The Effect of Psychological Distance on Willingness to Engage in Ideologically Based Violence

Research on the cognitive and decision-making processes of individuals who choose to engage in ideologically based violence is vital. Our research examines how abstract and concrete construal mindsets affect likelihood to engage in ideologically based violence. Construal Level Theory (CLT) states that an abstract mindset (high-level construal), as opposed to a concrete mindset (low-level construal), is associated with a greater likelihood of engaging in goal-oriented, value-motivated behaviors. Assuming that ideologically based violence is goal-oriented, we hypothesized that high-level construal should result in an increased likelihood of engaging in ideologically based violence. In the pilot study we developed and tested 24 vignettes covering controversial topics and assessed them on features such as relatability, emotional impact, and capacity to elicit a violent reaction. The ten most impactful vignettes were selected for use in the primary investigations. The two primary investigations examined the effect of high- and low-level construal manipulations on self-reported likelihood of engaging in ideologically based violence. Self-reported willingness was measured through an ideological violence assessment. Data trends implied that participants were engaged in the study, as they reported a higher willingness to engage in ideologically based violence when they had a higher passion for the vignette's social issue topic. Our results did not indicate a significant relationship between construal manipulations and level of passion for a topic.

Understanding information use in multiattribute decision making

An inference task in one in which some known set of information is used to produce an estimate about an unknown quantity. Existing theories of how humans make inferences include specialized heuristics that allow people to make these inferences in familiar environments quickly and without unnecessarily complex computation. Specialized heuristic processing may be unnecessary, however; other research suggests that the same patterns in judgment can be explained by existing patterns in encoding and retrieving memories. This dissertation compares and attempts to reconcile three alternate explanations of human inference. After justifying three hierarchical Bayesian version of existing inference models, the three models are com- pared on simulated, observed, and experimental data. The results suggest that the three models capture different patterns in human behavior but, based on posterior prediction using laboratory data, potentially ignore important determinants of the decision process.

The Educational Imaginary in Radical Reconstruction: Congressional Public Policy Rhetoric and American Federalism, 1862-1872

Facing the exigencies of Emancipation, a South in ruins, and ongoing violence, between 1862 and 1872 the United States Congress debated the role education would play in the postbellum polity. Positing schooling as a panacea for the nation’s problems, a determiner of individual worth, and a way of ameliorating state and federal tensions, congressional leaders envisioned education as a way of reshaping American political life. In pursuit of this vision, many policymakers advocated national school agencies and assertive interventions into state educational systems. Interrogating the meaning of “education” for congressional leaders, this study examines the role of this ambiguous concept in negotiating the contradictions of federal and state identity, projecting visions of social change, evaluating civic preparedness, and enabling broader debates over the nation’s future. Examining legislative debates over the Reconstruction Acts, Freedmen’s Bureau, Bureau of Education, and two bills for national education reform in the early 1870s, this project examines how disparate educational visions of Republicans and Democrats collided and mutated amid the vicissitudes of public policy argument. Engaging rhetorical concepts of temporality, disposition, and political judgment, it examines the allure and limitations of education policy rhetoric, and how this rhetoric shifted amid the difficult process of coming to policy agreements in a tumultuous era. In a broader historical sense, this project considers the role of Reconstruction Era congressional rhetoric in shaping the long-term development of contemporary Americans’ “educational imaginary,” the tacit, often unarticulated assumptions about schooling that inflect how contemporary Americans engage in political life, civic judgment, and social reform. Treating the analysis of public policy debate as a way to gain insights into transitions in American political life, the study considers how Reconstruction Era debate converged upon certain common agreements, and obfuscated significant fault lines, that persist in contemporary arguments.