Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

0 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

Norm-violating rhetoric undermines support for participatory inclusiveness and political equality among Trump supporters.

ABSTRACT: Over the last decade, the United States has seen increasing antidemocratic rhetoric by political leaders. Yet, prior work suggests that such norm-violating rhetoric does not undermine support for democracy as a system of government. We argue that, while that may be true, such rhetoric does vitiate support for specific democratic principles. We test this theory by extending prior work to assess the effects of Trump's norm-violating rhetoric on general support for democracy as well as for the principles of participatory inclusiveness, contestation, the rule of law, and political equality. We find that Trump's rhetoric does not alter attitudes toward democracy as a preferred system but does reduce support for inclusiveness and equality among his supporters. Our findings suggest that elite rhetoric can undermine basic principles of American democracy.

SUBMITTER: Hall MEK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10556636 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Publications

Norm-violating rhetoric undermines support for participatory inclusiveness and political equality among Trump supporters.

Hall Matthew E K MEK Druckman James N JN

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 20230925 40

Over the last decade, the United States has seen increasing antidemocratic rhetoric by political leaders. Yet, prior work suggests that such norm-violating rhetoric does not undermine support for democracy as a system of government. We argue that, while that may be true, such rhetoric does vitiate support for specific democratic principles. We test this theory by extending prior work to assess the effects of Trump's norm-violating rhetoric on general support for democracy as well as for the prin ...[more]

PMID: 37748055

Similar Datasets

Science advocacy in political rhetoric and actions.

Project description:'Science' is a proportionately small but recurring constituent in the rhetorical lexicon of political leaders. To evaluate the use of science-related content relative to other themes in political communications, we undertake a statistical analysis of keywords in U.S. Presidential State of the Union (SOTU) addresses and Presidential Budget Messages (PBM) from Truman (1947) to Trump (2020). Hierarchical clustering and correlation analyses reveal proximate affinities between 'science' and 'research', 'space', 'technology', 'education', and 'climate'. The keywords that are least correlated with 'science' relate to fiscal ('inflation', 'tax') and conflict-related themes ('security', 'war', 'terror'). The most ubiquitous and frequently used keywords are 'economy' and 'tax'. Science-related keywords are used in a positive (promotional) rhetorical context and thus their proportionality in SOTU and PBM corpora is used to define fields of science advocacy (public perception advocacy, funding advocacy, advocacy) for each president. Monte Carlo simulations and randomized sampling of three elements: language (relative frequency of usage of science-related keywords), funding (proposed funding and allocated discretionary funding of science agencies), and actions (e.g. expediency of science advisor appointments, (dis-) establishment of science agencies) are used to generate a science advocacy score (SAS) for each president. The SAS is compared with independent survey-based measures of political popularity. A myriad of political, contextual, and other factors may contribute to lexical choices, policy, and funding actions. Within this complex environment 'science' may have political currency under certain circumstances, particularly where public and political perceptions of the value of science to contribute to matters of priority align.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10669-022-09875-x.

| S-EPMC9389511 | biostudies-literature

Are political-opinion pollsters missing ambivalence: "I love Trump"… "I hate Trump".

Project description:Given the increasing attention ambivalence is receiving from the psychological community, it must be asked if pollsters' (routinely) dichotomous political opinion surveys are missing something crucial. To determine if there is any legitimacy to this question, undergraduates attending a Liberal Arts college in Southern California were asked to rate their level of agreement/disagreement to 28 statements regarding President Trump in two studies, with the items drawn from actual Quinnipiac (Q) and Brookings Institute (BI) surveys. To quantify ambivalence participants were told they could mark one or two responses per item, with double-responses serving as a measure of ambivalence. In Study 1, mean Trump approval ratings divided along party lines, and were consistent with the Q and BI findings. Nonetheless, approximately 40% of participants registered some level of ambivalence across all political-party affiliations, with those defining themselves as Neither Democrats (DEMs) nor Republicans (REPs) showing the greatest degree of ambivalence. In Study 2, ambivalence towards President Trump was examined looking at both party affiliation and political ideology (Conservative, Moderate, and Liberal). Again, roughly 40% of participants displayed some level of ambivalence, with greater degrees of ambivalence for Independents relative to DEMs and REPs, and Moderates relative to Liberals. Given research indicating that ambivalence is associated with delayed decision making and decisions based on "in the moment" contextual information, our findings our suggestive: if political opinion pollsters do not assess ambivalence, they may be missing information on a fair-sized demographic that could influence an election based on negative information (real or fictitious) surfacing only days before an election… as it did in 2016.

| S-EPMC7951855 | biostudies-literature

Processing political misinformation: comprehending the Trump phenomenon.

