| Summary: | <p>How do our preconceptions and prejudices affect the way we evaluate political information and actors? This question motivates each of the articles that comprise this dissertation. In <strong>One Fact, Two Beliefs (Article 1)</strong>, I tackle head on the question of how responsive misperceptions are to disconfirming information, presenting a novel context in which to evaluate not only whether but also how people update their beliefs in response to new evidence. I find that, contrary to some renderings of modern political actors as fact-resistant, people do generally converge their beliefs to align with credible new information — yet, the lessons people draw from new information are systematically inclined to favour their preferred view, such that the effect may be to exacerbate rather than alleviate belief and attitude polarisation. In <strong>Does Candidate Identity Affect Voter Response to a Scandal? (Article 2)</strong>, I seek to answer the titular question, adapting and adding to an experimental toolkit for understanding the powerful effect of anti-prejudice norms (or lack thereof) on the suppression (or revelation) of prejudice. In so doing, I find evidence of a strong effect of prejudiced thought on evaluations of political actors. In <strong>Give US the Ballot? (Article 3)</strong>, I address an information asymmetry arising from people’s dramatically different voting experiences, and set out to understand views about voting impediments. I further test the receptiveness of these beliefs to new information, highlighting the effects of long waits on democratic participation, and find people across the political spectrum to be receptive. This translates to significantly increased support for policies that would make it easier for all Americans to participate in democracy, with none of the partisan differences that characterise other, previously polarised issues around voting access and elections.</p>
|
|---|