Friday, December 24, 2021

Children's books solidify gender stereotypes in young minds

A new study from Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Wisconsin-Madison has found children's books may perpetuate gender stereotypes. Such information in early education books could play an integral role in solidifying gendered perceptions in young children. The results are available in the December issue of the journal Psychological Science.

"Some of the stereotypes that have been studied in a social psychology literature are present in these books, like girls being good at reading and boys being good at math," said Molly Lewis, special faculty in the Social and Decision Sciences and Psychology departments at the Dietrich College of Humanities and Social Sciences and lead author on the study.

Lewis has found that books with gendered language were centered around the protagonist in the story. Female-associated words focused on affection, school-related words and communication verbs, like 'explained' and 'listened.' Meanwhile, male-associated words focused more on professions, transportation and tools.

"The audiences of these books [are] different," said Lewis. "Girls more often read stereotypically girl books, and boys more often read stereotypically boy books."

Girls are more likely to have books read to them that include female protagonists than boys. Because of these preferences, children are more likely to learn about the gender biases of their own gender than of other genders.

The researchers analyzed 247 books written for children 5 years old and younger from the Wisconsin Children's Book Corpus. The books with female protagonists had more gendered language than the books with male protagonists. The researchers attribute this finding to "male" being historically seen as the default gender. Female-coded words and phrases are more outside of the norm and more notable.

The researchers also compared their findings to adult fiction books and found children's books displayed more gender stereotypes than fictional books read by adults. In particular, the researchers examined how often women were associated with good, family, language and arts, while men were associated with bad, careers and math. Compared to the adult corpus, which was fairly gender neutral when it came to associations between gender, language, arts and math, children's books were far more likely to associate women with language and arts and men with math.

"Our data are only part of the story—so to speak," said Mark Seidenberg, professor of psychology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison and contributing author on the study. "They are based on the words in children's books and say nothing about other characteristics that matter: the story, the emotions they evoke, the ways the books expand children's knowledge of the world. We don't want to ruin anyone's memories of 'Curious George' or 'Amelia Bedelia.' Knowing that stereotypes do creep into many books and that children develop beliefs about gender at a young age, we probably want to consider books with this in mind."

The study did not directly assess how children perceive the messages about gender in these books or examine how the books influence how the readers perceive gender. The study also did not evaluate other sources of gender stereotypes to which children are exposed.

"There is often kind of a cycle of learning about gender stereotypes, with children learning stereotypes at a young age then perpetuating them as they get older," said Lewis. "These books may be a vehicle for communicating information about gender. We may need to pay some attention to what those messages may be and whether they're messages you want to even bring to children."

Lewis and Seidenberg were joined by Matt Cooper Borkenhagen, Ellen Converse and Gary Lupyan from the University of Wisconsin, Madison in the study, titled "What books might be teaching young children about gender?"60 years of children's books reveal persistent overrepresentation of male protagonists

More information: What books might be teaching young children about gender? Psychological Science (2021).

Journal information: Psychological Science

Provided by Carnegie Mellon University

60 years of children's books reveal persistent overrepresentation of male protagonists

by Public Library of Science

An analysis of thousands of children's books published in the last 60 years suggests that, while a higher proportion of books now feature female protagonists, male protagonists remain overrepresented. Stella Lourenco of Emory University, U.S., and colleagues present these findings in the open-access journal PLOS ONE on December 15, 2021 and explore the factors associated with representation

A large body of evidence points to a bias in male versus female representation among protagonists in children's books published prior to 2000. However, evidence is lacking as to whether that bias has persisted. In addition, it has been unclear which factors, such as author gender, may be associated with male versus female protagonists.

To help clarify whether gender bias still exists in American children's literature, the authors conducted a statistical analysis of the frequency of male versus female protagonists in 3,280 books, aimed for audiences aged 0 to 16 years and published between 1960 and 2020. They selected books that can be purchased online in the United States, either as hard copies or as digital books, and primarily written in English (<1% written in multiple languages). To enable direct comparison of the rates of appearance of male versus female central characters, they focused on books featuring a single central protagonist, and also only included books for which the gender of the book author was identifiable and matched for all authors if there was more than one.

The analysis found that, since 1960, the proportion of female central protagonists has increased—and is still increasing—but books published since 2000 still feature a disproportionate number of male central protagonists.

The researchers also found associations between the ratio of male versus female protagonists and several relevant factors. Specifically, they found that gender bias is higher for fiction featuring non-human characters than for fiction with human characters. Meanwhile, non-fiction books have a greater degree of gender bias than fiction books, especially when the characters are human.

Books by male authors showed a decline in bias since 1960, but only in books written for younger audiences. Books by female authors also declined in bias over time, ultimately with more female than male central protagonists featured in books for older children and in books with human characters.

