Theses and Dissertations from UMD
Permanent URI for this communityhttp://hdl.handle.net/1903/2
New submissions to the thesis/dissertation collections are added automatically as they are received from the Graduate School. Currently, the Graduate School deposits all theses and dissertations from a given semester after the official graduation date. This means that there may be up to a 4 month delay in the appearance of a give thesis/dissertation in DRUM
More information is available at Theses and Dissertations at University of Maryland Libraries.
Browse
7 results
Search Results
Item Taking Perspective: A Theory of Prejudice Reduction and Political Attitudes(2021) Safarpour, Alauna C.; Hanmer, Michael; Banks, Antoine; Government and Politics; Digital Repository at the University of Maryland; University of Maryland (College Park, Md.)This dissertation develops and tests Engagement, Perspective-Taking, and Re-calibration (EPR), a theory of how to reduce prejudice and its consequences on political attitudes. I theorize that an intervention that uses engagement to encourage perspective-taking reduces prejudice and re-calibrates the subject’s attribution of blame for America’s racial problems. This last step, “re-calibration,” shifts the target of blame from out-group members to the forces of racism and discrimination which alters political attitudes rooted in prejudice. I employ my theory of EPR to develop interventions to reduce anti-Black prejudice among U.S. citizens using online perspective-taking tasks. The interventions encourage participants to adopt the perspective of an African American individual who experiences racial prejudice and make choices regarding how to respond to the bias they encounter. Interventions designed according to EPR theory were evaluated in three randomized experiments in which participants completed either the perspective-taking treatment or a placebo task. I find that participation in the perspective-taking task significantly reduces multiple forms of racial prejudice including racial resentment, negative affect, and belief in anti-Black stereotypes. The largest effects were among those with the highest levels of baseline prejudice. These studies also show that reducing prejudice increases support for policies that would help African Americans, including government assistance to Blacks, additional changes to ensure racial equality, affirmative action, and reparations for slavery. Similarly, reducing prejudice increases support for the belief that Blacks are not treated fairly in American society, increases support for policing reforms, and increases support for the Black Lives Matter protests against police violence. My results demonstrate that a substantial amount of opposition to racial policies is rooted in racial animus. But neither animus nor opposition to racial policies are immutable, reducing prejudice through my technique increases support for policies to redress racial inequities. This dissertation offers two empirically evaluated interventions that may be used as low-cost bias reduction trainings to combat the rising hate-related incidents in the United States. More broadly, my results provide insight into the nature of racial prejudice and its impact on political attitudes.Item Public Opinion or Powerful Friends: The Motivation of Minor Power Intervention Into External Conflict(2020) McCulloch, Caitlin; Gallagher Cunningham, Kathleen; Government and Politics; Digital Repository at the University of Maryland; University of Maryland (College Park, Md.)When and how do minor power states decide to intervene in external conflicts? When minor power states intervene, what form of intervention do they employ? I argue that particular types of intervention (military, financial, or diplomatic) are determined in part by whether a specific intervention is conducted to appease domestic or international audiences. When intervention is primarily a response to the domestic public, foreign policy elites will first and foremost take high visibility intervention action. If there is no strong domestic public opinion on the intervention but there is pressure from major power allies, foreign policy elites will be more likely to take financially costly intervention action. Previous explanations have not examined the entire menu of possible intervention types, missing important variation in the decision-making calculus around intervention. This study tests this theory with a mixture of qualitative and quantitative analysis. It uses a national public opinion survey in the Republic of Georgia (2017) to support which external conflicts interest the public, public preferences for diplomatic intervention, and elite interest in public preference. It then follows this with a historical case study of India, Sri Lanka and the Tamils (1980-1990) illustratively demonstrating the exact mobilization mechanism of the public and their impact on intervention. These two chapters show that the public cares about cases with solidarity ties and media attention, and overwhelmingly prefers diplomatic intervention. It also shows a majority of elite policymakers do believe the public impacts foreign security policy. The last empirical chapter turns to the role of major power allies in motivating intervention. This dissertation uses a statistical analysis and data from 1975-2009 to show the importance of major power security incentives and security contexts in motivating minor power military intervention. It shows mixed impacts of major power security incentives and security contexts in motivating economic intervention, and shows that major power-minor power intervention occurs in less than 1% of all diplomatic intervention cases. This supports that major powers play a large role in motivating