Doctoral Dissertation Research in Political Science: Group Based Mobilization: An Experiment

各团体经常被动员起来在政治上采取行动。例如，20世纪60年代的民权运动和其他社会运动表明了群体动员在政治中发挥的巨大作用。此外，在竞选和政策辩论中，政治精英和竞选活动经常以选民的群体身份为目标，以动员群体支持。然而，尽管基于群体的动员在政治中显然很普遍，但社会科学理论几乎没有说明哪些基于群体的动员策略可能会奏效，在什么情况下可能会奏效。我们对基于群体的动员的理解上的这种差距源于该领域对强调个人成本/收益分析(Rational模型)的决策解释和强调依附于群体(群体模型)的解释之间的分歧。该项目试图通过将基于群体的模型与理性选择模型相结合来填补这一空白，以提供关于基于群体的动员努力何时以及如何增加参与度的经验性的理论。由于强烈认同其群体的个人可能会参与群体努力，而不管动员努力如何，关键问题是：什么因素使适度认同其群体的个人容易受到基于群体的动员尝试的影响？政治沟通中的框架(即包含对事件的解释的说服性信息)是否已被证明改变了个人？意见或行为，如果框架以群体身份为目标，可以用来动员群体。然而，一种潜在的理性决定了具有适度倾向(如群体认同感)的个人是否会接受或拒绝框架。这种合理性被限制框架效应的因素或调节因素所捕捉，这些因素帮助我们预测个体是否会接受或拒绝框架(Druckman，2001a；2001b)。因此，对群体框架和潜在主持人的研究可以帮助生成可测试的预测，并合并理性和基于群体的行为模式。这个项目试图证明，成功的基于群体的动员努力包括以群体身份为目标的框架，并得到主持人的加强，例如阈值(确定群体距离其目标有多远的规则)、可靠的动员信息来源、决策所涉及的利害关系以及这些因素之间的相互作用。本文第一部分的初始投票游戏实验室实验结果支持了关于群体目标框架与阈值调节因子之间的交互作用的假说。这项研究还补充了一项公共产品实验室实验，该实验测试了针对群体的框架、木桩和可信来源的效果。此外，还开发了一项调查实验，以测试针对团体的框架和对学校债券提案的支持。这个项目帮助我们理解群体认同在政治中的作用，理解这一点很重要，原因有三个。首先，这个项目帮助我们了解哪些类型的动员战略增加了少数群体和女性等代表性不足群体的参与。其次，该项目的调查结果表明，动员战略不必包括加剧群体间紧张关系的内容。换句话说，该项目突出表明，集团战略可以增加集团成员的参与，而不会加剧集团间的紧张关系。最后，该项目为今后探讨分散群体间紧张局势的战略打开了大门，特别是在这些紧张局势高度紧张并可能涉及暴力或冲突的情况下。

Groups are often mobilized to take action in politics. For example, the civil rights movement of the 1960s and other social movements illustrate the large role that group mobilization plays in politics. Further, in election contests and policy debates, political elites and campaigns often target the group identities of voters to mobilize group support. However, while group-based mobilization is clearly widespread in politics, social science theories have little to say about which group-based mobilization strategies are likely to work and in what circumstances. This gap in our understanding of group-based mobilization stems from a divide in the field between explanations of decision-making that emphasize individual costs/benefits analysis (rational models) and those that emphasize attachment to group (group models). This project seeks to fill this gap by merging group-based models with the rational choice model to provide an empirically testable theory of when and how group-based mobilization efforts increase participation. Since individuals who strongly identify with their group are likely to participate in group efforts regardless of mobilization efforts, the key question is: what factors make individuals who moderately identify with their group susceptible to group-based mobilization attempts? Frames in political communication (i.e. persuasive messages containing interpretations of events) have been shown to change individuals? opinions or behavior and can be used to mobilize groups if the frame targets group identity. However, an underlying rationality determines whether individuals with moderate predispositions (such as group identity) will accept or reject frames. This rationality is captured by factors, or moderators that limit framing effects, that help us predict whether individuals will accept or reject frames (Druckman, 2001a; 2001b). As such, a study of group frames and potential moderators can help generate testable predictions and merge rational and group-based models of behavior. This project seeks to demonstrate that successful group-based mobilization efforts consist of frames that target group identity and that are reinforced by moderators, such as thresholds (rules that determine how far the group is from their goal), credible sources of mobilization messages, the stakes involved in the decision, and the interactions among these factors. The results from an initial voting game laboratory experiment for the first part of the dissertation provide support for the hypothesis concerning the interaction between group-targeted frames and the moderator of thresholds. This research is supplemented with a public goods laboratory experiment that tests the effects of group-targeted frames, stakes, and credible sources. In addition, a survey-experiment has been developed that tests group-targeted frames and support for a school bond proposal. This project helps us understand the role of group identity in politics, and this is important to understand for three key reasons. First, this project helps us understand which types of mobilization strategies increase participation of underrepresented groups, such as minorities and females. Secondly, the findings of this project suggest that mobilization strategies do not have to include content that increases intergroup tensions. In other words, this project highlights that group strategies can increase participation of group members without also increasing intergroup tensions. Finally, this project opens the door for future explorations of strategies for diffusing intergroup tensions, particularly in situations where these tensions are high and could involve violence or conflict.