Shania O.

Madelo September 25, 2019

BA POS1 – C T, Th 10:30-12:00 EH403MC

POLITICAL SOCIALIZATION
Childhood Socialization and Political Attitudes: Evidence from a Natural Experiment (#2)

This paper examines the study of Healy and Malhotra (2013) titled "Childhood
Socialization and Political Attitudes: Evidence from a Natural Experiment" which presented
sibling's gender role as the main variable in influencing the political attitude of an individual.
The results and findings of the study will be challenged or will be supported through giving
opposition or defense with shreds of evidence specifically the points on (a) childhood
experiences influencing the political attitude of an individual, (b) political attitudes attributed to
genetics, and (c) sibling's gender role in reinforcing a partisanship. The study of childhood
socialization may or may not distinctly predict the political attitude of an individual for varying
factors may be encountered beyond familial control.
Before explicating the points to be analyzed in the study, the research paper considered
a natural experiment and quasi-experimental research design and used a regression-based
analytical modeling approach. With this, it had substantially reduced potential individual-level
bias and improved the internal validity of the study (Fong et al., 2006). This is very important to
know for it would determine the efficiency, and reliability of the study.
For the first point of the study to be analyzed, it presented that (a) childhood
experiences appear to strongly influence the political attitude of an individual (p.1023). It has
been supported by the survey research of Jennings and Niemi (1968) in their longitudinal study
of American Youth generally examined the relationship between childhood experiences and
later political attitudes. Well, this is partially true in which most of the people more likely to
remember and give significance of their childhood experiences which are retained in long-term
but depends on several factors (Peterson et al., 2014). This implies that childhood experiences
may somehow contribute to the preferences of an individual but not to the entirety. The
factors outside of control may directly or indirectly affect their thoughts and decision-making in
the future.
 The second point of the study to be analyzed is mentioned in the research paper from
the study of Alford, et al. (2009) wherein it stated that (b) political attitudes can be attributed to
genetics as opposed to environmental factors (p.1023).  This is opposed by the statement of
Almond and Coleman (1960) in which the political behavior, attitude, value, and knowledge
cannot be inherited through our genes. The statement of Almond and Coleman is true in which
political attitude and behavior are not innate. No one is directly associated with partisanship
right after they come out of their mother’s womb. Rather, it takes a long process for one to
acquire these political attitudes and beliefs ones they participate and engage in the world. An
individual must arrive at an understanding of ones' role and fit in ones' political culture through
the political learning process. Also, factors affecting the perspective of an individual is
inevitable.
For the third point of the study to be analyzed, it has been presented that the siblings'
gender role influences or reinforces partisanship (p.1025). Families with more female children
are more likely to reinforce traditional gender roles and identify as Republicans for it often
perceived as conserving traditional family roles. The gender stereotyping of the childhood
environment may help to explain the effects that sisters have on male political attitudes. This
research somehow is similar to the theory of Hofstede’s (2001) Culture’s Consequences in which
males tend to be assertive and females are concerned more on the nurturing aspect. This could
be the reason why young men with sisters cause them to express a more conservative
viewpoint with regards to gender roles. Looking at a different angle, this can be considered as a
partiality of the research wherein it only focuses on younger sibling's gender role. This may not
strongly determine the political attitude universally because different families in different parts
of the world have different ways of upbringing each member. Attitudes may change with
maturity and what they have perceived as a child would be vulnerable to change. Just by using
the household task of the siblings as a basis for associating themselves in partisanship is not
applicable in a universal context. It may vary from family to family, culture to culture, and
country to country.
As an individual diverges from the family, it allows an individual to engage in another
phase of his or her life. One can understand political socialization as a process of acquiring one's
political orientations, beliefs, and attitudes influenced by an endogenous and exogenous
variable. The childhood experiences can be a factor in political socialization, but it cannot
distinctly predict the political attitude of an individual as attitudes are changing and may vary
from environmental and other external factors.
References:
Fong et al., (2006). Natural experiment methodology for research: a review of how different
methods can support real-world research. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.
com/doi/full/10.1080/13645579.2018.1488449
Healy, A., Malhotra, N. (2013). Childhood Socialization and Political Attitudes: Evidence from a
Natural Experiment. The Journal of Politics, Vol. 75, No. 4, Pp. 1023–1037
Hofstede:masculinity/femininity.(n.d.).Retrieved from https://www.andrews.edu/~tidwell/bsa
d560/HofstedeMasculinity.html
Shania O. Madelo November 6, 2019
BA POS1 – C T, Th 10:30-12:00 EH403MC
CAMPAIGN