military intervention, but suggests that major powers have a smaller role in motivating diplomatic intervention.Item Support Is Not Enough: The Role of Meritocracy and Sexism in Equal Pay(2020) Gomez Vidal, Analia; Calvo, Ernesto; Government and Politics; Digital Repository at the University of Maryland; University of Maryland (College Park, Md.)Since 2015, Argentina has witnessed an unprecedented increase in women’s mobilization around gender issues such as violence against women and reproductive rights. In this context, presidential support for equal pay policy was not enough to bring the issue upfront. This project addresses the determinants of support for equal pay. While support for this policy is high at first, meritocracy and sexism play a key role in our understanding of what is fair and who is deserving in the labor market. I argue that the labor market structure relies on gender biases that make it a misogynistic environment, even if participants do not individually align with sexist views. In such an environment, meritocratic views as aspirational can increase support for equal pay, but this effect is conditional on sexism. Alternatively, meritocracy serves as a hierarchy-legitimizing ideology, which in combination with modern sexism, reduces support for corrective policies like equal pay. Contrary to theoretical expectations, and popular agreement among respondents, stripping equal pay policy from its gender perspective does not increase support for this initiative. Instead, it reduces it. I present evidence for this theoretical framework using two original online studies administered in Argentina in 2018 and 2019. These studies are the first ones to combine micro-level data on labor market participation and political preferences with survey experiments. Overall, this dissertation represents an empirical and theoretical first step in unpacking attitudes about merit and gender equality and understanding the challenges in promoting gendered economic issues and garnering support around them in the public arena.Item Public Opinion, Political Representation, and Democratic Choice(2015) Zenz, Michael; Pacuit, Eric; Morris, Christopher W; Philosophy; Digital Repository at the University of Maryland; University of Maryland (College Park, Md.)In this dissertation I argue that political representatives have duties to be responsive to public opinion in their policy decisions. The existence of this duty, I claim, is a basic requirement of a truly democratic system of government. In chapter 2, I show that several standard versions of democratic legitimacy require political representatives to ``respect'' public opinion. However, I argue that a particular version of political legitimacy, based upon popular sovereignty and the importance of self-governance, provides an especially useful background for understanding what this ``respect'' must mean. In chapter 3, I argue that respecting public opinion requires political representatives to integrate public opinion information into their policy decisions. According to one of the standard views of political representation, the liberal conception, representatives deciding between policy alternatives should balance what they believe to be in the interests of the public against public opinion. I argue that this is the only adequate theory of political representation. Although this view of political representation is often discussed in the literature, it is less often given a mathematically precise form. Therefore, I present a formal model of such a balancing procedure, and this reveals several important formal requirements that a conception of public opinion must satisfy; most importantly, it must account for instability in the expression of public opinion, individual differences in opinion strength, and it must be representable along a cardinal scale. Standard measures of public opinion do not satisfy these requirements. I argue that if such a model of public opinion cannot be formulated, then the liberal conception of political representation is incoherent. In chapters 4 and 5, I present a model of public opinion based upon Thurstonian scaling techniques that fulfills the necessary formal requirements. Finally, in chapter 6, I discuss several important implications this model has for the measurement of public opinion, the use of public opinion by political representatives in policy deliberation, and other problems in social choice theory.Item The Unique Political Attitudes and Behaviors of Individuals in Aged Communities(2012) Bramlett, Brittany H.; Gimpel, James G; Government and Politics; Digital Repository at the University of Maryland; University of Maryland (College Park, Md.)This dissertation examines the political attitudes and behaviors of individuals residing in communities with large proportions of older adults. These types of locations are growing in number in the United States as the Baby Boomer Generation arrives at retirement age. Many scholars and journalists rely on theories of `senior power' and predict that the places with large numbers of senior citizens should be especially politically powerful. However, many studies have provided little evidence to support these claims. I explore the old questions with updated data, methods and approaches--theorizing that older adults living among their elderly peers will, in fact, exhibit unique levels of political knowledge, efficacy, and participation as well as hold distinct attitudes for safety net issues. Using large-scale surveys and multilevel modeling techniques, I find that older adults residing in aged communities display higher levels of political knowledge than their elderly peers living in places without the same aged context. However, they are less politically efficacious