reproducible and replicable: an empirical assessment of...
TRANSCRIPT
ReproducibleandReplicable:AnEmpiricalAssessmentoftheSocialConstructionofPoliticallyRelevantTargetGroups
RebeccaJ.KreitzerAssistantProfessorofPublicPolicyUniversityofNorthCarolina-ChapelHillCB#3435,AbernethyHallChapelHill,NC27599rkreit@email.unc.eduCandisWattsSmithAssistantProfessorofPublicPolicyUniversityofNorthCarolina-ChapelHillCB#3435,AbernethyHallChapelHill,NC27599cwsmith@unc.eduAcknowledgementsWethankHelenIngramandAnneSchneideraswellasFrankBaumgartnerfortheirfeedbackandinsightsonthisareaofourresearchagenda.WealsohavegreatappreciationforLorinBrucknerofUNC’sDavisLibrary’sResearchHubforherdatavisualizationexpertiseandassistance.
1
Nearlyaquartercenturyago,SchneiderandIngram(1993)introducedatheoryof
socialconstructionoftargetpopulationsintheAmericanPoliticalScienceReview.
Thisarticlehasbeencitedover1,700times,asthetheoryhasinspireddiscussion
andsparkeddebate.Thistheoryproposesthatwearelikelytoseesystematically
biasedpolicypatternsbecausepolicymakersarepressuredtorewardpositively
constructedgroups,especiallythosewithpoliticalpower,andalsobecause
policymakersareincentivizedtodeveloponerouspoliciesfornegatively
constructedgroups,beingespeciallyharshonthosegroupsthatalsohavelittle
power.Thistheoryhasbeenpivotalforpolicyscholarsbecauseitincorporates
value-ladencomponentsofthepolicymakingprocessinadditiontorationaland
instrumentalcomponentsofdesign(SchneiderandSidney2009).
Thisconcepthasprovidedasturdytheoreticalfoundationforthosewhoseek
toexplainnotonlytheshapeofpolicydesignbutalsothefeedbackandfeed-
forwardeffectsofpolicy,thoughithasitscritics.Sabatier(1999),forexample,
arguedthatthisframeworkis“largelynonfalsifiable”(11),butSchneiderand
Ingramaswellofaslewofscholarshaveprovidedempiricalevidenceforthetheory
aswellashavehighlightedthepredictivepoweroftheframework.Whilethe
scholarshaverebuttedcritiquesaswellasstrengthenedthetheoryovertime,there
aretwomattersthathaveyettoberesolvedinatidyway.
First,theauthorsdevelopfour“idealtype”targetgroups:advantaged,
contenders,dependents,anddeviants.Since1993,scholarshaveprovidedexamples
oftheseidealtypesthoughlargelyrelyingoncasestudies.Whilecasestudies
providerigorousanalysis,takentogether,westillfindthattherehasnotbeena
2
systematic,cross-casevalidationofthecategorizationofvarioustargetgroups.
Second,theauthorsnotethatsocialconstructionsareoftensubjecttocontention,
therebyhighlightingthecomplexityintroducedbythesocialconstructionoftarget
groups,butultimatelythetheoryimpliesthatthereisconsensusaroundthesocial
constructionofmanytargetpopulations.Indeed,SchneiderandIngramnote,“The
actualsocialconstructionoftargetgroups,aswellashowwidelysharedthe
constructionsare,aremattersforempiricalanalysis.Socialconstructionsare
measurable,empirical,phenomena”that“haveboundariesthatareempirically
verifiableandexistwithinobjectiveconditions”(1993,335).Toourknowledge,
therehasnotbeenasystematic,orstandardized,categorizationofpoliticallysalient
targetgroupsbasedonSchneiderandIngram’sfouridealtypes,norhastherebeen
anempiricalassessmentofwhetherortheextenttowhichconsensusaroundthe
socialconstructionsofthesevarioustargetgroupsexists.
Ourgoalforthisletteristoassesstheunderlyingassumptionsofthetheory.
Specifically,weask,canwepinpointthelocationoftargetpopulationsonSchneider
andIngram’stwo-by-twomatrixinasystematic,standardizedway?Ifso,arethere
widelysharedsocialconstructionsofsalienttargetgroups?Towhatdegreedohigh
levelsofconsensusemergearoundpoliticallyrelevantgroups?Whatarethe
theoreticalandpoliticalimplicationsforalackofconsensus,shouldsuchan
outcomebeuncovered?Werevisitthistheorytoofferanovelperspective,anddoso
byleveragingadvancesintechnologyandmethodologicalstrategies.
Researchshowsthatcrowdsourcingthetaskofcategorizationtoalarge
numberofnon-expertsallowsscholarstogeneratereproducibleandreplicable
3
resultsthatmimicthoseofexperts(Benoitetal.2016).Bycrowdsourcingthetask
ofevaluatingthesocialconstructionofvarioustargetpopulations,weareableto
placeaplethoraoftargetgroupsonthetwo-dimensionsofimportancetoSchneider
andIngram’stheory:poweranddeservingness.Upuntilnow,scholarshave
individuallytriedtosortthismatteroutforthemselves,whichinhibitsresearchers
fromreplicatingnotonlydataanalysis,butalsothedatacollectionandgroup
categorizationprocessesofotherscholars.Secondly,weareabletodiscernthe
extenttowhichaconsensusemergesaroundthestereotypesofthesegroups.
