Mutz, Diana C

Email Address
ORCID
Disciplines
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Position
Introduction
Research Interests

Filters

21
147
Reset filters

Settings

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 21
  • Publication
    Effects of Horse-Race Coverage on Campaign Coffers: Strategic Contributing in Presidential Primaries
    (1995-11-01) Mutz, Diana C
    The quantity of "horse-race" coverage of political campaigns has been amply documented, but its consequences for the dynamics of campaigns are less well understood. This study examines the effects of media portrayals of public support for candidates on the behavior of potential campaign contributors. This relationship is tested in the context of the four leading Democratic presidential primary candidates in 1988. A time-series analysis of contributor behavior suggests that horse-race spin—that is, the extent of media coverage suggesting a candidate is gaining or losing political support ^helps determine the frequency of campaign contributions. Consistent with previous research, some contributors are motivated to donate by coverage suggesting that their strongly favored candidate is losing ground, while other candidacies benefit from coverage suggesting increased viability. Overall, findings suggest that strategic considerations weigh heavily in decisions to donate money to political candidates.
  • Publication
    Support for Free Trade: Self-Interest, Sociotropic Politics, and Out-Group Anxiety
    (2009-07-15) Mansfield, Edward D; Mutz, Diana C
    Although it is widely acknowledged that an understanding of mass attitudes about trade is crucial to the political economy of foreign commerce, only a handful of studies have addressed this topic. These studies have focused largely on testing two models, both of which emphasize that trade preferences are shaped by how trade affects an individual's income. The factor endowments or Heckscher-Ohlin model posits that these preferences are affected primarily by a person's skills. The specific factors or Ricardo-Viner model posits that trade preferences depend on the industry in which a person works. We find little support for either of these models using two representative national surveys of Americans. The only potential exception involves the effects of education. Initial tests indicate that educational attainment and support for open trade are directly related, which is often interpreted as support for the Heckscher-Ohlin model. However, further analysis reveals that education's effects are less representative of skill than of individuals' anxieties about involvement with out-groups in their own country and beyond. Furthermore, we find strong evidence that trade attitudes are guided less by material self-interest than by perceptions of how the U.S. economy as a whole is affected by trade.
  • Publication
    Mechanisms of Momentum: Does Thinking Make It So?
    (1997-02-01) Mutz, Diana C
    The purpose of this study is to evaluate several potential theoretical frameworks for understanding the social psychological processes underlying the effects of momentum. Using an experimental design embedded within a national survey conducted during the 1992 Democratic presidential primary season, I examined several potential explanations for changes in candidate preference that result from changing perceptions of public support. Findings were most supportive of an explanation based on the cognitive responses elicited by hearing about others' views. Consensus cues stimulated additional information processing and a reassessment of the individual's own position; information about mass support for candidates triggered respondents who were only moderately involved in this decision-making process to mentally rehearse potential reasons for supporting or opposing the candidates. By priming these thoughts, people's own opinions were moved in the direction of the arguments that would not have otherwise come to mind.
  • Publication
    The Workplace as a Context for Cross-Cutting Political Discourse
    (2006-02-01) Mutz, Diana C; Mondak, Jeffrey J
    Political dialogue among citizens offers numerous potential contributions to American politics, but attainment of these benefits hinges largely on the extent to which conversations cross lines of political difference. In what contexts are cross-cutting interactions most likely to thrive? Using data from five surveys, we find consistent evidence that the workplace is the social context best positioned to facilitate cross-cutting political discourse. Political discussion in the workplace involves a large number of discussants, and it involves greater exposure to people of dissimilar perspectives than does discussion in contexts such as the family, the neighborhood, or the voluntary association. We next consider whether workplace-based interactions are capable of producing beneficial effects. Despite the notoriously weak nature of work-based social ties, we find evidence that workplace-based exposure to differing political views increases people’s knowledge of rationales for political perspectives other than their own and also fosters political tolerance.
  • Publication
    The Great Divide: Campaign Media in the American Mind
    (2012-10-02) Mutz, Diana C
