Gang Membership,Drug Selling,and Violence in Neighborhood Context

A prominent perspective in the gang literature suggests that gang member involvement in drug selling does not necessarily increase violent behavior. In addition it is unclear from previous research whether neighborhood disadvantage strengthens that relationship. We address these issues by testing hypotheses regarding the confluence of neighborhood disadvantage, gang membership, drug selling, and violent behavior. A three‐level hierarchical model is estimated from the first five waves of the 1997 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, matched with block‐group characteristics from the 2000 U.S. Census. Results indicate that (1) gang members who sell drugs are significantly more violent than gang members that don’t sell drugs and drug sellers that don’t belong to gangs; (2) drug sellers that don’t belong to gangs and gang members who don’t sell drugs engage in comparable levels of violence; and (3) an increase in neighborhood disadvantaged intensifies the effect of gang membership on violence, especially among gang members that sell drugs.     

In Times of Crisis: The Conditions of Pocketbook Effects

When and how will personal financial (aka “pocketbook”) concerns drive citizens’ political decisions? Scholars remain puzzled by the mismatch between the expectation that pocketbook voting should occur and the reality that, according to most findings, it usually does not. Using original survey data collected immediately after Iceland’s second “Icesave” referendum (2011), I first report the results of an embedded experiment that successfully evokes greater pocketbook concern. Next, I analyze the determinants of retrospective pocketbook evaluations, showing that priming effects are conditioned by political sophistication such that high sophisticates are among the most likely to report negative economic assessments. I then turn to the consequences of these egocentric views for government approval. Mediation analysis confirms a significant indirect effect, suggesting that subjective pocketbook evaluations exert a strong influence on political attitudes that has been hidden in prior work. Results illuminate the contextual, cognitive, and causal circumstances under which pocketbook effects transpire and suggest new ways in which self-interest might matter for attitudes toward international political economy issues.     

医疗行为中医务人员“意思表示”的法律效力分析

“意思表示”是医务人员在医疗行为过程中将其期望发生某种法律效果的内心意思以一定方式表现于外部的行为,是医疗行为的核心内容。针对当前临床医疗实践中医务人员意思表示的具体情况,本文分析了医务人员“意思表示”的构成要素、表示形式及法律效力,尤其是具体分析了意思表示不真实情况下医疗行为的法律效力,对医院规范管理医务人员的医疗行为具有一定的积极意义。     

Elections as a democratic linkage mechanism: How elections boost political trust in a proportional system

Elections offer a privileged moment in representative democracy, when citizens have the opportunity to express their views, both on the track record of the incumbent government, as on the way the country should be governed in the future. Procedural fairness theory assumes that taking part in a decision making procedure that is perceived to be fair, strengthens the legitimacy of the entire process. Most of the empirical research assumes that the attitudinal effects of elections are mainly due to the fact that one's preferred party wins the elections. In multi-party systems, however, such a clear distinction is not always possible and therefore it is hypothesized that the winner-loser-logic is weaker in this kind of party system. In this study we rely on a unique Belgian panel study to ascertain how electoral participation has an effect on political trust. The results show that in a proportional system all voters rise in political trust following their participation in elections. The winner-loser effect is not significant. Furthermore, the analyses suggest that especially the respondents with the initially lowest trust levels gain most by participating in elections. The theoretical implication of this finding is that apparently elections are still considered to be an important and legitimate linkage mechanism between citizens and the political system.     

Ripple effects: An exclusive host national context produces more perceived discrimination among immigrants

This article examines the perceived discrimination of immigrants – a group for whom experiences of discrimination can be damaging for their long‐term commitment and identification with the national core group. Taking its point of departure in the literature on national identity, the article argues that perceived discrimination should be strongest among immigrants in host national societies with an exclusive self‐image. This hypothesis is examined by use of multilevel regressions on cross‐national survey data from 18 Western European countries. It is found that where exclusive attitudes are widespread in the host population, the percentage of immigrants who perceive themselves to be part of a group discriminated against is significantly greater, all else being equal. In addition, there is a cross‐level interaction effect of host national inclusivity and ethnic minority identity which suggests that individual‐level determinants of perceived discrimination do not ‘work’ in the same way in normatively different contexts. In terms of the implications of these findings, the article points to the importance of contextualising individual‐level accounts of perceived discrimination, with particular focus on the power of a society's attitudinal milieu to affect individual feelings of inclusion and exclusion.     

The Impact of News Photos on Support for Military Action

Drawing on two experiments embedded in online surveys, this article examines the impact of news photos on support for military action. In 2011, respondents were asked about support for ongoing military involvement in Afghanistan while being randomly exposed to one of two photos—one of a soldier with a child, the other of a soldier with a gun. The former photo increased expressed support for war; and the effect was greater for those who self-identify as being very interested in international affairs. Three years later, a follow-up experiment was fielded that looked both at the past intervention in Afghanistan and ongoing interventions in Syria; results were very similar. Both experiments speak to the potentially profound role of mass media in generating support (or not) for foreign military engagements, and the increased impact of frames on those who are more attentive to the issue domain.     

Is President Obama’s Race Chronically Accessible? Racial Priming in the 2012 Presidential Election

A vast literature indicates that racial animosity has a pervasive influence on the public’s evaluations of U.S. President Barack Obama. Can political communications enhance and/or defuse the link between White Americans’ racial attitudes and evaluations of Barack Obama? In this article, we report the results of an experiment conducted in the midst of the 2012 presidential campaign which examines the effect of political rhetoric on the extent to which evaluations of Barack Obama are racialized. Drawing from research on attitude strength and pretreatment effects in experimental studies, we argue that the use of racial appeals in the pretreatment environment and the strength of citizens’ preexisting attitudes toward the incumbent president may produce a downward bias in average estimates of racial priming effects toward President Obama. After accounting for individual differences in the propensity to form strong attitudes with need to evaluate, we observe substantial effects of campaign rhetoric in priming racial attitudes toward President Obama, especially among individuals who are low in the need to evaluate and who tend to have more malleable political attitudes. We conclude by discussing implications for research on racial priming and the politics of racial intolerance in evaluations of Barack Obama.     

具有中国特色的妇女运动实践探索——"双学双比"活动评估报告

":双学双比"作为一个具有中国特色的农村妇女发展活动,已经走过近20年的风雨历程,成为持续时间最长、参与范围最广、涉及部门和人数最多的农村妇女发展项目,积累了丰富经验,产生了深远影响。本报告力图对"双学双比"活动进行评估,科学总结这一活动的特点与成效,客观分析现存的问题和挑战,在此基础上,对"双学双比"活动的可持续发展提出有针对性的对策建议。     

The Implications of Framing Effects for Citizen Competence

Social scientists have documented framing effects in a wide range of contexts, including surveys, experiments, and actual political campaigns. Many view work on framing effects as evidence of citizen incompetence—that is, evidence that citizens base their preferences on arbitrary information and/or are subject to extensive elite manipulation. Yet, we continue to lack a consensus on what a framing effect is as well as an understanding of how and when framing effects occur. In this article, I examine (1) the different ways that scholars have employed the concepts of framing and framing effects, (2) how framing effects may violate some basic criteria of citizen competence, and (3) what we know about how and when framing effects work. I conclude that while the evidence to date suggests some isolated cases of incompetence, the more general message is that citizens use frames in a competent and well-reasoned manner.