Concept: George W. Bush
The present research investigates the associations between holding favorable views of potential Democratic or Republican candidates for the US presidency 2016 and seeing profoundness in bullshit statements. In this contribution, bullshit is used as a technical term which is defined as communicative expression that lacks content, logic, or truth from the perspective of natural science. We used the Bullshit Receptivity scale (BSR) to measure seeing profoundness in bullshit statements. The BSR scale contains statements that have a correct syntactic structure and seem to be sound and meaningful on first reading but are actually vacuous. Participants (N = 196; obtained via Amazon Mechanical Turk) rated the profoundness of bullshit statements (using the BSR) and provided favorability ratings of three Democratic (Hillary Clinton, Martin O'Malley, and Bernie Sanders) and three Republican candidates for US president (Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Donald Trump). Participants also completed a measure of political liberalism/conservatism. Results revealed that favorable views of all three Republican candidates were positively related to judging bullshit statements as profound. The smallest correlation was found for Donald Trump. Although we observe a positive association between bullshit and support for the three Democrat candidates, this relationship is both substantively small and statistically insignificant. The general measure of political liberalism/conservatism was also related to judging bullshit statements as profound in that individuals who were more politically conservative had a higher tendency to see profoundness in bullshit statements. Of note, these results were not due to a general tendency among conservatives to see profoundness in everything: Favorable views of Republican candidates and conservatism were not significantly related to profoundness ratings of mundane statements. In contrast, this was the case for Hillary Clinton and Martin O'Malley. Overall, small-to-medium sized correlations were found, indicating that far from all conservatives see profoundness in bullshit statements.
Since 2010, the fate of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) has been uncertain. The ACA was a historic achievement for the Obama administration and Congressional Democrats. But it passed Congress without a single Republican vote, and the GOP subsequently mounted legal and legislative challenges to Obamacare, vowing to repeal and replace it. The Supreme Court decision in June 2012 upholding the ACA’s constitutionality dealt a serious blow to the law’s opponents. Now, in the aftermath of the 2012 elections, with President Barack Obama reelected and Democrats maintaining majority control of the Senate, Republicans lack a viable option . . .
With President Barack Obama’s reelection in November, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) will remain the law of the land for the foreseeable future. But since the Supreme Court ruling on the ACA, states have been grappling with the option the Court presented - whether to participate in the expansion of Medicaid eligibility to all adults with family incomes at or below 138% of the federal poverty level. In the aftermath of the 2012 election, it is uncertain how this process will play out, but what the states decide will play a critical role in the future of the U.S. health . . .
People often avoid information and situations that have the potential to contradict previously held beliefs and attitudes (i.e., situations that arouse cognitive dissonance). According to the motivated social cognition model of political ideology, conservatives tend to have stronger epistemic needs to attain certainty and closure than liberals. This implies that there may be differences in how liberals and conservatives respond to dissonance-arousing situations. In two experiments, we investigated the possibility that conservatives would be more strongly motivated to avoid dissonance-arousing tasks than liberals. Indeed, U.S. residents who preferred more conservative presidents (George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan) complied less than Americans who preferred more liberal presidents (Barack Obama and Bill Clinton) with the request to write a counter-attitudinal essay about who made a “better president.” This difference was not observed under circumstances of low perceived choice or when the topic of the counter-attitudinal essay was non-political (i.e., when it pertained to computer or beverage preferences). The results of these experiments provide initial evidence of ideological differences in dissonance avoidance. Future work would do well to determine whether such differences are specific to political issues or topics that are personally important. Implications for political behavior are discussed.
To compare the delivery of end of life care given to US Medicare beneficiaries in hospital by internal medicine physicians with Republican versus Democrat political affiliations.
Salman Rawaf discusses the implications of the most recent estimate of excess deaths associated with the Iraq war and subsequent occupation in the context of the current situation in Iraq. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.
Twenty-five years ago, on July 26, 1990, President George H.W. Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), designed to meet four goals for people with disabilities: equal opportunity, full participation in the community, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency. This landmark civil rights law aimed to prevent employment discrimination and give equal access to public and private services for all people with disabilities. At the signing ceremony, Bush exclaimed, “Let the shameful wall of exclusion finally come tumbling down.” Since the passage of the ADA, there have been extensive gains in access to public services, the built environment (e.g., crosswalks . . .
Recent research and theorizing suggest that narcissism may predict both positive and negative leadership behaviors. We tested this hypothesis with data on the 42 U.S. presidents up to and including George W. Bush, using (a) expert-derived narcissism estimates, (b) independent historical surveys of presidential performance, and © largely or entirely objective indicators of presidential performance. Grandiose, but not vulnerable, narcissism was associated with superior overall greatness in an aggregate poll; it was also positively associated with public persuasiveness, crisis management, agenda setting, and allied behaviors, and with several objective indicators of performance, such as winning the popular vote and initiating legislation. Nevertheless, grandiose narcissism was also associated with several negative outcomes, including congressional impeachment resolutions and unethical behaviors. We found that presidents exhibit elevated levels of grandiose narcissism compared with the general population, and that presidents' grandiose narcissism has been rising over time. Our findings suggest that grandiose narcissism may be a double-edged sword in the leadership domain.
We examined the effects of incidental anger on perceived and actual polarization between Democrats and Republicans in the context of two national tragedies, Hurricane Katrina (Study 1) and the mass shooting that targeted Representative Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona (Study 2). We hypothesized that because of its relevance to intergroup conflict, incidental anger exacerbates the political polarization effects of issue partisanship (the correlation between partisan identification and partisan attitudes), and, separately, the correlation between conservative partisan identification and perceived polarization between Democrats and Republicans. We further hypothesized that these effects would be strongest for Republican identification because Republican leaders were targets of public criticism in both tragedies and because conservative (Republican) ideology tends to be more sensitive to threat. In the studies, participants first completed an emotion induction procedure by recalling autobiographical events that made them angry (Studies 1 & 2), sad (Studies 1 & 2), or that involved recalling emotionally neutral events (Study 2). Participants later reported their attitudes regarding the two tragedies, their perceptions of the typical Democrat’s and Republican’s attitudes on those issues, and their identification with the Democratic and Republican parties. Compared with incidental sadness (Studies 1 and 2) and a neutral condition (Study 2), incidental anger exacerbated the associations between Republican identification and partisan attitudes, and, separately between Republican identification and perceived polarization between the attitudes of Democrats and Republicans. We discuss implications for anger’s influence on political attitude formation and perceptions of group differences in political attitudes.
For the second time in 3 years, U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote a Supreme Court opinion that averted a near-death experience for the Affordable Care Act (ACA). In National Federation of Independent Business [NFIB] v. Sebelius (2012), Roberts joined the Court’s four liberal justices in upholding the constitutionality of the ACA’s individual mandate - its requirement that individuals maintain insurance coverage if it’s affordable - with the unexpected rationale that it is valid as a tax, even if not as a regulatory mandate. This year’s end-of-term decision, King v. Burwell, responded to a statutory rather than a constitutional challenge. . . .