These findings could help guide efforts toward more equitable gender representation in children's books, which could impact child development and societal attitudes. Future research could build on this work by considering reading rates of specific books, as well as books with non-binary characters.

The authors add: "Although male protagonists remain overrepresented in books written for children (even post-2000), the present study found that the male-to-female ratio of protagonists varied according to author gender, age of the target audience, character type, and book genre. In other words, some authors and types of books were more equitable in the gender representation of protagonists in children's books."

Study shows stories written by children are more likely to have male characters

More information: Casey K, Novick K, Lourenco SF (2021) Sixty years of gender representation in children's books: Conditions associated with overrepresentation of male versus female protagonists. PLoS ONE 16(12): e0260566. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260566

Journal information: PLoS ONE

Provided by Public Library of Science

Learning to read starts earlier than you might think: Five tips from an expert

by Karen Boardman, The Conversation

In the early weeks of their lives and even before birth, babies are skilfully processing important information about the sounds they hear. They are attuning to tones, patterns of language and distinguishing their own familiar adults' voices. Making sense of sounds, patterns, words and sentences are important skills that will help a child as they progress towards reading.

Early reading for under-threes is rooted in their daily lives. It involves lots of listening, communication, speech and language activities—not just sharing books.

As their language and communication skills develop and they build vocabulary, under-threes learn to use pictures, words and sounds, tell and retell familiar stories, and sing songs and rhymes. In turn, these activities help children navigate pictures, words and sentences they encounter on the page.

Here are five tips to support early reading for children aged under three.

1: Create a "chatty" environment

Encourage and support lots of communication. Research shows that talking to babies and toddlers helps them build vocabulary, while conversation a child simply overhears does not always contribute to their vocabulary development.

Take turns in conversations and comment on their activities and the routines of the day. This could be when getting dressed, during play, nappy changing or taking a walk through the park. This will enable under-threes to begin to develop receptive language—the ability to understand others. They will make connections, notice, respond and engage with sounds and images in the environment, all important early reading skills.

2. Have fun with rhythm and music making

Play lots of rhyming games, sing nursery rhymes, comment on rhyming patterns in songs and make lots of music. Repetition and predictable rhyme helps children remember new words.

Alliteration and assonance in poetry and nursery rhymes draws attention to the individual sounds and patterns in words.

3. Share meaningful images

Use images, such as pictures and photographs of familiar places, objects, families and communities, to create meaningful shared experiences for children under three. Make books with photographs or apps to encourage talk and interaction about children's home cultures and families. Encourage children to point out the details they encounter in pictures.

Reading pictures and following images helps children learn to read as they begin to make connections, understand sequences of stories and further develop their comprehension skills. Very young children are adept at interpreting visual texts and noticing details.

4. Draw attention to print in daily life

Use your environment and local community to point out words at home, at nursery or out and about. This could be print on cereal boxes, signs or logos. Encountering print in their environment helps under-threes recognize letters, sounds and images that have meaning.

5. Engage with books frequently

Shared book reading, story time and retelling stories together are valuable points of connection and social interaction for under-threes. When supportive adults encourage the exploration of pictures, draw attention to the text and the conventions of print, and talk about the characters or the sequence of the story, the story comes alive to create awe and wonder for children.

Choose a range of books—cloth, sensory, picture books and story books or online story apps. Ensure that under-threes also have independent access to these, so they are able to choose books or apps themselves, turn pages or handle interactive technology.

Puppets, props and role-play help to make books or stories and rhymes interactive and help children recreate stories through imaginative play. Under-threes need to relate images, sounds and words to their own experiences, so ensure that the props you use link to the child's culture and daily life.

