Politicians and media elites have been calling for a return to civility in United States politics, and the vast majority of citizens agree that civility is necessary for a strong democracy. Yet incivility is an ever-present and misunderstood part of politics. In my dissertation, I focus on news, politics, and incivility by asking three questions. First, to what extent does news coverage portray political conflict as uncivil? Second, what political behaviors do citizens perceive as uncivil? Finally, how does news that portrays politics as uncivil affect citizens? I used a mixed method approach to answer these questions. I, first, conducted a content analysis of news surrounding four high-conflict political events to determine whether two conflict frames (interpersonal-level and public-level conflict) emerged. Second, I conducted two experiments and drew from social judgment theory to determine whether citizens perceived multiple types of incivility and whether their partisanship influenced how acceptable they found political behaviors to be. In a final experiment, I tested whether exposure to mediated conflict frames prompted perceptions of incivility from citizens and affected their reactions to politics. This project makes clear that news coverage of conflict emphasizes incivility and negatively affects citizens. Media elites shape political conflict using interpersonal-level and public-level conflict frames. Citizens perceive both types of conflict, as well, and tend to think that likeminded partisans are behaving appropriately while counter-attitudinal partisans are behaving badly. Finally, and importantly, the coverage of political conflict affects citizens in troublesome ways. Particularly when both types of conflict frames are present in the news, citizens feel more anxiety and aversion, have decreased levels of favorability toward political institutions, and think of political arguments in partisan ways. Overall, I conclude that incivility is not stable. Instead, incivility is a two-dimensional concept that is shaped by the media, perceived by citizens, and advanced by partisans. By recognizing these dimensions of incivility, researchers may find new and important effects of incivility, and people interested in ridding politics of incivility may be more successful by beginning with the recognition that what is uncivil to one person is not always uncivil to another. / text

Coronary heart disease (CHD) is the single largest killer of American males and females in the United States. According to the American Heart Association, (2005) approximately 41% of Americans that experience a coronary attack in a given year will die from it (AHA, 2005). To combat this growing problem, strategies need to be evaluated to assess how the identification of actual and potential CHD risks are made. This study utilized the Social Judgment Theory to gain insight into nurse practitioner's decision-making strategies. Sixty family or adult specialty nurse practitioners affiliated with the University of South Florida (USF) College of Nursing volunteered to take part in a pretest-posttest experimental design. They were randomly assigned to one of three conditions. Condition 1 and 2 received educational interventions and Condition 3 served as the control group, which received no education. This design was used to assess the effects of educational feedback on improving judgment accuracy, achievement, and insight. The findings indicated nurse practitioners agreement with the Framingham prediction model of CHD risk did improve significantly for the two intervention groups from Time 1 to Time 2 (p <.05). the participants also showed a relatively high degree of cognitive control when judging and performing the policy-capturing task (average Rs = .88) as compared to Framingham (Re = .96). Significant amount of unconditional bias (F(2, 57) = 9.85, p < .01) and conditional bias (F(2, 57). 5.42), p < .05) was present in this sample. Nurse practitioners overall performed well when compared with the Framingham Heart Study risk equation, however, nurse practitioners showed little insight into their judgment process. The results of this study may provide the opportunity for nurse practitioners to offer patients more appropriate medicinal and diagnostic treatments. Future cardiac events may be avoided through evidenced-based CHD education for nurse practitioners.

Master of Science / Department of Journalism and Mass Communications / Xiaochen A. Zhang / Most of the models in Chinese fashion magazine advertisements are Caucasian women today. White skin, as one of their Caucasian characteristics, is particularly emphasized. Millions of Chinese women are bombarded with the advertising’s message of “having white skin is beautiful” every day. My research suggests that this kind of adverting depicts white skin as a beauty ideal; the prevalence of Caucasian models in whitening products’ magazine advertisements constructs body-esteem, self-esteem, and purchase decision-making of Chinese women. The Social Judgment Theory is employed in this research as a theoretical framework. It is a way to explain when persuasive messages are most likely to succeed and how people make judgments about them. Understanding this phenomenon will ultimately provide insight into addressing the effects of the promotion of fashion magazine advertisements on Chinese women. It is further anticipated that future researchers will expand and improve the knowledge of the Chinese advertising market.

