Search

Evidence suggests that political differences have increased markedly in the United States in recent decades. Differences may also emerge in the way that partisans express themselves through language, and it is possible that language differences vary in times of crisis and war. In the current work we examined over a decade's worth of transcripts from a liberal (MSNBC) and conservative (Fox) news network. More specifically, we examined evidence for two competing perspectives on language differences during the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022. One perspective, the depolarization perspective, suggests that we should see decreased differences, or parity in language styles between the two networks leading up to and during the invasion. Another perspective, the polarization perspective, suggests we should see increased differences in language styles between networks leading up to and during the early stages of the invasion. We examined an index of personalizing and formalizing language as well as 77 Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) dictionaries plus noun frequency using smoothed curves and linear discriminant function analyses (LDA) to examine the pattern of results in our data. Our results provide more support for the depolarization perspective, showing that both Fox News and MSNBC became more similar than different leading up to and during the invasion. Implications are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Some scholars have presented models of the United States as a set of "nations" with distinct settlement histories and contemporary cultures. We examined personality differences in one such model, that of Colin Woodard, using data from over 75,000 respondents. Four nations were particularly distinct: The Deep South, Left Coast, New Netherland, and the Spanish Caribbean. Differences between nations at the level of the individual person were typically small, but were larger at the level of community, revealing how aggregation can contribute to differences in the lived experience of places in nations such as Yankeedom or Greater Appalachia. We represented effects in a three-dimensional model defined by Authoritarian conventionalism (which differentiated 'Red' and 'Blue' nations) as well as Cognitive resilience and Competitiveness (which differentiated among the Blue nations). Finally, we adjusted Woodard's model to better fit the data, and found that nations largely maintained their boundaries, with the most drastic changes occurring on the East Coast. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We compare the contents of Fox and MSNBC weekday evening telecasts using natural language analysis with Linguistic Inventory Word Count (LIWC) and sociopolitical dictionaries tapping into moral foundations, values, grievances, and personality. Across time, the two networks differed substantially across many constructs, particularly those from LIWC. The core of the difference between the networks was captured by a four‐component measure which we labeled Personalizing versus Formal speech. Scores on this measure were particularly volatile during 2019 and 2020, a period which included Trump's first impeachment, the beginning of the COVID pandemic, and the 2020 presidential campaign. In comparison with prior presidential election years, only MSNBC showed a drop in positive emotions in 2020, while both networks increased in the use of communal and analytic language. Contrary to our expectations, the language style of the two networks did not demonstrate increasing divergence over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The debate over healthcare reform in the United States has been divisive. Research demonstrates that beliefs that policy beneficiaries violate values strongly predict opposition to these policies. Similar dynamics may be happening regarding opposition to healthcare reform. Specifically, this study tested the hypothesis that opposition to a public option in healthcare reform results from stereotypes that public-option beneficiaries violate values. In two studies utilizing three samples, beliefs about beneficiaries violating values of hard work consistently predicted opposition to a public option and an alternative market-based healthcare reform plan, often proposed by public-option opponents. Results also suggest that assertions that a public option would lead to bigger government increases opposition to a public option by indirectly masking underlying stereotypes about value violations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Americans' conflicted attitudes toward immigrants and immigration has stymied immigration reform for decades. In this article, we explore the nuanced nature of stereotypes about immigrants and how they relate to ambivalent attitudes toward immigrant groups and the disparate array of immigration policies that affect them. Using item response theory and multiple regression analysis, we identified and related stereotypes of different immigrant groups to group-based and policy attitudes. Results demonstrate that ambivalent stereotypes mapped onto ambivalent group-based and immigration policy attitudes. Specifically, stereotypes that portray groups in positive or sympathetic ways predicted positive attitudes toward the group and more supportive attitudes toward policies that facilitate their immigration to the United States. Conversely, negative qualities predicted negative attitudes toward the same group and support for policies that prevent the group from immigrating. Results are discussed in light of current theory related to stereotype content, complementarity of stereotypes, and broader implications for immigration attitudes and policy., (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2013 APA, all rights reserved.)