    There is a huge difference between public perceptions of the power of media in elections and academic evidence of its influence. This gap stems from the fact that the public uses different forms of evidence than academics use to infer media power. This essay outlines the reasons for this great divide, then highlights the seriousness of its consequences for the allocation of political resources. Public beliefs in omnipotent media contribute to wasted time and money; ultimately, they undermine the legitimacy of election outcomes.
  • Publication
    Effects of "In-Your-Face" Television Discourse on Perceptions of a Legitimate Opposition
    (2007-11-01) Mutz, Diana C
    How do Americans acquire the impression that their political foes have some understandable basis for their views, and thus represent a legitimate opposition? How do they come to believe that reasonable people may disagree on any given political controversy? Given that few people talk regularly to those of opposing perspectives, some theorize that mass media, and television in particular, serve as an important source of exposure to the rationales for oppositional views. A series of experimental studies suggests that television does, indeed, have the capacity to encourage greater awareness of oppositional perspectives. However, common characteristics of televised political discourse—–incivility and close-up camera perspectives—–cause audiences to view oppositional perspectives as less legitimate than they would have otherwise. I discuss the broader implications of these findings for assessments of the impact of television on the political process, and for the perspective that televised political discourse provides on oppositional political views.
  • Publication
    Contextualizing Personal Experience: The Role of Mass Media
    (1994-08-01) Mutz, Diana C
    This study considers competing theories concerning the role of mass media in hindering or facilitating the translation of personal experience into political preferences. Using national survey and media content data that allows evaluations of both media coverage and individual patterns of media use, this study evaluates the influence of mass media on the direct impact of personal experiences on presidential performance as Ronald Reagan completed his second term in office, and on the indirect impact of personal experiences by means of their impact on collective-level issue judgments. Exposure to unemployment news appears to strengthen the impact of personal experiences on presidential performance ratings. Heavy unemployment coverage also increases the extent to which perceptions of national unemployment conditions are generalized from personal experience. Overall, results suggest that mass media may counter the tendency to morselize personal experiences and help legitimize the translation of private interests into political attitudes.
  • Publication
    Is Deliberative Democracy a Falsifiable Theory?
    (2008-01-01) Mutz, Diana C
    To further dialogue between theory and research on deliberative democracy, I advocate abandoning tests of deliberative theory per se and instead developing “middle-range” theories that are each important, specifiable, and falsifiable parts of deliberative democratic theory. By replacing vaguely defined entities with more concrete, circumscribed concepts, and by requiring empirically and theoretically grounded hypotheses about specific relationships between those concepts, researchers may come to understand which elements of the deliberative experience are crucial to particular valued outcomes.
  • Publication
    The New Videomalaise: Effects of Televised Incivility on Political Trust
    (2005-02-01) Mutz, Diana C; Reeves, Byron
    Does incivility in political discourse have adverse effects on public regard for politics? If so, why? In this study we present a theory suggesting that when viewers are exposed to televised political disagreement, it often violates well-established face-to-face social norms for the polite expression of opposing views. As a result, incivility in public discourse adversely affects trust in government. Drawing on three laboratory experiments, we find that televised presentations of political differences of opinion do not, in and of themselves, harm attitudes toward politics and politicians. However, political trust is adversely affected by levels of incivility in these exchanges. Our findings suggest that the format of much political television effectively promotes viewer interest, but at the expense of political trust.
  • Publication
    Explaining Processes of Institutional Opinion Leadership
    (2009-01-01) Bartels, Brandon L; Mutz, Diana C
    When and how can institutions lead public opinion? Scholarly controversy exists over whether even a highly esteemed institution such as the Supreme Court can move mass opinion. In this study we use an experimental design embedded within a representative national survey to examine these questions in a context involving multiple institutions and multiple issues. Our findings suggest that the Court’s ability to move opinion is potent and based on multiple processes of persuasive influence. Congress’s ability to move opinion, while conditional, is surprisingly more potent than previously understood. Moreover, opinion change in response to institutional endorsements is mediated by substantive political thought to a greater extent than heuristic explanations have suggested.