Parents play a key role in fostering children's love of reading

Provided by The Conversation

How do we learn to learn? New research offers an education

by New York University
Credit: Pixabay/CC0 Public Domain
Cognitive training designed to focus on what's important while ignoring distractions can enhance the brain's information processing, enabling the ability to "learn to learn," finds a new study on mice.
"As any educator knows, merely recollecting the information we learn in school is hardly the point of an education," says André Fenton, a professor of neural science at New York University and the senior author of the study, which appears in the journal Nature. "Rather than using our brains to merely store information to recall later, with the right mental training, we can also 'learn to learn,' which makes us more adaptive, mindful, and intelligent."
Researchers have frequently studied the machinations of memory—specifically, how neurons store the information gained from experience so that the same information can be recalled later. However, less is known about the underlying neurobiology of how we "learn to learn"—the mechanisms our brains use to go beyond drawing from memory to utilize past experiences in meaningful, novel ways.
A greater understanding of this process could point to new methods to enhance learning and to design precision cognitive behavioral therapies for neuropsychiatric disorders like anxiety, schizophrenia, and other forms of mental dysfunction.
To explore this, the researchers conducted a series of experiments using mice, who were assessed for their ability to learn cognitively challenging tasks. Prior to the assessment, some mice received "cognitive control training" (CCT). They were put on a slowly rotating arena and trained to avoid the stationary location of a mild shock using stationary visual cues while ignoring locations of the shock on the rotating floor. CCT mice were compared to control mice. One control group also learned the same place avoidance, but it did not have to ignore the irrelevant rotating locations.
The use of the rotating arena place avoidance methodology was vital to the experiment, the scientists note, because it manipulates spatial information, dissociating the environment into stationary and rotating components. Previously, the lab had shown that learning to avoid shock on the rotating arena requires using the hippocampus, the brain's memory and navigation center, as well as the persistent activity of a molecule (protein kinase M zeta [PKMζ]) that is crucial for maintaining increases in the strength of neuronal connections and for storing long-term memory.
"In short, there were molecular, physiological, and behavioral reasons to examine long-term place avoidance memory in the hippocampus circuit as well as a theory for how the circuit could persistently improve," explains Fenton.
Analysis of neural activity in the hippocampus during CCT confirmed the mice were using relevant information for avoiding shock and ignoring the rotating distractions in the vicinity of the shock. Notably, this process of ignoring distractions was essential for the mice learning to learn as it allowed them to do novel cognitive tasks better than the mice that did not receive CCT. Remarkably, the researchers could measure that CCT also improves how the mice's hippocampal neural circuitry functions to process information. The hippocampus is a crucial part of the brain for forming long-lasting memories as well as for spatial navigation, and CCT improved how it operates for months.
"The study shows that two hours of cognitive control training causes learning to learn in mice and that learning to learn is accompanied by improved tuning of a key brain circuit for memory," observes Fenton. "Consequently, the brain becomes persistently more effective at suppressing noisy inputs and more consistently effective at enhancing the inputs that matter."Trains in the brain: Scientists uncover switching system used in information processing and memory
More information: André Fenton, Cognitive control persistently enhances hippocampal information processing, Nature (2021). DOI: 10.1038/s41586-021-04070-5. www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04070-5
Journal information: Nature
Provided by New York University

Does wealth always lead to a good education? New study proposes new model for predicting student success globally

by Frontiers

New research published in Frontiers in Education argues that analyzing the individual components that underlie socioeconomic status, such as parents' occupation or the number of books in a home, is a better predictor of student success across different cultures than the current composite index.

The dominant paradigm for predicting student achievement across cultures is lacking nuance when it comes to accounting for socioeconomic status (SES) in educational assessments. A new paper in Frontiers in Education argues that lumping individual factors together equally under SES omits crucial data for understanding gaps in education. Instead, the researchers contend, future research should approach socioeconomic status as a multidimensional predictor, weighing each variable differently based on individual cultures.

The research team, based in Sweden, analyzed data from almost 600,000 students in 77 countries from the 2018 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), a worldwide study that measures the performance of 15-year-old school students in mathematics, science and reading.

Like most similar assessments, PISA treats socioeconomic status as a single, composite factor among a number of other variables, such as class size or school policy, when trying to predict student success. But when researchers broke SES down into six component variables, they made some surprising discoveries.

"Our main finding is that relations between student achievement and socioeconomic factors look very different in different countries," said Dr. Kimmo Eriksson, lead author and a professor of mathematics and social psychology at Mälardalen University College. "In many countries, achievement is strongly related to the number of books at home while it is unrelated, or even negatively related, to wealth."

A nuanced approach

Parents' highest occupational status was another key factor that better predicted student success—or lack thereof—compared to the one-dimensional socioeconomic status index employed by PISA that weighed all SES factors equally. In addition, results were almost identical across different academic domains, which implies they may not be important in these sorts of analyses. For example, the effect of books at home was equally significant in science and math as in reading.

However, these two variables—books at home and parents' occupation status—do not necessarily capture the full picture in poorer countries, where wealth is indeed strongly related to better academic results.

"This points to a fundamental problem with the current approach, in which socioeconomic status is measured by some fixed index of socioeconomic factors," Eriksson said. "For example, this practice will inevitably underestimate the socioeconomic achievement gap in countries where the index does not match the actual importance of different socioeconomic factors."

Book versus wealth

It is possible to find an optimal single-dimensional index, but this index may be radically different for different countries, he noted. An index that primarily includes books at home and parents' occupational status may work quite well as a predictor of student achievement in higher-income countries, based on the results of the current study.

While the main goal of the paper was to challenge the current paradigm of how to measure and interpret gaps in student achievement based on socioeconomic status, the researchers did address some of the more 'shocking' discoveries.

In particular, they speculated what could be so beneficial about owning books, especially among a generation reared on smartphones and social media. They argued that this effect may be less about direct causation and more related to what the paper referred to as "trait transfer". In other words, the number of books in a home may indicate the parents' general interest in and enjoyment of reading—traits that may transfer better study habits in a student.