L’objectif de cette thèse est d’une part d’étudier l’influence des labels de groupe sur la formation de jugements envers le locuteur employant ces labels et envers la cible de ces labels et d’autre part de proposer un modèle explicatif des effets. La littérature rapporte un effet délétère de l’emploi de labels de groupe péjoratifs sur les jugements exprimés envers le locuteur et envers la cible, l’emploi d’un label péjoratif (e.g., « nègre ») entraînant des jugements plus négatifs que celui d’un label non-péjoratif (e.g., « noir »). Nous nous proposons de répliquer ces effets et de tester l’hypothèse d’une régulation normative de ceux-ci. Notre recherche a été déclinée en deux axes. Le premier a examiné l’effet de la valence du label employé et du niveau de protection normative du groupe cible sur les jugements exprimés envers le locuteur. Le second a étudié le rôle d’indice linguistique de catégorisation joué par les labels de groupe lors de la formation de jugements envers le locuteur, mais également envers la cible du label. Conformément aux prédictions, les résultats montrent que l’emploi d’un label péjoratif entraîne un jugement plus négatif du locuteur que l’emploi d’un label non-péjoratif. Le principal apport de ce thèse réside dans le fait que la simple catégorisation via l’emploi de labels de groupe suffit à entraîner des jugements plus négatifs du locuteur et des jugements plus positifs de la cible du label. De plus, la norme sociale anti-préjugés médiatise les effets obtenus et le niveau de protection normative du groupe cible vient, quant à lui, les modérer. Les implications théoriques de ces résultats et les perspectives de recherche sont discutées. / This thesis aims to study the influence of group labels over the formation of judgments towards the emitter and the target of these label’s and to come up with an explanatory model of these effects. Literature shows a negative effect of pejorative group labels on the emitter's and the target’s judgements; pejorative labels (e.g. “nigger”) leading to more negative judgments than nonpejorativelabels (e.g. “black”). We offer to replicate these effects and to test the hypothesis of a normative regulation of these effects. Our research is declined in two main axes. We first examined the effect of group label valence and normative protection level of the targeted social group on the emitter's judgments. We secondly studied the role of linguistic categorization played by group labels during the formation judgments towards emitter and target. As predicted, results showed that the use of pejorative labels generates more negative judgments of the emitter than the use of non-pejorative labels. The main contribution of this thesis is to show that simple categorization using group labels is sufficient to generate negative judgments of the emitter and positive judgments of the target. Moreover, the anti-prejudice norm mediates the obtained effects, while the level of normative protection of the targeted group moderates them. Theoretical implications of these results are discussed and the prospects for research are mentioned.

Submitted by Irene Nascimento (irene.kessia@ufpe.br) on 2017-03-24T19:50:29Z No. of bitstreams: 2 license_rdf: 1232 bytes, checksum: 66e71c371cc565284e70f40736c94386 (MD5) Franciela_Monte_Tese_Final.pdf: 3576410 bytes, checksum: a7aab539dde30a6788c0de4be7f20309 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-03-24T19:50:29Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 license_rdf: 1232 bytes, checksum: 66e71c371cc565284e70f40736c94386 (MD5) Franciela_Monte_Tese_Final.pdf: 3576410 bytes, checksum: a7aab539dde30a6788c0de4be7f20309 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016-08-16 / CNPQ / Esta pesquisa teve como objetivo central compreender como o Julgamento Social acerca do tráfico se relaciona com os domínios morais, convencionais e pessoais do Julgamento Social, bem como com as variáveis Empatia e Valores Humanos em adolescentes. 