Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Some of the claims that are frequently made about
conservatives in the political psychology literature are not well
supported by evidence. Often conclusions are drawn from student or
other unrepresentative samples, instead of using the national samples
favored in other subfields of political science. In this paper, I
analyze data from over 50 U.S. national surveys of probability samples
of the adult public and 25 surveys of representative samples of 18
countries outside the United States, totaling over 85,000 subjects. The
great majority of these studies were generated as part of the General
Social Surveys (GSS), the American National Election Studies (ANES),
and the International Social Survey Program (ISSP). I examine whether,
compared to both liberals and political moderates, conservatives:
• resist scientific or technological change, • prefer job security, •
have less education, • believe in superstitions, • lack tolerance for
unpopular groups, • express more traditionally racist views, • suffer
more nightmares, • are more supportive of traditional institutions, •
are more alienated, and • are more likely to be female. Some of the
more interesting findings result from examining the interactions
between party affiliation and political orientation. I also offer a
possible resolution of the paradox reported by S.E. Finkel, L.
Sigelman, & Stan Humphries in Measures of Political Attitudes
(1999; p. 288): in the General Social Survey, conservatives are less
politically tolerant than liberals, while Republicans are more
politically tolerant than strong Democrats.
James Lindgren
Professor of Law Director, Demography of Diversity Project
Northwestern University
Ph.D. Student, Sociology
University of Chicago

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: In the past years governance and civil service reforms have become the buss words in western policy research circles and political establishments of post-communist and third-world countries. Although such concepts have attracted a strong interest on the part of economists, political sociologists, and student of public administration, as well as organizational and financial support by a number of international development agencies, there remains to be conceptual and analytical confusion on what constitutes effective governance and, more importantly for the policy-making, what necessitates and directs reforms of civil cervices. This paper examines recent literature on civil service reforms addressing primarily, but not exclusively, challenges of governability faced by East European countries. We point to conceptual deficiency of this growing scholarly enterprise that largely failed to identify consistent sets of prerequisites, goals, and outcome targets of civil service reforms. Such conceptual clarity, however, is essential for the subject to become suitable for the methodologically sound cross-national and cross-agency comparative analysis. We illustrate failures of current scholarship addressing civil service reforms by using examples of how the preconditions, goals, and outcomes of real reform programs proposed and implemented throughout the region have deviated from the target of good governance underlining the majority of research projects on the subject. We conclude our critique by pointing to the promising directions in the empirical and theoretical research addressing civil service reforms and issues of governance in the developing and post-communist world.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: The paper examines recent literature on civil service reforms in the post-communist countries and illustrates its failure by discussing of how the goals and outcomes of reforms implemented in the region undermined good governance.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Two field experiments were performed to assess the effectiveness of the dump-and-chase (DAC), a compliance-gaining technique that introduces a particular method of employing persistence to influence others. The outcomes of these two experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of the DAC relative to other compliance-gaining techniques known to be effective. In Experiment 1 the DAC was found to be more effective than the pooled data from the door-in-the-face (DITF) technique and the placebic information (PI) technique. In Experiment 2 the DAC was found to be more effective than the DITF, PI, and foot-in-the-door (FITD) techniques. The effect of the DAC was consistent across experiments, as well as producing relatively higher compliance-gaining rates. Moreover, because the contextual features of two experiments differed substantially, the effect occurred under heterogeneous conditions. Directions for subsequent tests of the DAC are discussed.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: This study analyzes all stories aired on NBC Nightly News and Fox News Channel's Special Report with Brit Hume during 2005 about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and compares that coverage with real world indicators to address several policy and theoretical questions: (1) Did the news media over-report the bad news from these conflicts, as claimed repeatedly by senior members of the Bush administration and as one might expect given prior research into the negativity bias of the press? (2) Do “new institutionalist” theories about news homogeneity explain coverage of these conflicts? (3) Does coverage of these wars fit an indexing and/or a cascade activation model of news? The study finds that while a fair amount of coverage on both channels focused on insurgent/terrorist attacks, a smaller proportion mentioned U.S. or civilian casualties, and overall the news actually underplayed the bad news from both countries. Comparisons are also drawn between the two channels, with data showing that FNC was much more sympathetic to the administration than NBC. In particular, although the administration, Republican members of Congress, and military officials dominated coverage, the tone of elite quotations was much more reflective of the deteriorating situation in both wars on NBC than it was on FNC.