"We believe that the mystery disappears if we instead assume that socioeconomic factors are mainly indicators of individual traits that are useful to achieve in school and that to some extent are transferred from parents to children," Eriksson explained.Behavior in high school predicts income and occupational success later in life

More information: Kimmo Eriksson et al, Socioeconomic Status as a Multidimensional Predictor of Student Achievement in 77 Societies, Frontiers in Education (2021). DOI: 10.3389/feduc.2021.731634

Provided by Frontiers

FOR PROFIT HEALTHCARE
Survey: Half Of Doctors Considering Leaving Medicine — Because Of Health Insurance Headaches

Poll of 600 physicians shows frustration over insurer policies and delays that doctors say could be leaving patients in prolonged pain.

WASHINGTON — Are health insurance policies creating nightmares for physicians and hazards for their patients? A new study finds that nearly nine in ten doctors believe barriers set by insurance plans have led to worsened conditions for patients in need of care.

Researchers with Aimed Alliance, a non-profit that seeks to protect and enhance the rights of health care consumers and providers, say that doctors are so fed up with the constant headaches caused by insurers, two-thirds would recommend against pursuing a career in medicine, and nearly half (48%) are considering a career change altogether.

For the study, the organization polled 600 physicians in the U.S. practicing either family medicine, internal medicine, pediatrics, or obstetrics/gynecology. The group sought to understand the extent to which insurance policies impact primary care physicians, their practices, and their patients on a day-to-day basis. They also wanted to get a better understanding of mental health issues among providers, as well as the causes behind the national provider shortage.

Researchers found that physicians don’t think very highly of health insurance companies, and believe they’re putting patients at risk with policies such as prior authorizations ahead of filling prescriptions. In fact, 87% of doctors say patients’ conditions have grown worse because of such red-tape regulations, and 83% worry the patients will suffer prolonged pain as a result.

Prior authorizations are especially bothersome for doctors. More than nine in ten (91%) of those surveyed think the policy delays necessary care for patients. Similarly, the same number of doctors agree insurers engage in “non-medical switching,” which forces patients to take less costly — but potentially less effective — medicines.

Such policies are stressing many physicians out. Thirty-seven percent say half or more of their daily stress is caused by insurance issues, and 65% feel they’re facing greater legal risks because of decisions made by insurers. The vast majority (85%) are left frustrated by such issues, and many admit to taking their anger and emotions out on their staff and even family members.

“I can understand why many of the respondents reported that they would not recommend this career to anyone else,” Dr. Shannon Ginnan, medical director of Aimed Alliance, tells StudyFinds. “As practitioners, much of our time is spent on burdensome paperwork required from health insurers for our services to be paid for. This prevents us from spending as much time on patient care as we would like, and it doesn’t take much for all this paperwork to interfere with the services that we provide.”

To Ginnan’s point, the survey showed that 77% of doctors have had to hire more staffers to handle the heavier administrative load from insurance work. Ninety-percent say they have less time to spend with patients because of the burden.

As for the aspect of insurers’ policies that doctors would like to see changed most, the majority (55%) agreed on an insurers’ ability to override the professional judgment of physicians. About nine out of ten (87%) respondents felt that insurer personnel interfere with their ability to provide individualized treatments for each patient.

Beyond the harm that doctors say insurance policies cause patients in need of care, they also agree that patients are taking a hit in their bank accounts too. Doctors believe that insurers are contributing to the rising cost of healthcare more than anything else, including pharmaceutical companies, government policies, lawsuits, or hospitals.

The organization hope their study will provide lawmakers solid data when attempting to reform health care laws and regulations related to utilization management and provider shortages.

The survey was conducted on behalf of Aimed Alliance by David Binder Research.

Study: Psychiatric Diagnoses Are ‘Scientifically Meaningless’ In Treating Mental Health

by John Anderer

LIVERPOOL, England — No two people are exactly alike. Therefore, attempting to classify each unique individual’s mental health issues into neat categories just doesn’t work. That’s the claim coming out of the United Kingdom that is sure to ruffle some psychologists’ feathers.

More people are being diagnosed with mental illnesses than ever before. Multiple factors can be attributed to this rise; many people blame the popularity of social media and increased screen time, but it is also worth considering that in today’s day and age more people may be willing to admit they are having mental health issues in the first place. Whatever the reason, it is generally believed that a psychiatric diagnosis is the first step to recovery.

That’s why a new study conducted at the University of Liverpool has raised eyebrows by concluding that psychiatric diagnoses are “scientifically meaningless,” and worthless as tools to accurately identify and address mental distress at an individual level.

