Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Scholars typically argue that elite polarization has only negative consequences for
American politics. I challenge this view by demonstrating that elite polarization, by
clarifying where the parties stand on the issues of the day, causes ordinary voters to
adopt more consistent attitudes. Scholars have made such claims in the past, but
have been unable to actually verify a causal relationship due to their reliance on ob-
servational data. Using original experiments, I demonstrate that a causal relationship
exists between elite polarization and mass consistency. These findings have significant
normative implications for our understanding of the implications of elite polarization,
the role of political parties in a modern democracy, and the standards scholars use to
assess citizen competence and participation.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Why did terrorists become the archetypical enemy of the Bush administration? Why did George W. Bush become so disliked, even hated by Democrats? Traditional sociological models that focus on class or political elites overlook important aspects of power relationships in complex societies. A more complex model of elites and non-elites is proposed. Then special attention is devoted to the social construction of enemies as a means for gaining the support of non-elites. The analysis focuses on contemporary U.S. society.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Past research suggests that perceptions of media bias among the public have increased largely because of increased attacks by political elites. Although past research provides strong evidence that charges of bias influence public opinion, it is unclear what these charges entail. My research investigates why political elites accuse the media of being biased, or at least, what evidence is provided to support their accusations. To answer this, I perform a content analysis of newspaper and television coverage of accusations of media bias. For the analysis, I code articles and news transcripts from 2005-2006 for the direction of bias charged against the news media and the type of evidence given (if any) to support these charges. In the end, my research adds insight into why many political elites think the news media is biased.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: In this paper we emphasize the need to use experimental designs to complement and supplement research on leadership and public opinion. While conventional individual level and aggregate level time series studies can provide compelling evidence regarding which leaders and what political communications can influence public opinion, further research is needed to address problems of causal inference in correlational and multivariate studies in identifying effects that can be attributed to the persuasive power of political leaders and others who attempt to influence the public. While the use of experiments is not new to studies of the effects on individuals of new information and the content of reports in the mass media, we advocate more directed and systematic effort to study the effects elites can have through the positions they take on important policy issues. Specifically, experiments should increasingly be used in tandem with other evidence in ways that can have external validity by attempting to simulate the complexity of processes of education and persuasion that can occur. While experimental studies of persuasion expose subjects to communications and information in controlled ways that do not correspond to what happens in real-world contexts, they can provide insight into what kinds of cause and effect relationships are possible. Experiments should use subjects that are representative of the public at large and expose them to some of the complexity of political communication and debate. Experimental designs should be developed to examine how multiple leaders or elites may address multiple issues, so that the public may be exposed to countervailing and conflicting messages. Perhaps most important, since experiments using national samples of adults are costly, we need efficient designs for studying these complicated possibilities of leadership and persuasion, that involve a number of possible influences at the same time. This should include also how leaders' position-taking can subsequently affect public attitudes toward these leaders. We describe how we have utilized a commonly used split-ballot design to study what can be simple or more complicated processes of influence on public opinion.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: With the large number of transitions away from authoritarian rule in the late twentieth century and the seeming “triumph” of democratic government, a good deal of recent scholarship has focused on the performance and quality of democracy in both new established and long-standing democratic systems. Recent works by Lijphart (1999) and Powell (2000), as well as Birchfield and Crepaz (1988) and Anderson and Guillory (1997), examine the impact of political institutions in producing variations in performance, looking specifically at how well different institutional designs provide representation and outcomes consistent with the desires of the public.

One area of performance where both new and more established democracies vary substantially is the number of women holding positions of power in both elective and appointive governmental positions. The number of women serving in the parliaments of advanced industrialized democracies, for example, averaged only 21% in 2001 and ranged from 7.3% to 42.7% (IPU 2002). The number of women in appointive positions, the “elite of the elite,” shows an even broader variation, ranging from 0% to 50% in the late 1990’s (United Nations 2002, Siaroff 2000). And this impressive span of variation has continued into the 21st Century, with 31 parliamentary or quasi-parliamentary democracies producing a low of 0% women in cabinets and a high of 47% while averaging 22% women holding portfolios overall (Katz and Koole 2002).

Only a very few scholars have investigated the causes of this cross-national gap in women’s representation in cabinets. While these studies are helpful in beginning to identify some of the determinants that influence the number of women appointed to cabinet-level positions, they are generally limited to case studies, small-n studies, or focus on only one point in time. Given the increase in the number of women serving in the cabinets of the industrialized democracies during the last twenty-five years, however, accounting for both differences occurring cross-nationally and over time is essential. This paper will therefore examine the determinants of women’s representation at the cabinet level in both long-established and more recently formed democracies. For the former, using a pooled cross-sectional time-series analysis for the years 1994 and 1998, we will evaluate the importance of different factors on women’s appointment to the cabinets of 20 post-industrial democracies, paying special attention to the role that different institutional structures play in producing differing levels of women’s representation in the executive branch. Additionally, we will analyze a broader sample of democracies at various stages of development for the years 1994, 1998 and 2005.