2006 Conference Program - Midwest Political Science Association

PaperDisc.Competing Partisan Frames, Public Opinion and PartyIdentificationMichael W. Wagner, Indiana University, BloomingtonOverview: This paper uses an experimental design (N=133) todemonstrate the conditions under which competitive partisanissue framing can affect public opinion and party identification.Joanne Miller, University of Minnesota19-10 ISSUES AND IDEOLOGY IN VOTE CHOICERoomChairPaperPaperPaperPaperPaperDisc.TBA, Sun 8:30 amSteven E. Galatas, Stephen F. Austin State UniversityIdeology and Evaluation in an Experimental Setting:Proximity vs. DirectionRyan L. Claassen, Kent State UniversityOverview: The debate between which model best describescitizens' political behavior, directional or proximity, remainsunresolved. I report the results of an experiment designed tocontrol many sources of contradictory findings based onobservational studies.Uncovering the Reform Dimension in ContemporaryElectionsDaron R. Shaw, University of Texas, AustinMelvin Hinich, University of Texas, AustinOverview: We argue that a wide range of countries havewitnessed the emergence of a second dimension in recentelections. This dimension is properly understood as pittingcandidates and parties advocating reform versus thoserepresenting established interests.The Cultural Component of Issue Voting: The PartyInterceptSoren R. Thomsen, Aarhus University, DenmarkOverview: The paper presents a comparative study of issuevoting in several democracies trying to understand the meaningof the party intercept in the proximity model as well as in thedirectional model.The Structure, Meaning, and Influence of Political IdeologyShawn Treier, University of GeorgiaSunshine Hillygus, Harvard UniversityOverview: Using an item response model (IRT) to estimate ameasure of individual-level ideology, we examine the structureand meaning of ideology and its relationship to partyidentification and the vote.New Evidence on Directional vs. Proximity VotingRobert P. Van Houweling, University of California, BerkeleyMichael R. Tomz, Stanford UniversityPaul M. Sniderman, Stanford UniversityOverview: To advance the debate on directional vs. proximityvoting, we conduct a set of survey experiments (N=2000). Ourmethod allows critical tests that are not possible with standardsurveys.Garrett Glasgow, University of California, Santa BarbaraDean P. Lacy, The Ohio State University21-7 POLITICS OF MAJORITY-MINORITYDISTRICTSRoomChairPaperPaperTBA, Sun 8:30 amGuy-Uriel E. Charles, University of MinnesotaLegislating Without Constraints: The Effect of MinorityDistricting on Legislators' Responsiveness to ConstituencyPreferencesClaudine Gay, Stanford UniversityOverview: Using data on referenda and initiative voting toestimate constituency preferences, I assess the correspondencebetween district opinion and roll call voting for legislators frommajority-minority and majority-white CA Assembly districts.Hurricanes & Rotten BoroughsJohn K. Wildgen, University of New OrleansFritz F. Wagner, University of WashingtonOverview: A Louisiana majority-minority Congressional seatdepended on a dense, homogeneous black populationcompromised by the storm. We examine how contemporaryurban planning theory and redistricting practices might respondto post-Katrina redistricting.PaperDisc.A Unified Theory of Minority-Majority District Effects:Latino LegislatorsEric Gonzalez Juenke, University of Colorado, BoulderRobert R. Preuhs, University of Colorado, BoulderOverview: We combine several important elements of minoritylegislative incorporation into a single theoretical model todemonstrate how institutional arrangements affect the degree towhich racial and ethnic group representatives influence publicpolicy.Guy-Uriel E. Charles, University of MinnesotaDavid L. Leal, University of Texas, Austin22-6 ATTITUDES ABOUT IMMIGRATIONRoomChairPaperPaperPaperPaperDisc.TBA, Sun 8:30 amBrian P. Frederick, Northern Illinois UniversityI Pity the Poor Immigrant…Why Immigrants are moreXenophobic?Daphna Canetti-Nisim, University of HaifaEran Halperin, University of HaifaStevan E. Hobfoll, Kent State UniversityRobert Johnson, University of MiamiOverview: In this study, we examine the differences betweenveteran Israelis versus immigrants from the former SovietUnion (FSU) with regard to the theoretical frameworksexplaining their xenophobic tendencies towards Palestiniancitizens of Israel (PCIs).Skill Mix of Immigrants and Public Attitude TowardImmigration in the U.S.Kyung Joon Han, University of California, Los AngelesOverview: This paper asks how skill mix of immigrants affectspublic attitudes in receiving states toward immigration and findsthat the magnitude of the effect of individual skill level on theattitudes goes along with the fraction of unskilled immigrants.Racializing the Border: How Race, Moral Conservatism,and National Defense Have Shaped Immigration AttitudesBradford Jones, University of ArizonaRegina Branton, Rice UniversityJennifer Byrne, University of ArizonaOverview: This paper examines pre- and post-September 11thattitudes toward immigration. We find that in contrast to thepre-September 11th era, moral conservatism and racialresentment strongly influence attitudes toward immigration.Cross-Generational Attitudes of Latino Groups onImmigrationJason E. Kehrberg, University of KentuckyAdam Butz, University of KentuckyOverview: This study examines the Latino attitudes onimmigration across 3 generations and 5 different Latino groups.Stephen Nuno, University of California, Irvine22-10 VALUES AND CULTURAL ISSUESRoomChairPaperPaperPaperTBA, Sun 8:30 amBeth Miller, Rice UniversityCulture Wars as Identity PoliticsErin C. Cassese, Stony Brook UniversityOverview: In this study, I examine the micro-level dynamicsthought to underlie the culture wars. Using experimental data, Iexplore the effects of social identity and emotional reactions tothreat on social policy attitudes and political tolerance.Ideas About Children and the Red State – Blue State DivideBrian R. Duff, University of New EnglandOverview: The paper examines the effect of the popular ideathat having children is the best way to make life feel meaningfulon people's political attitudes and behaviors.Evolution of the Revolution: Habermas, Foucault, and SexAttitudes 1972-2004Christopher C. Hull, Georgetown UniversityLinnea N. Meyer, Harvard UniversityOverview: Are changes in casual sex imposed by society'spower, or arrived at by collective action? We analyze US trendsin sexual beliefs and behavior using Habermas and Foucault'stheories to test which of the two best explains those changes.253