Researchers performed a detailed analysis on five of the most important chapters in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Heath Disorders (DSM). The DSM is considered the definitive guide for mental health professionals, and provides descriptions for all mental health problems and their symptoms. The five chapters analyzed were: bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, depressive disorders, anxiety disorders, and trauma-related disorders.

Researchers came to a number of troubling conclusions. First, the study’s authors assert that there is a significant amount of overlap in symptoms between disorder diagnoses, despite the fact that each diagnosis utilizes different decision rules. Additionally, these diagnoses completely ignore the role of trauma or other unique adverse events a person may encounter in their life.

Perhaps most concerning of all, researchers say that these diagnoses tell us little to nothing about the individual patient and what type of treatments they will need. The authors ultimately conclude that this diagnostic labeling approach is “a disingenuous categorical system.”

“Although diagnostic labels create the illusion of an explanation they are scientifically meaningless and can create stigma and prejudice. I hope these findings will encourage mental health professionals to think beyond diagnoses and consider other explanations of mental distress, such as trauma and other adverse life experiences.” Lead researcher Dr. Kate Allsopp explains in a release.

According to the study’s authors, the traditional diagnostic system being used today wrongly assumes that any and all mental distress is caused by a disorder, and relies far too heavily on subjective ideas about what is considered “normal.”

“Perhaps it is time we stopped pretending that medical-sounding labels contribute anything to our understanding of the complex causes of human distress or of what kind of help we need when distressed.” Professor John Read comments.

The study is published in the scientific journal Psychiatry Research.

laing enterprises - The official website for R.D. Laing

https://www.rdlaingofficial.com

R.D. Laing was a controversial figure to the Establishment and a hero to the counter-culture movement of the 1960s which viewed R. D. Laing as a pioneering humanitarian whose works

R. D. Laing and the Anti-Psychiatry Movement - SciHi

scihi.org/laing-anti-psychiatry-movement

2016-08-23 · Ronald David Laing was born in the Govanhill district of Glasgow, Scotland, on 7 October 1927, the only child of civil engineer David Park MacNair Laing and Amelia Glen Laing (née Kirkwood). He studied medicine at Glasgow University from 1945 to 1951. There he developed a special interest in psychotic patients.

Estimated Reading Time: 8 mins

Workplace interruptions may actually make people feel like more valued employees

OCTOBER 25, 2021

by John Anderer

CINCINNATI, Ohio — If you’ve ever worked in an office, you probably know the occasional interruption from a colleague is unavoidable. Maybe it’s to ask for your opinion, or to simply share an anecdote from the past weekend. Whatever the reason, most have heard “hey, do you have a second?” at least a handful of times while working. These interruptions can be annoying, but a recent study finds these workday occurrences actually offer a significant benefit.

Researchers from the University of Cincinnati report that while these moments may feel like a burden at the time, they also serve to foster a much greater sense of office cohesion and sense of belonging for the person stopping to answers these questions. Study authors even go so far as to say the benefits can outweigh the negatives, such as lost productivity.

Other negatives that come with such interruptions include higher stress and lower energy levels, but eventually the interrupted employees reported feeling like they belonged and an overall higher degree of job satisfaction.

It may be annoying to have to deal with an interruption in the heat of an important project, but if a colleague thinks enough of you to ask your for your opinion, help, or input, researchers say that serves as validation that you’re a valued member of the team.

“If the past year of social distancing and isolation has shown us anything, it is that humans are social beings who have an inherent need for interacting with others,” says lead study author Harshad Puranik, PhD, an assistant professor in the Department of Managerial Studies at University of Illinois at Chicago, in a release.
An interrupted worker is a happy worker?

Study authors surveyed a group of 111 employees twice per day for three full weeks. Each time, employees answered questions about their experiences at the office that day. More specifically, participants recorded if they had endured any interruptions, how mentally tired they felt, their sense of belonging, and their overall job satisfaction.

Those polls led the research team to conclude that while work interruptions in a vacuum can certainly lead to feeling more lethargic and dissatisfied, the social interactions that usually accompany those intrusions produce feelings of belonging and increased job satisfaction.

“Our study revealed that by providing this avenue for social interaction with one’s colleagues, work interruptions led to a greater sense of belonging. This sense of belonging, in turn, led to higher job satisfaction,” Dr. Puranik adds.

“We find that interruptions can actually benefit individuals from an interpersonal perspective — people feel like they belong when others come and talk to them or ask them questions, even while being distracted from their tasks,” comments study co-author Heather Vough. “The sense of belongingness mitigated the negative effect of interruptions on job satisfaction. Thus, interruptions at work may have gotten a bad rap due to a failure to consider their human element.”

Traditionally, managers and CEOs have worked to eliminate office interruptions whenever possible. These findings, however, suggest supervisors worldwide may want to allow a bit more leeway in that regard moving forward.