90 adolescentes do sexo masculino, com idades variando entre 12 e 17 participaram deste estudo. O Grupo I (n = 30) foi composto por adolescentes que cometeram tráfico de drogas, o Grupo II (n = 30) por adolescentes que cometeram roubo e o grupo III (n = 30) por adolescentes que não cometeram ato infracional. Além de responderem a um questionário socioeconômico, os participantes foram submetidos à técnica de associação livre para o estímulo “tráfico de drogas” e responderam a oito situações-problemas envolvendo os três domínios do julgamento social, além do tráfico de drogas (vender maconha e vender crack). Além disso, fizeram classificações sobre gravidade e punição para 16 comportamentos da “Avaliação de Comportamentos na Escola” (ACE) e responderam o Questionário de Valores Básicos (QVB) e a Escala Multidimensional de Reatividade Interpessoal (EMRI). Os resultados demonstraram que na associação livre, o grupo I priorizou termos relacionados às consequências positivas do tráfico de drogas e o grupo III às consequências negativas e à violência relacionada ao tráfico. Ademais, os grupos II e III tenderam a classificar a comercialização de drogas como questão pertencente ao domínio moral, enquanto o grupo I tendeu a classificá-la como convencional. Enquanto os valores pessoais estiveram relacionados ao cometimento de tráfico de drogas, os valores sociais foram mais intensamente valorizados pelos participantes do grupo III, os quais também obtiveram maiores níveis gerais de empatia. Ademais, constata-se que os valores pessoais e a dificuldade de se colocar cognitivamente na perspectiva do outro são importantes variáveis explicativas do tráfico de drogas cometido pelo adolescente. Em suma, os resultados sugerem que adolescentes que cometem tráfico de drogas diferem qualitativamente quanto ao julgamento social acerca desta atividade, percebendo-a como menos promotora de prejuízos aos outros e com menor gravidade, quando comparados aos outros dois grupos. Neste sentido, compreende-se que este estudo contribui com o campo de estudos sobre o engajamento em comportamentos infracionais na adolescência e suas relações com o desenvolvimento sociocognitivo. Além disso, considera-se que os resultados podem colaborar com o desenvolvimento de metodologias de intervenção no campo da Educação Moral, a partir de uma abordagem mais ampla sobre o julgamento social que os próprios indivíduos fazem a respeito do comportamento infracional, mais especificamente o envolvimento com o tráfico de droga. / This research had as main aim to understand how the Social Judgment about drug traffic relates to Social Judgment, as well as the variables Empathy and Human Values in adolescents. For this, 90 male adolescents, ages (12 to 17)) took part in this study. Group I (n = 30) was composed of adolescents who have committed drug traffic, Group II (n = 30) for adolescents who have committed robbery and Group III (n = 30) for adolescents who have not committed crimes. Participants were submitted to the technique of free association to the stimulus "drug trafficking" and responded to eight situations-problems involving the three areas of social judgment, in addition to drug traffic (dealing marijuana and crack). Also, they evaluated the severity and punishment for 16 behaviors "Behavior Assessment in School" (ACE), and answered the Questionário de Valores Básicos (QVB), the Escala de Multidimensional de Reatividade Interpessoal (EMRI), and a socioeconomic questionnaire. Results showed that Group I prioritized terms related to the posit ive consequences of drug dealing and group III emphasized the negative consequences and violence related to traffic. In addition, Groups II and III classified drug dealing as a matter belonging to the moral domain, while the group I tended to classify it as conventional. While personal values were related to traffic, social values were more intensely pursued by members of the Group III, which also had higher overall levels of empathy. In a general way, this study shows that adolescents who commit drug trafficking differ qualitatively as the social judgment on this activity, perceiving it as less promoter of harm to others, and less severe when compared to the other two groups. Moreover, it appears that the personal values and the difficulty of another people's perspective are important predictive variables of traffic during adolescence. We consider that this study contribute to a better comprehension of crime involvement during adolescence and its relationship to sociocognitive development. Also, its results might contribute to more effective intervention in Moral Education, from a approach based on the judgment that the subjects' reasoning regarding drug dealing and other crimes.