Project description:This study investigated the cognitive processing of true and false political information. Specifically, it examined the impact of source credibility on the assessment of veracity when information comes from a polarizing source (Experiment 1), and effectiveness of explanations when they come from one's own political party or an opposition party (Experiment 2). These experiments were conducted prior to the 2016 Presidential election. Participants rated their belief in factual and incorrect statements that President Trump made on the campaign trail; facts were subsequently affirmed and misinformation retracted. Participants then re-rated their belief immediately or after a delay. Experiment 1 found that (i) if information was attributed to Trump, Republican supporters of Trump believed it more than if it was presented without attribution, whereas the opposite was true for Democrats and (ii) although Trump supporters reduced their belief in misinformation items following a correction, they did not change their voting preferences. Experiment 2 revealed that the explanation's source had relatively little impact, and belief updating was more influenced by perceived credibility of the individual initially purporting the information. These findings suggest that people use political figures as a heuristic to guide evaluation of what is true or false, yet do not necessarily insist on veracity as a prerequisite for supporting political candidates.

| S-EPMC5383823 | biostudies-literature

'Hustlers versus Dynasties': contemporary political rhetoric in Kenya.

Project description:Politicians have always been fascinated by the power of language and rhetoric in their quest to influence voters. For decades, ethnic-based political rhetoric has dominated African politics. In Kenya, the rhetoric of "Hustler versus Dynasty (HvD)," coupled with a powerful personal narrative is shifting the debate from ethnic to class-based politics setting up a face-off between the rich and poor. In light of the fierce competition between "hustlers" and "dynastic elites," this study aims to investigate the media role in popularization and framing of Hustler versus Dynasty rhetoric, risks of class-based social conflict, lessons and future implication of this rhetorical approach for Kenya and other Africa societies. Using an online survey of 140 Kenyans, the results indicate that the media has popularized the rhetoric by making it the center of their agenda through episodic and thematic framing. This has earned 'hustler narrative' massive support particularly among the poor and unemployed youth creating fears of social conflict in future. The rhetorical approach has created a new class-based voting pattern (2022 elections). The effectiveness of Hustler-versus-Dynasty class-based approach in mobilization and persuasion in Kenya means it could be replicated by other countries struggling with powerful political dynasties in Africa and beyond.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43545-022-00541-2.

| S-EPMC9559123 | biostudies-literature

Immigrant health access in Texas: policy, rhetoric, and fear in the Trump era.

Project description:BackgroundSince the 2016 presidential election, reports have suggested that President Trump's rhetoric and his administration's proposed policies could be exacerbating barriers to accessing health care for undocumented as well as lawfully present immigrants and their families in the United States. However, very little empirical work has analyzed this possibility or detailed how these reports and rhetoric have altered the health seeking behavior of mixed immigration status families.MethodsUsing a series of focus groups throughout Texas in both English and Spanish, this qualitative study analyzes changes to health access for immigrants. We consulted Community Health Workers to better understand the barriers encountered by their otherwise hard-to-reach undocumented clients and their families as they interface with the health system, revealing key insights about the changing nature of barriers to access under the Trump administration.ResultsWe identify four key themes about the changing nature of immigrant health access in the United States: growing fear of interacting with health and social services; that social networks are paradoxically limiting health access in the current political climate; that the administration's rhetoric and proposed policies are impeding health seeking behavior; and that children are encountering new barriers to social program participation.ConclusionsThe Trump administration, its proposed immigration policies, and his rhetoric are posing new and significant barriers to health access for immigrants and their families.

| S-EPMC6549327 | biostudies-literature

The Women of FOCIS: Promoting Equality and Inclusiveness in a Professional Federation of Clinical Immunology Societies.

Project description:The authors of this article, all women who have been deeply committed to the Federation of Clinical Immunology Societies (FOCIS), performed a retrospective analysis of gender equality practices of FOCIS to identify areas for improvement and make recommendations accordingly. Gender data were obtained and analyzed for the period from January 2010 to July 2021. Outcome measures included numbers of men and women across the following categories: membership enrollment, meeting and course faculty and attendees, committee and leadership composition. FOCIS' past and present leaders, steering committee members, FCE directors, individual members, as well as education, annual meeting scientific program and FCE committee members and management staff of FOCIS were surveyed by email questionnaire for feedback on FOCIS policies and practice with respect to gender equality and inclusion. Although women represent 50% of the membership, they have been underrepresented in all leadership, educational, and committee roles within the FOCIS organization. Surveying FOCIS leadership and membership revealed a growing recognition of disparities in female leadership across all FOCIS missions, leading to significant improvement in multiple areas since 2016. We highlight these changes and propose a number of recommendations that can be used by FOCIS to improve gender equality.

| S-EPMC9015160 | biostudies-literature

The Language of Pandemic Leaderships: Mapping Political Rhetoric During the COVID-19 Outbreak.