The study appears in the Journal of Applied Psychology.

PROLETARIAN JUSTICE

4 in 5 U.S. workers say they support their jobs hiring people with criminal records

DECEMBER 16, 2021
by Chris Melore

SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. — Criminal records can become a major barrier for people seeking a job. Even though most U.S. states now have laws that prevent employers from asking about a person’s prior convictions, a new poll finds 82 percent of U.S. workers say their job application included questions about their criminal record. Despite the stigma surrounding going to jail, the survey also finds America’s attitude about this topic is changing. Four in five respondents say they would support their employers hiring people with a criminal history.

The survey of 1,200 U.S. employees and 400 U.S. executives, conducted by HR tech company Checkr, examined both sides of the hiring equation and what factors come into consideration when companies are looking to fill jobs.

When it comes to criminal records, 90 percent of executives admit certain types of offensives automatically disqualify a candidate from consideration. With that in mind, nearly half of employees (45%) say they have or know someone who did not get a job due to a criminal conviction in their past.

One in three U.S. workers add that they support their current company hiring people with previous convictions — regardless of what the conviction is. Another 47 percent say they would be comfortable working alongside these co-workers, just as long as their past arrest was not for a violent crime.

Where do bosses show bias?

The survey also delved into what workers think about their boss’s hiring practices. Researchers found that one in three employees think their company’s hiring practices discriminate against people for a number of reasons.

Out of these workers, 75 percent claim their jobs show bias against people with a criminal record. They also claim their bosses avoid hiring older workers (65%), non-English speaking workers (59%), immigrants (58%), minorities (54%), and women (53%).

Despite this perception among workers, 70 percent of executives say their companies have diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies which give people with criminal records a “fair chance” at employment. This includes 81 percent of the technology industry, 69 percent of the finance industry, and two-thirds of the retail, hotel, and transportation industries.

Do second chances work out?

For workers who get a second chance after a criminal conviction, the poll finds their bosses often have good things to say about their work.

In fact, 93 percent say fair chance employees have a good relationship with co-workers and managers. Nine in 10 bosses add these employees often work just as hard or go beyond their co-workers while on the clock.

Lastly, once these workers get another shot, executives say they’re there to stay. Eighty-five percent of executives in the poll report that “fair chance” employees usually stay with their company longer than other workers.

1 in 3 Americans say they’re open to abolishing or limiting the Supreme Court

OCTOBER 5, 2021
by John Anderer

PHILADELPHIA, Pa. — A surprisingly significant portion of Americans would like to see the Supreme Court become the “Subordinate Court,” according to new research. A recent poll conducted by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania finds over a third of Americans “might be willing” to abolish the Supreme Court altogether or at least permit Congress to limit its power if it were to issue rulings either they or Congress disagree with.

Consisting of 1,008 participants, this research indicates a notable increase in the number of Americans are willing to consider doing away with or at least reducing the power of the nation’s highest court.

More specifically, the survey finds 34 percent of respondents told researchers “it might be better to do away with the court altogether” if it “started making a lot of rulings that most Americans disagreed with.” Another 38 percent believe that if Congress disagrees with the Supreme Court’s decisions, “Congress should pass legislation saying the Supreme Court can no longer rule on that issue or topic.”

“Respect for judicial independence appears to be eroding,” says Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC), in a university release. “The willingness of more than 1 in 3 Americans to entertain the idea of abolishing the court or stripping jurisdiction from it is alarming.”

Faith in the courts falling?

These findings, while no doubt surprising, are indicative of a larger trend appearing in other recent surveys. Gallup reports the Supreme Court’s approval rating in September 2021 dipped to a new low of 40 percent after coming in at 49 percent in July 2021.

These findings of course come on the heels of a tumultuous year in U.S. politics. Between the ongoing pandemic, the 2020 election and its aftermath, and a number of controversial Supreme Court rulings, it’s been a year like no other. For example, just before researchers conducted this survey in September, the Supreme Court opted not to block a Texas law restricting abortion access.

For reference on how far sentiments toward the Supreme Court have fallen over the past year, only 20 percent of respondents shared similar views on “abolishing or weakening” the Supreme Court in the 2019 version of this poll. Moreover, between 2005 and 2018, those who agreed with the idea of removing the Supreme Court if it were to start making unpopular decisions stayed largely consistent, only varying between 17 and 23 percent.

Respondents were also asked about individual Supreme Court justices. Most (59%) say that the justices work in an impartial manner, setting aside their personal and political views to make rulings based on the law, Constitution, etc. Meanwhile, however, 37 percent think that most justices will fall in line with the beliefs of the President who appointed them. For example, a justice nominated by a Democratic president would be more likely to make a liberal ruling while justices nominated by Republicans may be more likely to make conservative rulings.

