Scott Clifford

@ScottClif

Assoc. Prof in Poli Sci at U. of Houston. Interested in political psychology, morality, rhetoric, survey and experimental design.

Houston, TX
Vrijeme pridruživanja: travanj 2011.

Tweetovi

Blokirali ste korisnika/cu @ScottClif

Jeste li sigurni da želite vidjeti te tweetove? Time nećete deblokirati korisnika/cu @ScottClif

  1. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    4. velj

    Material interests or culture/values? We show that both matter, but for different groups of voters. Parties can exploit this by making policy promises that resonate with the values of core voters but are targeted at materially directly affected voters.

    Poništi
  2. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    4. velj

    Did you ever think to yourself, "man, it is crazy that psychology has made it this far as a science without ever demonstrating evidence that participants *understand* items?" Check out our workshop: Improving Psychological Measurement: Introducing the RPE Method

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  3. proslijedio/la je Tweet

    New et al in Public Opinion Quarterly: An Improved Question Format for Measuring Conspiracy Beliefs "evidence suggests that researchers adopt the explicit choice format for measuring conspiracy beliefs and provide a no-opinion response option"

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  4. 31. sij

    So, our findings suggest that past work has overstated the prevalence of conspiracy belief and given us a biased picture of who actually holds these beliefs. Surely not the last word, but hopefully a step forward! 6/6

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  5. 31. sij

    It also seems to matter for correlates of belief. Apparent effects of political knowledge and cognitive reflection largely disappear, likely bc these variables also predict DK responses, which our format reduces. 5/6

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  6. 31. sij

    Relative to our preferred format, an agree-disagree scale w/no midpoint nearly doubles conspiracy endorsement! For example, Iraq War conspiracy endorsement goes from 28% to 56%! This seems bad. 4/6

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  7. 31. sij

    We think this matters bc many people know little about the events we ask about! So we propose a different format that asks Ss to pick between 2 explanations for an event: conspiratorial vs. conventional. Our format (with DK) yielded lowest endorsement rates & DK rates. 3/6

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  8. 31. sij

    We systematically reviewed measurement of conspiracy beliefs. It’s a mess. Sometimes a don’t know is offered, sometimes a midpoint, sometimes neither. How these options are coded varies a lot too. And DK is often the modal response! 2/6

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  9. 31. sij

    Interested in measuring conspiracy beliefs? New paper out at POQ with grad students and Brian Sullivan. We argue common measures inflate conspiracy belief and we propose a better measure. Preprint: 1/6

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  10. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    22. sij

    In-print today: My article with and Peter DeScioli on moral obstinacy in political negotiations.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  11. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    13. sij

    Are you a survey researcher, concerned with minority views and behaviors, e.g., "fake news", violence, suicide or sexual orientation? Read this paper, weep about quality of self-reports and apply the proposed & elegant diagnostic tools: (1/3)

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  12. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    13. sij

    Access influential articles from with our compliments: - featuring articles by , , , , , and more

    Poništi
  13. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    2. sij

    New working paper (w Mario Luca, & J Nagler) which provides a new angle on online clickbait news. Key question: how do ppl choose which media to consume? Want congenial information or trust congenial soucres more?

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  14. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    26. pro 2019.

    Television news systematically gives more speaking time to extreme members of Congress, due to gatekeeping biases. My new article w/ Jeremy Padgett & , out today in Journal of Communication ( ). Happy holidays!

    Poništi
  15. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    19. pro 2019.

    (1/n) As researchers, we like measurement tools with a lot of variance & distributions that are compatible with OLS . In a polarized environment, survey answers collected using Likert items are not researchers' cup of tea 👇 [question: favor/oppose a border wall?]

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  16. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    12. pro 2019.

    Politically motivated reasoning might just be the effect of prior beliefs and not motivated reasoning per se by , , &

    Poništi
  17. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    11. pro 2019.

    New review article! In ‘When and Why Is Economic Inequality Seen as Fair’ I argue that people evaluate inequality by referring to broadly shared rules of fairness. Disagreements primarily have to do with whether these rules have been followed.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  18. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    9. pro 2019.

    Political observers often use the word "authenticity" to describe political candidates and leaders. However, electoral research lagged behind. In our new paper , we define and operationalize the concept, and test its impact on voting behavior.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  19. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    5. pro 2019.
    Poništi
  20. 19. stu 2019.

    Help from psych folks? I've seen claims that between-subjects designs are less likely to replicate, but haven't seen an actual analysis. Any leads?

    Poništi

Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.

Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.

    Možda bi vam se svidjelo i ovo:

    ·