recent research

(A lot of) Catching up with Kevin Lewis' log of recent research:

• "Social Proof" says we like to do what everyone else is doing, but sometimes we're more likely to try something if we think it's a rare opportunity.
• Our brain has distinct processes for understanding gains vs. losses - which might explain why some of us are more in debt or have more assets.
• Citizens may be happy to let the state spend more, as long as they trust it.
• Tolerance may be a good thing in itself, but it's not necessarily good for growth.
• Thanks to cable, presidents ever more so are preaching to the choir.
• Barack's political capital problem may just be the latest example of a trend in declining presidential political capital.
• Evidence of a savvy electorate: we vote for divided government when it spends beyond its means (presumably to rein in spending) but for unified government when economic times are bad (to empower the state).
• In politicians' tension between voting with their constituents or voting with their party - it all depends on how unified their constituents are.
• Another reason parties matter: they keep last-term politicians doing their job.
• What improves our faith in democracy? Winning an election, for one.
• More evidence that humans can't stand randomness: we assume big consequences had to have had non-trivial causes.
• Politicians are more likely to persuade the opposition - by repulsion - than they are their own party-members by attraction. Experts, similarly, get more scrutiny when they contradict ones beliefs.
• Socially and fiscally mixed up liberals and conservatives are less likely to be politically involved.
• Values increase how much we process information - especially if they are cued up. Ditto extreme language.
• A model on how trust builds.
• Even though it tends to be distrusted itself, government may engender trust in society.
• Political economists explain why sometimes citizens may vote away checks and balances - and it all has to do with when politicians are easier to buy.
• More evidence that smart and happy do not go hand in hand.
• Social networks communicate in bursts and small groups.
• Even three-year-olds know they need to pay attention to the guy everyone else is paying attention to.
• Two studies show the development of equity aversion in kids.
• It takes so little to make us feel like we belong.
• Be assertive in your advertising! As long as you're advertising a guilty pleasure.
• We reevaluate our strategies when we lose; not so much when we win.
• The MIT explains how it won the DARPA balloon treasure hunt.
• We believe what we read, regardless of the credibility of the source.
• Citizen input isn't a drag on bureaucracy - rather it's a boon.
• Running for office? It helps to be a celeb.
• Whatever political orientation we get from our parents, we get through their genes.
• Another Disgust = Conservatism study. This time looking at worm-eating and gay marriage.
• Bipartisan friendships are possible, but less likely.
• The path to identification with conservatism or liberalism is sometimes more about repulsion than attraction.
• Our responses to financial and moral scandals depend on how much they're also about abuses of power.
• Although spouses usually share political views, daters don't advertise their political leanings - at least not on dating sites.
• Teenage boys are more likely to learn about politics when it gets competitive, but girls learn more where there's consensus.
• Much as in other parts of life, women only like to take charge in politics when they know what they're doing.
• Even after accounting for biases in previous studies, there's still evidence that education makes us more politically involved.
• Looking at youth political participation over the past 30 years; not much has changed, although youth today are more civicly rather than politically engaged.
• Your over-all sense of control in life says a lot about whether or not you vote.
• The rise of political talk radio may be due to two things: deregulation and iTunes.
• Another argument for how we're not less politically engaged today - but rather we're differently engaged.
• Partisans may disagree on policy issues, but they pretty much agree on civic values.
• It doesn't take much to make us feel - and act - like an inferior minority.
• We write off our group's flaws as "human nature", but don't cut our enemies the same slack.
• Even anti-social teens can become better citizens with small nudges. Progressive education also makes kids more civic minded.
• Studies that typically suggest humans are naturally altruistic may just be showing that humans like to appear altruistic.
• Want to turn someone into a do-gooder? Get them do something nice and make sure it costs them.
• Too many choices not only make consumers put off choosing - it also makes potential volunteers put off volunteering.
• We tend to look "up" to leaders.
• We may be loss averse when it comes to our survival, but in love we become risk seekers.
• Why ignorance may breed ignorance.
• Political contributions reward politicians for their beliefs rather than try to change their beliefs - and politicians' daughters can prove that's so.
• Another reason nothing gets done in DC: negative lobbying is 3.5 times more effective than positive lobbying. But not so with ballot initiatives: pro and con spending have equal pay-offs.
• We can thank high advertising rates for the rise of an independent media.
• Not what a libertarian would necessarily expect: big legislatures lead to smaller government.
• Lawmakers may not know much about policy, but - given the right institutional incentives - that might not hinder their ability to make good policy decisions.
• Newspaper subsidies may not lead to improved journalism.
• Interest groups may do just as well fueled by volunteerism as fueled by donations.
• Lobbying is effective - especially when citizens aren't paying attention.
• Reports of diminishing social networks may be premature.
• See the evolution of human cooperation in action.
• Lying comes easier online.
  
• Policy experts, save your breath: those in power aren't listening.
• Fancy yourself as an analytical gal? You may just feel out of control.
• A sociologist explains why "accidents happen."
• When we get to compare, we become more certain.
• Want to make a convincing case? Present your evidence in dribbles.
• Naive Realism (the belief that we see reality objectively) shows up in collaborations with peers.
• More evidence that politics is genetic.
• As Americans polarize, our cross-Atlantic cousins are de-polarizing.
• Another reason politicians like divisive politics: it makes them less likely to be held accountable.
• The impact of the economy on the voter is not a one-size-fits-all kind of thing.
• 527s, as visualized as part of party networks.

my new favorite toy

Santa came early this year, pointing me to Gapminder, where international development geeks can visualize global economic and social trends til the heifers come home.

But it can also be fun for Ameri-centric users like me who are idly curious about, say, the average age women married in the US since 1800 or how much Americans drink compared to others...

To play too, be sure to click "visualize" next to your favorite indicators and then "play" the timeline. Enjoy!

curmudgeons for democracy

Popular dissatisfaction with government is usually taken as a sign that democracy is dysfunctional.

But a new study by Edward Miguel and his colleagues, as he reports in Foreign Affairs, suggests just the opposite; critical citizens are the foundation of democratic government.

Miguel was trying to figure out what might be the connection between education and levels of democracy in developing nations. (Even though there's a correlation between the two, no one agrees if what the causal link is between the two - if any.) His research team set up a randomized study, giving education incentives to one a set of girls schools in Kenya, leaving another set with no incentives. After a number of years and a clear increase in test scores at the first set of schools, they went in to see how the young women's political attitudes may have differed. Most of the obvious assumptions didn't pan out: the better educated girls were not more pro-democratic and neither were they more likely to vote or be involved in civic organizations. There was one difference: they were more critical of their government.

The study of course didn't find (or even search for) evidence to demonstrate the other half of the causal link - that is, that more critical citizens are more likely to bolster democracy - but it makes intuitive sense and is fodder for more research. At a very basic level, citizens who don't question their government aren't going to push for any change, let alone democratic change. Of course, more than dissatisfaction is needed to propel people to become politically active (usually those characteristics are bundled together into what social thinkers call "political capital"). And, of course again, too much dissatisfaction can lead to complete disaffection (of the Ted Kazcinski or couch-potato variety). But Miguel's experiment is a good reminder to us in old, creaking democracies that a critical citizenry should never be wished away.