AMERICAN DUOPOLY

More competition between political parties leads to prosperity for Americans

NOVEMBER 24, 2021
by Chris Melore

ROCHESTER, N.Y. — The battle between Republicans and Democrats typically gets most of the blame for anything that goes wrong in American society today. Although politics may be more polarizing than ever before, a new study finds when the two major parties are in close competition with each other, the American people benefit the most.

Researchers Gerald Gamm, from the University of Rochester, and Thad Kousser of UC San Diego say states that see tight competition between Democrats and Republicans for political control often end up passing measures which improve the quality of life for the people living there. Their study looked at the history of the two-party system from 1880 to 2010 and discovered two main trends.

The first is that there appears to be a link between party competition and increased spending on human capital and infrastructure. The second is that this spending often leads to improvements in the public’s welfare. These links include the political balance in Congress, state legislatures, urban politics, and modern party politics.

“Competition between parties is not just healthy for a political system but for the life prospects of the population,” says Gamm in a university release.

Living in a ‘red state’ or ‘blue state’ is bad for your health

For staunch Democrats, liberals, Republicans, and conservatives, living in a deep “blue” or “red” state may seem better for their well-being — and lead to less arguments too! However, the study finds states where one party typically has overwhelming control (such as New York, California, or Texas) actually do a worse job of providing a good life for its residents.

Researchers say residents in deep blue or red states have a lower life expectancy, lower levels of education, and less income in comparison to so-called “swing states.” Heavy Democrat and Republican states also saw a higher rate of infant mortality throughout the years.

“We find that states that spend more—and spend more because of party competition—become places where children are more likely to survive infancy, where they learn to read and where they graduate from high school, where adults live longer lives, and, at least in the pre-New Deal era, where people earn higher incomes,” says Kousser.

One-party rule leads to poor policies

So, what’s causing this downturn in social well-being in certain states? The study finds that when one party holds too much power and holds it for too long, politicians end up pushing through more “pork-barrel” projects which only benefit a small number of residents in an area.

Conversely, when the two parties regularly battle for control, those in power find ways to improve the reputation of their party by pursuing statewide programs that help many people. Researchers add that both Democrats and Republicans get the chance to show the public how they differ from their political opponents.

“Party competition creates bonds between copartisans from across the state and between the executive and legislative branches, leading both parties to work for programs that benefit a broad set of constituents,” the team says.

Is modern political polarization changing this?

“In the contemporary environment, we recognize that the historic importance of party competition may be attenuated, negated, or even reversed,” the team writes.

Gamm notes that in the past, voters and elites likely agreed on many political policies. Now, however, the researcher says politics is becoming a “zero-sum game,” with both parties completely opposed to the other’s philosophy. With that in mind, the team says it’s hard to know if this trend will continue in the post-2010 era of politics.

“What we show here, drawing on a full century of data on party competition and spending, as well as data on health, literacy, and prosperity through 2010, is the central importance of two-party competition to the rise of the American state and the flourishing of the American people,” the study authors conclude.

The study is published in the journal American Political Science Review.

Are political parties getting in the way of our health?

by University of Rochester

Today, the two major political parties are often blamed for a plethora of problems in American governance. But for most of the last century and a half, political party competition has had positive effects on the welfare of Americans.

That's according to new research by Gerald Gamm, a professor of political science and history at the University of Rochester, and Thad Kousser, a political science professor at the University of California, San Diego.

The pair conducted a historical analysis spanning all 50 states for the period 1880–2010. In the study—"Life, Literacy, and the Pursuit of Prosperity: Party Competition and Policy Outcomes in 50 States," published in the American Political Science Review—they present two related findings:

A direct link between party competition and increased spending on human capital and infrastructure
A direct link between this spending and measurable improvements in public welfare

"Competition between parties is not just healthy for a political system but for the life prospects of the population," says Gamm, whose research focuses on Congress, state legislatures, urban politics, and modern party politics.

How does party competition lead to better social outcomes?

The data show that states in which the same party won most elections and held an overwhelming majority of seats in the state legislature were likely to have populations with lower life expectancy, levels of education, and income—coupled with higher infant mortality. But as soon as competition among parties within a state increased and a second party started winning seats and more elections, state spending on infrastructure and human capital went up—and with it, literacy, earnings, and longevity.

"We find that states that spend more—and spend more because of party competition—become places where children are more likely to survive infancy, where they learn to read and where they graduate from high school, where adults live longer lives, and at least in the pre-New Deal era, where people earn higher incomes," says Kousser, an expert on term limits, governors, and state politics.

How do the researchers explain the data?

According to Gamm and Kousser, when one party holds overwhelming power, it tends to divide into factions. Moreover, legislators have an incentive to push for pork-barrel projects that narrowly target groups of constituents.