and somewhat less likely to vote. Older adults living among their peers are also more likely to support social welfare programs, controlling for party identification. I also examine the contextual effect of the aged context for younger residents. In particular, I find that young people are also quite supportive of the safety net policies, which provide assistance for their elder neighbors. Because of this support from the younger generation, older adults in aged communities may rarely, if ever, face threats to their livelihood, driving them into political action. Taken together, the results from this dissertation show that older adults living amongst their peers are certainly equipped for intense political engagement or senior power--but they choose political retreatism rather than activism.Item JAPANESE AND U.S. MEDIA COVERAGE OF THE IRAQ WAR: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS(2007-07-30) Maeshima, Kazuhiro; Schreurs, Miranda A.; Government and Politics; Digital Repository at the University of Maryland; University of Maryland (College Park, Md.)This study investigates the relationship between the media and politics by analyzing the Iraq War coverage of two leading U.S. and Japanese newspapers: the New York Times and the Asahi. This dissertation reveals that these two print media, although both liberal in their general orientation, treated the Iraq War differently. First, it quantitatively finds that they are quite distinctive in their choice of main topics. During the run-up period to the war, the Asahi put more focus on the role of the United Nations while the majority of the stories appearing in the New York addressed U.S. decisions about Iraq. Second, the dissertation's qualitative analysis of editorials reveals that a different emphasis on who the "evil" doers in the war are. While the New York treated the oppressive Saddam Hussein regime and terrorists as the "evildoers," the Asahi portrayed the U.S. as the big evil doer. Further, content analysis of articles written by embedded journalists who were with coalition forces in Iraq revealed that the two newspapers' articles showed significant disparities in the degree of sympathy they showed to the forces. Numerous background factors have influenced this media content. Interviews with Japanese journalists and scholars revealed that the cultures of anti-militarism held by Japanese that originated from Japan's defeat in World War II remain firm within Japanese news organizations. Anti-militaristic sentiments and cultural factors, such as religion, appear to have influenced how their organizations portrayed the war in Iraq. Further, this dissertation statistically shows that the media's impact is significant in shaping the political agenda and public opinion. Poll data of Japanese sentiments about the United States show a decline in positive feelings towards the United States as the ratio of negative stories of U.S. Iraq policies carried by the Asahi rose. In addition, the Asahi's critical assessments of the Japanese government's Iraq policies showed a moderate negative congruence with public support for their Cabinet. Also, there was a moderate negative relationship between the New York Times' unfavorable coverage of the U.S. government's policies of Iraq and presidential approval ratings.Item Meritocracy and Americans' Views on Distributive Justice(2007-02-08) Longoria, Richard; Gimpel, James; Government and Politics; Digital Repository at the University of Maryland; University of Maryland (College Park, Md.)The dissertation analyzes Americans' views on distributive justice and asks whether and to what extent Americans support meritocratic ideals. The project finds that Americans are ambivalent in their views towards meritocracy. They believe that intelligence and hard work should be rewarded, but they also support inherited wealth, seniority pay, and the distribution of educational opportunities through the market. This project contributes much to the existing literature on public opinion and meritocracy because it finds that Americans are not as meritocratic as other studies have found. For example, Lipset and others have found that Americans support meritocratic ideals. It has also been shown that Americans believe that the US is a meritocratic society where intelligence and hard work is actually rewarded. Data from the International Social Justice Project, General Social Survey, World Values Survey and many public opinion polls are used in this project and confirm the previous findings. However, the data also show that Americans are ambivalent when it comes to their support of meritocratic ideals. Americans support the distribution of wealth by heredity, of income by seniority, and believe it is fair for educational opportunities to be distributed via the market where the wealthy can purchase superior opportunities for their children. In short, Americans are not strictly meritocratic in their distributive preferences. They often consider items other than merit to be legitimate reasons for inegalitarian modes of distribution. Hochschild's qualitative study on distributive justice found that Americans are inegalitarian in the economic domain but egalitarian in the political and social domains. Analyzing the data from the data sets listed above more or less confirmed that Hochschild was correct about Americans' attitudes in the economic and political domains. However, Americans are not social egalitarians. The analysis in this dissertation has found that Americans believe it is perfectly just and fair for people to be given greater levels of respect and deference and to have higher social status if their jobs require great amounts of skill or if they make the most of the opportunities they had in life.