Mutz, Diana
Email Address
ORCID
Disciplines
5 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
Publication The Perils of Randomization Checks in the Analysis of Experiments(2012-01-01) Mutz, Diana; Pemantle, RobinIn the analysis of experimental data, randomization checks, also known as balance tests, are used to indicate whether a randomization has produced balance on various characteristics across experimental conditions. Randomization checks are popular in many fields although their merits have yet to be established. The grounds on which balance tests are generally justified include either 1) the credibility of experimental findings, and/or 2) the efficiency of the statistical model. We show that balance tests cannot improve either credibility or efficiency. The most common “remedy” resulting from a failed balance test is the inclusion as a covariate of a variable failing the test; this practice cannot improve the choice of statistical model. Other commonly suggested responses to failed balance tests such as post-stratification or re-randomization also fail to improve on methods that do not require balance tests. We advocate resisting reviewer requests for randomization checks in all but some narrowly defined circumstancesPublication Experimental Test of Some Notions of The Fact/ Opinion Distinction in Libel(1989) Cohen, Jeremy; Mutz, Diana; Nass, Clifford; Mason, LauriePublication Reflections On Hearing The Other Side, In Theory And In Practice(2013-01-01) Mutz, DianaIn response to my book’s finding that there is a tradeoff between two apparently desirable traits—a propensity to participate in politics, on the one hand, and to expose oneself to disagreeable political ideas, on the other—symposium participants suggest a number of reasons why this tradeoff should not trouble participatory democratic theorists. One argument is that electoral advocacy (the type of participation I measure) is not an important form of participation anyway, so we are better off without it. However, those people who do not vote also tend not to participate in politics in other ways, so electoral advocacy is the lowest possible bar for defining participation. Partisans are also more likely to be well informed and to offer coherent reasons for their political preferences. A second argument suggests that deliberative theorists have somewhat contradictory views of social influence, encouraging it in the context of deliberative encounters but perceiving it as pernicious when members of political parties influence their members. A third response is to posit a division of labor between closed-minded partisan advocates and open-minded people who are exposed to cross-cutting debate. However, it is difficult to see how the benefits of cross-cutting exposure will be conveyed to the advocates who participate in meaningful ways.Publication Publication Mass Media(2010-01-01) Mutz, Diana; Goldman, SethThe way outgroup members are portrayed in the media is widely believed to have consequences for levels of prejudice and stereotyping in the mass public. The visual nature of television and its heavy viewership make it a key source of information for impressions that ingroup members may have of other social groups. However, most research to date has focused on documenting the portrayals of various groups in television content, with only a few studies documenting the causal impact of television viewing. To further understanding of this hypothesis, we outline the contributions and limitations of past work, and point to the most promising theoretical frameworks for studying media influence on outgroup attitudes.