By contrast, when two parties closely compete for control of a statehouse, lawmakers find they can improve their individual reputations by helping their parties pursue a statewide program. Democrats have an incentive to show how they differ from Republicans and vice versa. Demonstrating what their party stands for, not through district bills or pork-barrel spending but through statewide policy making, provides a route to electoral success.

In turn, the authors write, "Party competition creates bonds between copartisans from across the state and between the executive and legislative branches, leading both parties to work for programs that benefit a broad set of constituents."

Do the findings still hold true today as political polarization has dramatically increased?

That question has, indeed, hovered over their latest work. Arguably, American politics began changing profoundly in the 1980s. Gamm notes that the last four decades have been a time of "unremitting and closely fought party competition in national politics, new social and cultural cleavages, historically high levels of partisan polarization, a collapse in mediating institutions, shifting norms and rules in Congress, geographic sorting, and the growth of social media." Whereas in the past, voters and elites alike agreed on many policy goals, politics nowadays has increasingly become a zero-sum game, with the two major parties in fundamental conflict on most important issues.

"In the contemporary environment, we recognize that the historic importance of party competition may be attenuated, negated, or even reversed," the team writes. They caution that the rise of the Democratic Party in this era as a distinctively liberal party may also mean that the party in control matters more now than it did in the past.

With often a lag of decades between cause and effect, Gamm and Kousser posit that readers in a generation or two may conclude that party competition—a "hallmark of American politics since the days of Madison, Hamilton, and Jackson and perhaps the nation's greatest contribution to modern democracy"—ceased to be beneficial in the 1980s. But it's too early to know whether the contemporary shift toward party polarization will prove permanent.

That means our generation can't (yet) render the verdict.

"What we show here," they conclude, "drawing on a full century of data on party competition and spending, as well as data on health, literacy, and prosperity through 2010, is the central importance of two-party competition to the rise of the American state and the flourishing of the American people."'Affective polarization' increasingly leaks into social situations, says new study

More information: Gerald Gamm et al, Life, Literacy, and the Pursuit of Prosperity: Party Competition and Policy Outcomes in 50 States, American Political Science Review (2021). DOI: 10.1017/S0003055421000617

Journal information: American Political Science Review

Provided by University of Rochester

Polarization, diversity, and democratic robustness

by Santa Fe Institute

politics — Credit: Pixabay/CC0 Public Domain

Polarization is dangerous for democracy. Though the U.S. Constitution was designed to harness rivalry with a diverse, redundant, and modular set of institutions, if that rivalry curdles into the belief that your competitors are your enemies, those institutions may not be strong enough to hold a nation together.

In a Perspective piece in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, SFI External Professor Jenna Bednar (University of Michigan) argues that polarization poses three perils in particular.

The first problem is that people tend to gather with those who think similarly and avoid those who think differently, accentuating a distaste for those who differ. Second, elites can manipulate the public through fear, persuading their followers that others pose an existential threat—and then that fear can feed on itself, beyond all control. And third—and most dangerous, Bednar argues—is that the positions of the population become simplified, with less room for individual variation in beliefs. This can happen, for example, when each group polices the beliefs of its members and punishes those who don't conform with the established party line. This creates a loss of diversity in opinions that imperils democracy just as species diversity loss imperils ecosystems.

Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

More information: Jenna Bednar, Polarization, diversity, and democratic robustness, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2021). DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2113843118

Journal information: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Provided by Santa Fe Institute

The emergence and perils of polarization

by Santa Fe Institute

political debate — Credit: Unsplash/CC0 Public Domain

We can't understand polarization unless we analyze it as a complex system, argue SFI External Professor Scott Page (University of Michigan) and co-author Delia Baldassarri in a commentary for a special feature on the dynamics of political polarization in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Polarization occurs both in ideology (beliefs about the world and appropriate policies) and emotion (distrust and disconnection between the groups), and it is the feedback loops between these two types of polarization that make it such a difficult problem to solve. Positive feedback loops—where divergence creates more divergence—build polarization in the first place; negative feedback loops stifle attempts to build bridges across groups.

Different models of polarization highlighted in the special feature shed light on particular aspects driving it. One model assumes that people become more like those who agree and diverge from those who disagree. That simple force transforms an ordinary array of varying opinions into two camps. A second model highlights the role that technology plays in enabling this movement, making it easier to link with those with similar views and to avoid those who disagree. And a third views polarization as a result of the overwhelming complexity and multidimensionality of the issues voters face: Incapable of deciding issue by issue, citizens look to elites and political leaders to simplify, and party leaders have incentives to build loyal, ideologically clustered networks of supporters.

Getting out of our polarized state, which according to some models will demand more effort than was required to get into it, will hinge on a deep understanding of the multiple forces that got us where we are now. The different theoretical explanations these models provide offer a start on that.