At #APSA2022, @EricGroenendyk asks how perceptions of politics as conflict shape other political attitudes.

While many often see politics as conflict over resources, it may also be conceptualized as joint problem-solving. Does perceptions of this matter? 1/10
This is part of a larger project. In a published paper, it has already been shown that politics-as-conflict activates motivated reasoning. The present results focus on how politics-as-conflict perceptions shape political engagement. 2/10
Prior research suggests that conflict orientations increases engagement in politics. This raises the question of whether participatory democracy is even compatible with delibrative problem-solving democracy? 3/10
The data comes from a large number of surveys collected between 2019 and 2021. 4/10
In a set of studies it is manipulated whether a survey as labelled as being about politics or about entertainment. There is significant drop-out of surveys about politics, independently of whether the questions are about controversial or non-controversial political topics. 5/10
Similarly, when people are asked by attending fictive dinner parties, they avoid them if political topics are likely to be discussed (rather than movies). 6/10
What is driving this? It is specifically people who tend to avoid conflicts who select out of political surveys and discussions. 7/10
Can we get these individuals back into political discussions? Is it possible to change people's associations of politics? This is very difficult. People have a firm understanding that politics = conflict. 8/10
What instead works is to remove the label of "politics" from discussions that are about important societal issues. People avoid "politics" but are willing to address the underlying dilemmas. People are interested in the substance but not fighting. 9/10
The implication is that our understanding of politics is a self-fulfilling prophecy: If we frame politics as conflict, we will draw conflict-minded individuals to it. This means that the public sphere will become more conflictual over time. 10/10

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Michael Bang Petersen

Michael Bang Petersen Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @M_B_Petersen

Sep 17
At #APSA2022, Tsveta Petrova asks: Do political scandals mobilize populist voters because it gives proof of "corrupt elites"? And what happens if it is the populist elites that are the focus of the scandal? 1/5
The dataset are data on political scandals in Hungary and Poland from 2000 to 2020. This includes scandals related to legality, morality and democratic violations. This is connected to data on electoral support (i.e., vote shares). 2/5
The data shows that populist elites are heavily involved in scandals when they come to power. But having populist in power also increases scandals among the opposition, in part, because the populists use official media to target the opposition. 3/5
Read 5 tweets
Sep 17
Populists in power undermine democratic institutions but are these actions aligned with the preferences of their voters?, asks Tsveta Petrova at #APSA2022 1/5
In general, some prior research suggests that populist supports are loyal to pluralist democracy. Other research suggests that populist supporters do not, in fact, support democracy. 2/5
A third possibility is that populist voters support a particular form of democracy: majoritarian democracy, where decisions reflect the "will of the people". 3/5
Read 5 tweets
Sep 17
At #APSA2022, Natasha Wunsch asks why voters tolerate democratic backsliding, focusing on the Hungarian case. 1/9
The puzzle is why citizens who state they support democracy still support undemocratic leaders? There is a growing literature on partisanship and how group psychology produce acceptance of inparty candidates, even if they are undemocratic. 2/9
But these findings are not entirely reproducible. Instead, it may be that there is heterogeniety among supporters of authoritarian politics. The party essentially builds a large voter coalition and this enables them to stay in power. 3/9
Read 9 tweets
Sep 17
At APSA2022, @ArifMemovic asks why Americans sometimes are willing to excuse political violence? 1/7
The common sense notion is that political violence is prohibited in democracies. But there is political violence and surveys show some (and increasing) support for political violence. But this is controversial & there are a larger methods discussion about the survey evidence 2/7
In the present study, it is asked whether people evaluate acts of political violence depending on the severity of the act and the identity of the perpetrator?

In other words, are all acts judged equally? Are people act- or identity-centered? 3/7
Read 7 tweets
Sep 17
At #APSA2022, @Bryan_Gervais asks whether elite political incivility polarizes the electorate?

There are two camps: One says 'yes' and one says 'no'. The latter camp argues that incivility may in fact depolarize.

But: May the effect depend on the conditions of incivility? 1/6
When may in-elite hostility polarize? Perhaps in competitive elections where status threats are clear. Prior research shows that status threats lead to preferences for aggression. But when status threats are not clear, incivility might be rejected by partisans. 2/6
The data comes from four experiments in online surveys. The timing of these surveys differed in their distance to a competitive election. In the surveys, participants are exposed to civil versus incivil political statements from in-party elites. 3/6
Read 6 tweets
Sep 17
At #APSA2022, Brianna Smith examines the so-called "weapons effect", i..e, the idea that being around weapons increases aggression. Specifically, is the weapons effect stronger if potential aggression is directed towards outgroups (Black individuals for white individuals). 1/6
The "weapons effect" seems real and has been demonstrated in meta-analyses as well as across cultures and even just using images rather than real weapons. 2/6
How may race play a role? Research shows that there is hostility among white people towards Black people. Furthermore, racial stereotypes connect Black people with gun violence. So, is the "weapons effect" stronger when white individuals confront Black individuals? 3/6
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(