The credibility of the American news media is increasingly under fire. Despite an exponential expansion of information available in the digital media era, increased political news coverage and commentary has brought growing apprehension over how much of today’s news can be trusted and believed. 24-hour cable news channels are among the media most often subject to this criticism. At the same time, the media operates under First Amendment freedom of press protection, a constitutional guarantee granted with the understanding that democracy can only succeed when its citizens are well informed. In the great experiment of our republic, a freely functioning news media fills this critical role, but only to the extent that it can be trusted to portray the truth. This research questioned the media’s ability to inform the public due to the proliferation of political news and commentary. Utilizing social judgment theory, this study offered two hypotheses: that news consumers will find more credibility in political news when presented by media outlets they favor due to political preferences, and that they will also find more credibility in non-political news when presented by media they favor due to political preferences. The study examined if there is a bleed over effect on the credibility of non-political news due to political news coverage. An experiment was conducted in which two politically diverse populations, Republicans and Democrats, where asked to rate the credibility of six stories. Three of the stories were political, three non-political. While the content of those stories remained constant for all study participants, the media brands associated with the stories alternated between Fox News and CNN to determine if the media source alone influences perceptions of credibility. Results from members of both political parties provided support for each hypothesis. Republicans assigned greater credibility to both political and non-political news stories when presented by their network of preference, Fox News. By comparison, Democrats demonstrated greater trust when those same stories where branded by their preferred network, CNN.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Misinformation, oder „Fake News“, ist in der Online-Kommunikation weit verbreitet und beeinflusst Diskurs und Zusammenleben. Es ist jedoch wenig darüber bekannt, wie wir auf individueller Ebene beeinflusst werden, wenn wir Meinungen bilden und Urteile ableiten. Diese Dissertation untersucht die kognitiven und Gehirn Mechanismen, die der Verarbeitung sozialer, personenbezogener Misinformation zugrunde liegen. Proband*innen wurden mit negativen, positiven oder relativ neutralen personenbezogenen Nachrichten konfrontiert, die entweder verbal als unglaubwürdig gekennzeichnet waren, z.B. "angeblich", oder aus bekannten Medienquellen stammten, die als glaubwürdig oder unglaubwürdig wahrgenommen wurden. Die Ergebnisse zeigten, dass soziale Urteile stark vom emotionalen Gehalt beeinflusst waren, unabhängig von der Glaubwürdigkeit. Elektrophysiologische Korrelate früher emotionaler und erregungsbezogener Prozesse sowie Korrelate späterer evaluierender Verarbeitung waren verstärkt für Personen, die mit emotionalen Inhalten assoziiert wurden—unabhängig von der Glaubwürdigkeit der Information. Emotionale Inhalte wirken also nicht nur auf die unwillkürliche und früher Reaktion auf Nachrichten, sondern sogar auf Prozesse, für die erwartet wurde, dass sie die Information aufgrund ihrer Glaubwürdigkeit evaluieren würden. Um zu intervenieren, bewerteten die Proband*innen vor der Konfrontation mit Schlagzeilen explizit die Glaubwürdigkeit der Quelle. Dies half teilweise, die Glaubwürdigkeit positiver Nachrichteninhalte zu verarbeiten. Die Einsicht in die fehlende Glaubwürdigkeit hatte jedoch keinen Einfluss auf die Effekte negativer Nachrichteninhalte. Unsere Ergebnisse zeigen, wie der emotionale Gehalt sozialer Misinformation das Gehirn und das Urteilsvermögen beeinflussen kann, selbst wider besseres Wissen über die fehlende Glaubwürdigkeit. Perspektivisch helfen diese Erkenntnisse, uns den Herausforderungen von Misinformation aus Sicht der individuellen Kognition zu stellen. / Misinformation, also called “fake news”, is highly prevalent in online communication affecting public discourse and social coexistence. However, little is known about how we are affected by it on the individual level when we derive opinions and judgments. This dissertation investigates the cognitive and brain mechanisms underlying the processing of social, person-related misinformation. Participants were exposed to negative, positive, or relatively neutral news about other persons that was either verbally marked as untrustworthy by adding e.g., “allegedly”, or stemmed from well-known media sources perceived as trusted or distrusted. We found that social person judgments strongly relied on the emotional content independent of the credibility, showing how social misinformation affects person evaluation although it is perceived as untrustworthy. Electrophysiological indexes of early emotional and arousal-related processes, as well as correlates of later evaluative processing were enhanced for persons associated with emotional contents regardless of the credibility of the information. This shows the pronounced influence of emotional contents not only on the initial and early response to news, but even on processes that were expected to evaluate the information on merit of its credibility. In a first attempt to intervene, participants explicitly evaluated the credibility of the source before reading the headlines. This helped to overcome the bias for positive news and process its credibility to some degree. However, the insight into the lack of credibility had no influence on the effects of negative news on brain responses and social judgments. Our results demonstrate how emotional content in social misinformation can affect mind, brain, and judgments even against better knowledge of its lacking credibility. In perspective, these insights help to face the challenges of misinformation from the perspective of the individual’s cognition.