Voter Decision Making in Election 2000:
Campaign Effects, Partisan Activation, and the Clinton Legacy (#22)
“Do campaigns matter?” This paper examines the study of Hillygus and Jackman (2003)
titled "Voter Decision Making in Election 2000: Campaign Effects, Partisan Activation, and the
Clinton Legacy" which presented several factors in determining how a campaign event
influences the behavior of the voter specifically in the aspect of the previous vote preference of
the voter, the partisan dispositions of the voter, and the way the campaign event is linked to
the broader political context. The results and findings of the study will be challenged or will be
supported through giving opposition or defense with evidence specifically the points on (a) the
changes or transitions in individual vote preference following the conventions and debates, (b)
the role of partisanship in shaping changes in vote preference, and (c) the concern about a
negative “Clinton Effect” which may have influenced the decision to change candidate
preference of the voters. The study of campaign effects on voting preferences of individuals
may also be influenced by prior beliefs of the voter and other campaign activities or events not
limited to conventions and debates.
Before explicating the points to be analyzed in the study, the research paper utilized the
individual-level panel data which is a direct way to study and determine the extent of
individual-level changes in vote preference in response to the different campaign events.
Individual-level data gives direct evidence of change by comparing the voting preference of the
respondents at different times instead of using cross-sectional analyses which cannot
determine such dynamics (Finkel, 1993).
 For the first point of the study to be analyzed, it presented (a) the changes or transitions
in individual vote preference following the conventions and debates (p.588). This is supported
by Boomgaarden et al. (as cited in Johann, Königslöw, Kritzinger, and Thomas, 2017) who
presented that electoral campaign events were more likely to have caused changes in the
voting preferences of the individuals until the Election Day (p.262). In the short term, the
observed transitions of voting preferences of the respondents were mostly influenced by the
party conventions and presidential debates but other factors or exposure to stimuli such as
news and media communications, gender, race, culture, and religion may have also
contributed. It is possible that a candidate would win over the opposing candidate on a specific
campaign event depending on the level of political sophistication of the voters and the level of
political persuasion from the candidate.
The second point of the study to be analyzed is (b) the critical role of partisanship in
shaping changes in vote preference (p.591).  This is supported by the study of Johann,
Königslöw, Kritzinger, and Thomas (2017) titled “Intra-Campaign Changes in Voting
Preferences: The Impact of Media and Party Communication” which stated that voters display
volatile electoral behavior during the electoral campaign wherein a significant proportion of
voters will likely to mismatch or change their party preferences during the electoral
campaign. It is possible that a Republican would likely to support a Democrat candidate
following a campaign event and vice versa. This is considered as a short-term electoral volatility
observing mismatched partisans which can be an evidence of persuasion effect in the election.
This mismatch between a candidate and a party is possible if the voter is not particularly
interested in voting and may have been exposed to stimuli.
For the third point of the study to be analyzed, it has been presented about (c) the
concern of a negative “Clinton Effect” which may have influenced the decision to change
candidate preferences of the voters (p.592). Moore (2000) in his article "Clinton Factor May Be
Hurting Gore in Presidential Race” stated that Al Gore’s presidential campaign was affected
largely by his close association with former President Clinton and the allegations about
“Clinton-Gore corruption”. This led to the voters’ distaste for Clinton's personal behavior which
affected their perceptions of Gore. It is also related to the study of Iyengar et al. (2012) about
the exposure to negative campaigns which can contribute to higher levels of affective
polarization among the voters. The effect of mudslinging political campaign had greatly
influenced the voting preferences of the Americans. This dirty tactic is a common strategy to
put pressure on campaign targets.
It is clearly presented in the study that voters do respond to campaign events especially
the party conventions and presidential debates which had influenced the voting behavior of the
respondents. Therefore, campaigns do matter.
References:
Hillygus, S.& Jackman, S. (2003). Voter Decision Making in Election 2000: Campaign Effects,
Partisan Activation, and Clinton Legacy. American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 47,
No. 4.
Iyengar, S; Sood, G. & Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect, Not Ideology A Social identity Perspective on
Polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly. Oxford University Press.
Johann, D., Königslöw, K. K., Kritzinger, S., & Thomas, K. (2017). Intra-Campaign Changes in
Voting Preferences: The Impact of Media and Party Communication. Political
communication, 35(2), 261–286. doi:10.1080/10584609.2017.1339222 [Google Scholar]
Moore, D. (2000, March 16). "Clinton factor" may be hurting Gore in presidential race.
Retrieved from https://news.gallup.com/poll/3085/clinton-factor-may-hurting-gore-
presidential-race.aspx
This is supported by Jennings and Wlezien (as cited in Johann, Königslöw, Kritzinger, and
Thomas, 2017)