Affective polarization-that is, personal dislike and distrust between Democrats and Republicans-is argued to arise, at least in part, from fewer cross-cutting ties that bridge Democrats and Republicans. We argue that this phenomenon might be specifically relevant to non-Latino white Americans, but less so to Latinos who form a politically diverse group with strong social ties that unite them. Across six years of American National Election Studies data and original survey data from twelve different states across the country, we first show that cross-cutting group memberships predict warmer out-party affect. We then show, across our multiple datasets, that Latinos hold more cross-cutting ties than do non-Latino whites. Further, our data reveal that Latinos consistently hold warmer views of the out-party. Finally, we show with novel survey data that Latinos are especially warm toward out-partisans from within the Latino community. We conclude that affective polarization is less prevalent among Latino Americans who make up the fastest-growing proportion of the American electorate. More broadly, we argue that political behavior among white Americans should not be generalized across ethnic groups without considering unique characteristics of each group.

Differences in how candidates present themselves to voters is a key concern for scholars of campaigns and elections. Candidate advertisements, speeches, and websites form the basis of our knowledge on the subject, but ignore some of the most pervasive and discernible features of political campaigns: campaign logos featured on signage, stickers, apparel, buttons, websites, and advertisements. This study provides a descriptive examination of gender differences in candidate logos from the 2018 mid-term election. It extends our knowledge of how women and men present themselves by examining how candidates sell themselves in more symbolic terms based on colors, fonts, imagery, and slogans. We argue these logo choices reflect candidate brand positioning strategies, which are connected to attributes of the rival candidate and the preferences of the constituency. We then outline a future agenda for how the study of political campaign logos can inform theories of political science and brand positioning.

In this article, we consider the potential associations between feminist identity and willingness to adopt vaccine-related COVID-19 mitigation efforts. Recognizing that individuals’ pandemic experiences were highly gendered and that the costs of the pandemic were distributed asymmetrically between men and women, we theorize that individuals espousing a commitment to feminist ideals were more likely to adopt behaviors intended to mitigate disease risk during the pandemic. We empirically validate our hypotheses by analyzing data from a large, nationally representative multi-wave survey of US respondents deployed in early 2022. The results of these analyses suggest that feminist identity is associated with beliefs and behaviors relating to a range of COVID-19 vaccination mitigation efforts. Notably, this relationship holds for both women and men, highlighting the role of identity independent of sex. Thus, identity-based public health policies might be one means to overcome public skepticism during future pandemics.

Government restrictions intended to mitigate the spread of COVID-19-such as "lockdowns," mask mandates, and vaccine passports-produced intense resentment among some groups and led to resistance, defiance, and social unrest in many countries. To better understand the roots of this opposition, we examine the role of dispositional authoritarianism as a psychological motivator of participation in anti-restriction protests and support for the groups that engaged in such actions. Because obedience to authority is commonly identified as a core feature of authoritarianism, existing studies have suggested authoritarians should be more likely to endorse pandemic restrictions and oppose anti-government dissent. However, we propose the alternative hypothesis: individuals with authoritarian dispositions are more likely to oppose pandemic restrictions and more likely to express support for pandemic dissidents (e.g., anti-vax and anti-lockdown groups). Data from three surveys deployed in the United States and United Kingdom support our hypotheses, demonstrating a counterintuitive relationship between dispositional authoritarianism and opposition to public health authorities during the pandemic. We further find that dispositional authoritarianism produces an intriguing misalignment between ideology and support for pandemic restrictions among those on the left, leading liberals who score high in authoritarianism to mirror the attitudes and behaviors of their conservative counterparts.

OBJECTIVE:During the pandemic healthcare professionals and political leaders routinely used traditional and new media outlets to publicly respond to COVID-19 myths and inaccuracies. We examine how variations in the sources and messaging strategies of these public statements affect respondents' beliefs about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. METHODS:We analyzed the results of an experiment embedded within a multi-wave survey deployed to US and UK respondents in January-February 2022 to examine these effects. We employ a test-retest between-subjects experimental protocol with a control group. Respondents were randomly assigned to one of four experimental conditions reflecting discrete pairings of message source (political authorities vs. healthcare professionals) and messaging strategy (debunking misinformation vs. discrediting mis-informants) or a control condition. We use linear regression to compare the effects of exposure to treatment conditions on changes in respondent beliefs about the potential risks associated with COVID-19 vaccination. RESULTS:In the UK sample, we observe a statistically significant decrease in beliefs about the risks of COVID-19 vaccines among respondents exposed to debunking messages by healthcare professionals. We observe a similar relationship in the US sample, but the effect was weaker and not significant. Identical messages from political authorities had no effect on respondents' beliefs about vaccine risks in either sample. Discrediting messages critical of mis-informants likewise had no influence on respondent beliefs, regardless of the actor to which they were attributed. Political ideology moderated the influence of debunking statements by healthcare professionals on respondent vaccine attitudes in the US sample, such that the treatment was more effective among liberals and moderates than among conservatives. CONCLUSIONS:Brief exposure to public statements refuting anti-vaccine misinformation can help promote vaccine confidence among some populations. The results underscore the joint importance of message source and messaging strategy in determining the effectiveness of responses to misinformation.