Project description:This article maps political rhetoric by national leaders during the COVID-19 pandemic. We identify and characterize global variations in major rhetorical storylines invoked in publicly available speeches (N = 1201) across a sample of 26 countries. Employing a text analytics or corpus linguistics approach, we show that state heads rhetorically lead their nations by: enforcing systemic interventions, upholding global unity, encouraging communal cooperation, stoking national fervor, and assuring responsive governance. Principal component analysis further shows that country-level rhetoric is organized along emergent dimensions of cultural cognition: an agency-structure axis to define the loci of pandemic interventions and a hierarchy-egalitarianism axis which distinguishes top-down enforcement from bottom-up calls for cooperation. Furthermore, we detect a striking contrast between countries featuring populist versus cosmopolitan rhetoric, which diverged in terms of their collective meaning making around leading over versus leading with, as well as their experienced pandemic severity. We conclude with implications for understanding global pandemic leadership in an unequal world and the contributions of mixed-methods approaches to a generative political psychology in times of crisis.

| S-EPMC8250800 | biostudies-literature

Sensitivity to social norm violation is related to political orientation.

Project description:Human behavior is framed by several social structures. In the present study, we focus on two of the most important determinants of social structures: social norms and political orientation. Social norms are implicit models of shared expectations about how people should behave in different social contexts. Although humans are very sensitive to violations in social norms, there are important individual differences in our sensitivity to these violations. The second concept this study focuses on is political orientation that is define by a continuum from left (liberal) to right (conservative). Individual political orientation has been found to be related to various individual traits, such as cognitive style or sensitivity to negative stimuli. Here, we propose to study the relation between sensitivity to social norm violation and political orientation. Participants completed a task presenting scenarios with different degrees of social norm violation and a questionnaire to measure their political opinions on economic and identity issues. Using hierarchical regressions, we show that individual differences in sensitivity to social norm violation are partly explained by political orientation, and more precisely by the identity axis. The more individuals have right-oriented political opinions, the more they are sensitive to social norm violation, even when multiple demographics variables are considered. Our results suggest that political orientation, especially according to identity issues, is a significant factor of individual differences in social norm processing.

| S-EPMC7707570 | biostudies-literature

Contagious accuracy norm violation in political journalism: A cross-national investigation of how news media publish inaccurate political information.

Project description:This study introduces social norm theory to mis- and disinformation research and investigates whether, how and under what conditions broadsheets' accuracy norm violation in political journalism becomes contagious and shifts other news media in a media market towards increasingly violating the accuracy norm in political journalism as well. Accuracy norm violation refers to the publication of inaccurate information. More specifically, the study compares Swiss and UK media markets and analyses Swiss and UK press councils' rulings between 2000 and 2019 that upheld complaints about accuracy norm violations in political journalism. The findings show that broadsheets increasingly violate the accuracy norm the closer election campaigns approach to election dates. They thereby drive other news media in a media market to increasingly violate the accuracy norm as well. However, this holds only for the UK media market but not for the Swiss media market. Therefore, the findings indicate that the higher expected benefits of accuracy norm violation that exist in media markets characterised by higher competition outweigh the higher expected costs of accuracy norm violation created by stronger press councils' sanctions, and, thereby, facilitate contagious accuracy norm violation in political journalism during election campaigns.

| S-EPMC9660276 | biostudies-literature

It's Not Just Trump: Americans of Both Parties Support Liberal Democratic Norm Violations More Under Their Own President.

Project description:There is a growing worry about the health of American democracy, and political scientists and pundits alike are looking for possible explanations. Surveys conducted during the Trump presidency showed considerable citizen support for liberal democratic norm erosions, especially among Republicans. However, recent experimental research also shows that voters of both parties are more tolerant of norm erosion committed by politicians of the party they prefer. In this note, we aim to reconcile these contradictory findings by analyzing surveys spanning from 2006 to 2021 on the public's tolerance of executive concentration of power. We also collect original data under both the Trump and Biden administrations gauging support for a broad array of liberal democratic norm erosions. Support for such erosions, in fact, has been relatively similar across Democrats and Republicans once we account for the party of the president. Support for executive aggrandizement has been prevalent among supporters of the president's party at least since the second term of the Bush administration. Increased checks and balances on the executive, through divided government, amplifies this effect further. Taken together, these findings suggest that universal support for the liberal democratic status quo has been weaker among those who support the president's party, well before and since the Trump presidency.

| S-EPMC11664217 | biostudies-literature

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

OmicsDI is an Elixir interoperability service. Learn more ›

Tweets

OmicsDI Databases

PRIDE
PeptideAtlas
MassIVE
JPOST Repository
Physiome Model Repository

EGA
EVA
ENA
LINCS
PAXDB
Cell Collective

MetaboLights
Metabolomics Workbench
MetabolomeExpress
GNPS
BioModels
FAIRDOMHub

ArrayExpress
dbGaP
ExpressionAtlas
GEO
NODE

Information

Databases
Help
API
Contact us
Code on GitHub
Terms of use
Submit Data