuals who identified as politically conservative to increase sample diversity. A total of 1,207 parents participated in the W2 survey. Data quality checks led to the removal of 5.7% of the respondents, resulting in a final sample size of new respondents at Wave 2 of 1,138 parents.
   
   In both stages, participants were informed that the survey would take approximately 20 minutes to complete. All panelists were provided monetary compensation in line with Prolific’s compensation guidelines, which require that all participants earn above minimum wage for their time participating in studies.
   To be included in SPDLC, respondents had to meet the following sampling criteria at the time they enter the study: (a) be at least 18 years old, (b) reside in the United States, (c) reside with a romantic partner (i.e., be married or cohabiting), and (d) be a parent living with at least one biological child. Follow-up respondents must be at least 18 years old and reside in the United States, but may experience changes in relationship and resident parent statuses. Smallest Geographic Unit: U.S. State

   This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. In accordance with this license, all users of these data must give appropriate credit to the authors in any papers, presentations, books, or other works that use the data. A suggested citation to provide attribution for these data is included below:            
   
   Carlson, Daniel L. and Richard J. Petts. 2022. Study on U.S. Parents’ Divisions of Labor During COVID-19 User Guide: Waves 1-2.  

   To help provide estimates that are more representative of U.S. partnered parents, the SPDLC includes sampling weights. Weights can be included in statistical analyses to make estimates from the SPDLC sample representative of U.S. parents who reside with a romantic partner (married or cohabiting) and a child aged 18 or younger based on age, race/ethnicity, and gender. National estimates for the age, racial/ethnic, and gender profile of U.S. partnered parents were obtained using data from the 2020 Current Population Survey (CPS). Weights were calculated using an iterative raking method, such that the full sample in each data file matches the nationally representative CPS data in regard to the gender, age, and racial/ethnic distributions within the data. This variable is labeled CPSweightW2 in the Wave 2 dataset, and CPSweightLW2 in the longitudinal dataset (which includes Waves 1 and 2). There is not a weight variable included in the W1-W2 repeated cross-section data file.
    

   more » « less
3. Support for Vladimir Putin in Russia's neighbors: Survey evidence from an endorsement experiment in six post-Soviet countries

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2023.103014  

   O'Loughlin, John ; Linke, Andrew M. ; Toal, Gerard ; Bakke, Kristin M. ( January 2024 , Political Geography)

   The Russian invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022 has again drawn attention to the geopolitical aims of President Vladimir Putin in the states of the former Soviet Union, the ‘Near Abroad’. While Putin's actions have been widely condemned in the West, the reaction among the former Soviet states has been more mixed. Using representative national surveys from late 2019 - early 2020, the article reports the results of an endorsement experiment to gage the support that Putin had in six countries of the former Soviet space (Ukraine, Moldova, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Georgia and Armenia). Direct questioning about Putin revealed that half of the 8420 respondents said that they had ‘no trust at all’ though views varied a lot by country. Given the sensitivity around perceptions of Putin, an endorsement experiment elicits more accurate results. Five expectations of who supports Putin are tested in models with socio-demographic controls. Respondents with more close-minded personalities show significantly more support for Vladimir Putin, our key test. People who are skeptical of scientific expertise and those with traditional views (measured by a question about patriarchal dominance in marriages) are also more likely to support Putin. In contrast, support for Putin is not significantly greater by those who subscribe to conspiracy theories, and by those with little interest in politics. Country level results are generally in line with the results of the overall model, but demonstrate some interesting variation. Vladimir Putin overall has higher trust and support in Belarus, Armenia, and Kazakhstan than in Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova but the respondents in all countries behave in a manner consistent with their personal traits in endorsing or opposing Putin's positions. 

   more » « less
4. Test-Retest Reliability of Ecological Momentary Assessment in Audiology Research

   https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1717066  

   Wu, Yu-Hsiang ; Stangl, Elizabeth ; Chipara, Octav ; Zhang, Xuyang ( November 2020 , Journal of the American Academy of Audiology)

   null (Ed.)

   Abstract Background Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) is a methodology involving repeated surveys to collect in situ data that describe respondents' current or recent experiences and related contexts in their natural environments. Audiology literature investigating the test-retest reliability of EMA is scarce. Purpose This article examines the test-retest reliability of EMA in measuring the characteristics of listening contexts and listening experiences. Research Design An observational study. Study Sample Fifty-one older adults with hearing loss. Data Collection and Analysis The study was part of a larger study that examined the effect of hearing aid technologies. The larger study had four trial conditions and outcome was measured using a smartphone-based EMA system. After completing the four trial conditions, participants repeated one of the conditions to examine the EMA test-retest reliability. The EMA surveys contained questions that assessed listening context characteristics including talker familiarity, talker location, and noise location, as well as listening experiences including speech understanding, listening effort, loudness satisfaction, and hearing aid satisfaction. The data from multiple EMA surveys collected by each participant were aggregated in each of the test and retest conditions. Test-retest correlation on the aggregated data was then calculated for each EMA survey question to determine the reliability of EMA. Results At the group level, listening context characteristics and listening experience did not change between the test and retest conditions. The test-retest correlation varied across the EMA questions, with the highest being the questions that assessed talker location (median r = 1.0), reverberation (r = 0.89), and speech understanding (r = 0.85), and the lowest being the items that quantified noise location (median r = 0.63), talker familiarity (r = 0.46), listening effort (r = 0.61), loudness satisfaction (r = 0.60), and hearing aid satisfaction (r = 0.61). Conclusion Several EMA questions yielded appropriate test-retest reliability results. The lower test-retest correlations for some EMA survey questions were likely due to fewer surveys completed by participants and poorly designed questions. Therefore, the present study stresses the importance of using validated questions in EMA. With sufficient numbers of surveys completed by respondents and with appropriately designed survey questions, EMA could have reasonable test-retest reliability in audiology research. 

   more » « less
5. Reconciling Candidate Extremism and Spatial Voting

   https://doi.org/10.1111/lsq.12289  

   Highton, Benjamin ; Stone, Walter J. ( June 2020 , Legislative Studies Quarterly)

   We propose a modified spatial‐voting rule to explain why congressional candidates adopt more extreme ideological positions than their constituents' preferences. Our model accepts the standard spatial‐voting model with one critical exception: voters in the same party as a candidate tolerate extremism without imposing an electoral penalty. This, in turn, creates “leeway” for candidates to adopt extreme positions as they increasingly depend on voters from their own party. Electoral simulations demonstrate that a key election‐level implication of this model is that it explains candidate polarization without relying on institutional factors like primary elections. Finally, we show that asymmetry in perceptual bias is one possible mechanism and that real‐world patterns of ideological representation are consistent with our simulation results.

    

   more » « less