Both the "for-profit" nature and dehumanizing conditions of immigration detention centers has ignited an intense public debate on the use of immigration detention centers. Although prior research indicates that the framing of public policies can significantly shape public opinion, it is unclear how the "for-profit" nature of immigration detention centers, and the use of dehumanizing language, shapes public support for these facilities. This study employs a survey experiment testing the role of various dehumanizing frames on public support for "for-profit" immigration detention as well as the difference in support when detention centers are owned and operated by the federal government. The results show that the public appears more opposed to "for-profit" detention relative to public facilities. Opposition to the privatization of detention is associated with negative beliefs about big business and a desire for stealth democracy. We further show that support for "for-profit" detention centers increases in the face of dehumanizing language toward immigrants, but only among respondents exhibiting racial prejudice toward Latinos.

Recent scholarship has documented changing norms toward political tolerance and an increase in intolerant beliefs in the United States. Descriptive norm theory attributes attitudinal and behavioral changes to beliefs about how we perceive other people think and act. Applied to political tolerance, increasing the perception that society is more or less tolerant should result in corresponding changes among individuals. Neglected from this discussion, however, is the distinction between norms that are applied universally and norms that are applied to specific targets. Four studies show mixed support for descriptive norm theory with norms altering individual tolerance judgments mostly when applied universally. Norms aimed at a particularistic group fail to change tolerance judgments suggesting an important limitation to norm influence. Contrary to expectations, we uncover a reversal effect among Democrats whereby exposure to universalistic norms of intolerance leads to higher levels of tolerance.

What actions do citizens believe are appropriate to contest electoral outcomes? We test a theory of “winner and loser effects,” where election outcomes affect support for behaviors asso- ciated with contesting an election, including criticizing the election, protests, symbolic speech, ballot recounts, and litigation. Using data from the 2020 Western States Survey, we explore differences in citizen support for different modes of electoral contestation before and after the 2020 election. We find that support for electoral contestation behaviors changes, depending upon whether one’s preferred candidate wins or loses the election. In the days following the 2020 election, Trump voters became more supportive of electoral contestation; Biden voters, on the other hand, became less supportive. Our findings shed light on the aftermath of the 2020 election and expand the scope of “winner effects” to a new outcome—electoral contestation. Ultimately, our findings point to the fragility of the public’s commitment to democratic ideals.

Research on public attitudes toward the death penalty has yet to systematically examine the role of race in the context of offense-related attributes. This study uses a conjoint experiment randomly exposing a sample of 500 U.S. adults to different pairings of capital offenders to test the role of both offender and offense-related attributes on beliefs about death penalty deservingness. The results show offense-related factors play a significant role in who the public deems deserving of the death penalty, while the offender's race matters only for citizens holding prejudicial opinions towards Blacks or Latinos. Instrumental considerations typically outweigh racial considerations in death penalty judgments, although perceptions of those factors might be racialized as well. The results point to a potential disjuncture between the desires of citizens and the implementation of the death penalty.

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

Measuring racial animus is quite difficult in an era where explicit racism is still deemed socially unacceptable. This chapter shows that existing measures of racism toward Latinos fail to capture the full extent of animosity toward the group and limits our understanding of how White animus toward Latinos shapes American politics. It provides a wide range of both focus group and survey data to document how White’s commonly express animus about Latinos in everyday discourse. Evidence is provided that shows that this form of animus represents a coherent belief system that is distinct from other beliefs such as political ideology, a preference for Anglo-American culture, ethnocentrism, and old-fashioned racial stereotypes. The connection between this belief system and concerns about race is then established.

Elections represent group contestations over political power. The rise of Latino candidates for public office and campaigns that emphasize anti-Latino immigration appeals have created an environment where animus toward Latinos is a dominant consideration in the minds of many White Americans. This chapter shows the pervasiveness of White animus toward Latinos across a range of federal and state elections, including its role in the election of Donald J. Trump as president in 2016. It then shows that candidates are often motivated to take a “hard-line” stance on issues like immigration when their constituents harbor resentment toward Latinos.

Starting as early as the Spanish colonial caste system, the ancestors of modern Latinos faced discrimination that led Whites to view them as a non-White racial group. The discrimination Latinos faced resulting from the caste system limited their social mobility, helping create a belief that Latinos were incapable of assimilating into colonial society. Other types of formal and informal forms of discrimination against Latinos (e.g., the California Land Act, Operation Wetback, the Zoot Suit riots) had a similar effect, reinforcing beliefs about the inability of Latinos to assimilate as well as creating an impression that Latinos fail to adhere to Anglo-American norms. This chapter traces various historical institutions that have helped shape how White's perceive Latino identity and ultimately shape the way that animus is expressed toward Latinos today.

Immigration has become the most obvious point of contention between Whites and Latinos. Despite claims that anti-immigration sentiment is divorced of racism, this chapter demonstrates a sizable and stable relationship between White animus toward Latinos and public support for immigration policies ranging from a pathway to citizenship to Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals to building a wall. Even Whites who are open to the idea of free migration for US citizens oppose the policy when applied to citizens of Latino countries as a result of this belief system that Latinos fail to assimilate and adhere to Anglo-American norms.