Political Narratives and the US Partisan Gender Gap.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Antinyan A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8253555 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:What effect has the COVID-19 pandemic had on the political donations gender gap in Canada? Drawing on data from two national surveys conducted in May and August 2020, as well as Elections Canada data from 2019 and 2020, we find an overall decline in contributions to political parties and a reduced but still significant gender gap, with women less likely to donate to political parties than men.
| S-EPMC9829954 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Mistrust of scientific evidence and government-issued guidelines is increasingly correlated with political affiliation. Survey evidence has documented skepticism in a diverse set of issues including climate change, vaccine hesitancy, and, most recently, COVID-19 risks. Less well understood is whether these beliefs alter high-stakes behavior. Combining GPS data for 2.7 million smartphone users in Florida and Texas with 2016 U.S. presidential election precinct-level results, we examine how conservative-media dismissals of hurricane advisories in 2017 influenced evacuation decisions. Likely Trump-voting Florida residents were 10 to 11 percentage points less likely to evacuate Hurricane Irma than Clinton voters (34% versus 45%), a gap not present in prior hurricanes. Results are robust to fine-grain geographic controls, which compare likely Clinton and Trump voters living within 150 m of each other. The rapid surge in media-led suspicion of hurricane forecasts-and the resulting divide in self-protective measures-illustrates a large behavioral consequence of science denialism.
| S-EPMC7486090 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The COVID-19 pandemic is a global crisis that has been testing every society and exposing the critical role of local politics in crisis response. In the United States, there has been a strong partisan divide between the Democratic and Republican party's narratives about the pandemic which resulted in polarization of individual behaviors and divergent policy adoption across regions. As shown in this case, as well as in most major social issues, strongly polarized narrative frameworks facilitate such narratives. To understand polarization and other social chasms, it is critical to dissect these diverging narratives. Here, taking the Democratic and Republican political social media posts about the pandemic as a case study, we demonstrate that a combination of computational methods can provide useful insights into the different contexts, framing, and characters and relationships that construct their narrative frameworks which individual posts source from. Leveraging a dataset of tweets from the politicians in the U.S., including the ex-president, members of Congress, and state governors, we found that the Democrats' narrative tends to be more concerned with the pandemic as well as financial and social support, while the Republicans discuss more about other political entities such as China. We then perform an automatic framing analysis to characterize the ways in which they frame their narratives, where we found that the Democrats emphasize the government's role in responding to the pandemic, and the Republicans emphasize the roles of individuals and support for small businesses. Finally, we present a semantic role analysis that uncovers the important characters and relationships in their narratives as well as how they facilitate a membership categorization process. Our findings concretely expose the gaps in the "elusive consensus" between the two parties. Our methodologies may be applied to computationally study narratives in various domains.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1140/epjds/s13688-021-00308-4.
| S-EPMC8556838 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC11250223 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDoes increased female participation in the social and political life of a country improve health? Social participation may improve health because it ensures that the concerns of all people are heard by key decision-makers. More specifically, when women's social participation increases this may lead to health gains because women are more likely to vote for leaders and lobby for policies that will enhance the health of everyone. This article tries to examine whether female participation is correlated with measures of health inequality.MethodsWe draw on data from the World Health Organization Health Equity Status Report initiative and the Varieties of Democracy project to assess whether health is better and health inequalities are smaller in countries where female political representation is greater.ResultsWe find consistent evidence that greater female political representation is associated with lower geographical inequalities in infant mortality, smaller inequalities in self-reported health (for both women and men) and fewer disability-adjusted life-years lost for women and men. Finally, we find that greater female political representation is not only correlated with better health for men and women but is also correlated with a smaller gap between men and women because men seem to experience better health in such contexts.ConclusionsGreater female political representation is associated with better health for everyone and smaller inequalities.
| S-EPMC9527963 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Popular press articles have asserted that those with certain political orientations are less likely to wear face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic. We propose that this relation is due to differential information shared by political parties rather than values associated with face mask wearing. We further propose that, when assessed together, political party affiliation (e.g., Republican, Democrat) but not political ideology (e.g., conservative, liberal) predicts face mask wearing, and this effect is mediated by perceptions of efficacy doubts but not perceptions that face masks infringe upon the wearer's independence. We performed a three-wave, time-separated survey study with 226 participants. Each proposal was supported. When assessed together, political party affiliation but not political ideology significantly predicted face mask wearing, and a significant indirect effect was observed via perceptions of efficacy doubts but not independence. Our results support that face mask wearing is a unique preventative action, which should be understood using political theory.
| S-EPMC8652787 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The rapid emergence of online targeted political advertising has raised concerns over data privacy and what the government's response should be. This paper tested and confirmed the hypothesis that public attitudes toward stricter regulation of online targeted political advertising are partially motivated by partisan self-interest. We conducted an experiment using an online survey of 1549 Americans who identify as either Democrats or Republicans. Our findings show that Democrats and Republicans believe that online targeted political advertising benefits the opposing party. This belief is based on their conviction that their political opponents are more likely to be mobilized by online targeted political advertising than are supporters of their own party. We exogenously manipulated partisan self-interest considerations of a random subset of participants by truthfully informing them that, in the past, online targeted political advertising has benefited Republicans. Our findings show that Republicans informed about this had less favorable attitudes toward regulation than did their uninformed co-partisans. This suggests that Republicans' attitudes regarding stricter regulation are based not solely on concerns about privacy violations, but also, in part, are caused by beliefs about partisan advantage. The results imply that people are willing to accept violations of their privacy if their preferred party benefits from the use of online targeted political advertising.
| S-EPMC8115848 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Decades of research have demonstrated that we like people who are more similar to us. The present research tested a potential mechanism for this similarity-liking effect in the domain of politics: the stereotype that people's political orientation reflects their morals. People believe that Democrats are more likely to endorse individualizing morals like fairness and Republicans are more likely to endorse binding morals like obedience to authority. Prior to the 2016 election, American participants (N = 314) viewed an ostensible Facebook profile that shared an article endorsing conservative ideals (pro-Trump or pro-Republican), or liberal ideals (pro-Clinton or pro-Democrat). Participants rated the favorability of the profile-owner, and completed the Moral Foundations Questionnaire for the profile-owner and themselves. As predicted, participants liked the profile-owner more when they shared political beliefs, and used political stereotypes to infer the moral foundations of the profile-owner. Additionally, the perceived moral foundation endorsement of the profile owner differentially mediated the relationship between the ideology and evaluations of the profile owner based on the party affiliation of the participant: perceived individualizing foundations mediated the relationship for Democratic participants and perceived binding foundations mediated the relationship for Republican participants. In other words, people liked their in-group members more because they thought that the profile-owner endorsed a specific type of morals. In Study 2 (N = 486), we ruled out the potential explanation that any political stereotype can account for the similarity-liking effect, replicating the results of Study 1 even when controlling for perceptions of other personality differences. Taken together, these studies highlight that there may be something unique about the perceived type of morality of political in-group and out-group members that may be contributing to the similarity-liking effect in politics.
| S-EPMC6114773 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Widely held gender stereotypes present obstacles for women experts, who are generally evaluated less positively than equally qualified men across a range of fields. While audiences may view women as better equipped to handle certain feminine-stereotyped issues, Role Congruency Theory suggests that expert authority in politics may be incongruent with traditional feminine gender roles, leading to a subsequent backlash. Building upon the latter theory, I hypothesize that when cued to consider the expertise of a news source, the (in)congruence of gender-stereotyped roles will activate gender biases which increase the gap in evaluations and trust of women and men. Using selection experiments, I assess the relationship between domain-relevant expertise and gender biases across a range of gender-stereotyped issues. I find that women experts are rewarded less for additional expertise and punished more severely for a lack of expertise, exacerbating gender-based biases relative to the control. I find that this pattern is consistent across both masculine- and feminine-stereotyped issues, including issues that disproportionately impact women, such as women's health care and the gender wage gap. The addition of competing partisan cues, however, overwhelms the influence of gender. The normative implications suggest women in the media often face an uphill battle to advocate for their interests on key issues that affect them even when they may have more direct relevant experience in addition to their qualifications.
| S-EPMC10408780 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Men have higher death rates than women, but women do worse with regard to physical strength, disability, and other health outcomes, the so called male-female health-survival paradox. The paradox is likely to be due to multiple causes that include biological, behavioral, and social differences between the sexes. Despite decades of research on the male-female health-survival paradox, we still do not fully recognize whether behavioral factors explain most of the gender gap or whether biological and social differences contribute more substantially to the explanation of the sex differences in health and mortality. Little work has been done to investigate the magnitude of sex differences in healthy life expectancy and unhealthy life expectancy, as well as to examine the contribution of mortality and disability levels to the sex gap in health expectancy. The five selected works presented at the Réseau Espérance de Vie en Santé (REVES) Meeting 2009 in Copenhagen, and published in this issue, provide new insights into sex differences in health expectancy. The papers examine sex differences in health expectancy indicators in the EU countries, as well as trends in health expectancy in Hong Kong and in the US. They go beyond description of sex differences in health expectancy and assess the contributions of mortality and disability to gender differences in healthy life years and unhealthy life years, investigate temporal changes in sex differential health expectancy, as well as analyze contributions of time and age dimensions to the gender gap. They also show that there is still work to be done to indentify and quantify mechanisms underlying sex differences in longevity, health, and aging.
| S-EPMC5547325 | biostudies-other