Ourresultssettlesomeofthemajorpointsofcontentionaroundthistheory
aswellasprovidenewinsightsintosocialconstructiontheoryinaneramarkedby
politicalpolarization,scapegoating,anddegenerativepolitics.Weendby
commentingonhowourmethodologicalapproachandresultsservetoreinvigorate
discussionandopennewavenuesofresearchforpolicyscholars.
SocialConstructionTheory
Schneider,Ingram,andtheircolleagues(SchneiderandSidney2009,Schneider,
Ingram,andDeLeon2014)explainthatwecanbestunderstandtheconstraintsand
motivationsofpolicymakerstodesignpoliciesthatcreate,maintain,orameliorate
disparitiesbetweenandamonggroupsthroughatheoryofsocialconstructionof
targetpopulations.Theyhomeinontwocharacteristicsoftargetgroups:social
constructionandperceivedpoliticalpower.
AccordingtoSchneiderandIngram,“socialconstructionsarestereotypes
aboutparticulargroupsofpeoplethathavebeencreatedbypolitics,culture,
4
socialization,history,themedia,literature,religion,andthelike”(1993,335).Those
withpositivesocialreputationsareviewedasdeserving,intelligent,public-spirited,
hardworking,andthelike.Ontheotherendofthespectrum,therearegroupsthat
areimbuedwithnegativestereotypes,suchasundeserving,selfish,andlazy.Inthis
context,politicalpowerisbestunderstoodas“votes,wealth,andpropensityofthe
grouptomobilizeforaction”aswellasaccesstopoliticallyinfluentialindividualsor
institutions(SchneiderandIngram1993,335).
Itisattheintersectionofsocialconstructionandperceivedpoliticalpower
thatcreatesthefouridealtypes:advantaged,contenders,dependents,anddeviants.
Advantagedtargetpopulationsarethosethatareviewedasdeservingandpolitically
powerful.Accordingthetheory,policymakersarelikelytoprovidebeneficialpolicy
treatmenttotheadvantaged.Contendersarethosewhoarepoliticallypowerfulbut
havepoorreputations.Policymakersarelikelytoprovidesubrosa,discretely
hiddenbenefitstocontendersduetotheirpoliticalpower,butarewillingtoprovide
punitive(buthollow)policytothisgroupwhenpublicinterestishigh.Dependent
targetgroupsaresympatheticgroupsthatarepositivelyconstructedbuthavelittle
politicalpower.Policymakershavelittleincentivetoproduceeasilyaccessibleand
highlybeneficialpoliciesfordependents,sowhenbenefitsareallocated,theytend
tobesymbolicorcomewithstringsattached(e.g.paternalisticsocialwelfare
programs).Finally,deviantsarethosetargetpopulationsthatareclearlyassociated
withnegativestereotypesandhavelittlepoliticalpower.Policymakersgain
politicalcapitalfordevelopingpunitivepoliciesforgroupscategorizedasdeviant.
5
Putsimply,politicianslike(andarerewardedfor)doinggoodthingsforgood
people,andbadthingstobadpeople.
Crowdsourcing
SchneiderandIngramprovidedagooddealoflatitudetoscholarsmeasurethe
socialconstructionoftargetgroups,guidingthemonlywiththeinstructiontorely
on“texts,suchaslegislativehistories,statues,guidelines,speeches,media
coverage…interviewsorsurveysofpolicymakers,mediarepresentatives,members
ofthegeneralpublic,andpersonswithinthetargetgroupitself”(1993,335).Upon
reflection,wecanseehowcomplexand“messy”thisprocesscanbe.Forexample,
SchroedelandJordan(1998)explainthatintheirefforttodeterminewherevarious
groupsfitintothetargetpopulationtypology,theyhadtousethreemethods,but
stillfoundthatthereweregroupsthatweredifficulttocategorize.Forthosegroups,
suchasgaymen,theydecidedtocategorizegroupsby“comparingtheirattributes
relativetooneanother”(e.g.gaymenversusintravenousdrugusers)(113).
Ultimately,theyclassifiedgaymenascontendersanddrugusersasdeviantsthough
onecouldimagineiftheyusedanothersetofcomparisons,theirclassificationmay
havecomeoutdifferently.1
Weshowherethatthetaskofuncoveringsocialconstructionsrootedin
“objectivereality”(SchneiderandIngram,335)canbefulfilledthrough
crowdsourcing.Today’stechnologyprovidesawidearrayoflow-costopportunities
1Ourresultsshowthatgaymenareontheborderbetweenbeingclassifiedasdependentsanddeviants,whereasopioidaddictsaremoreclearlyinthedeviantcategory.
6
tocrowdsource,ortheabilitytoemployalargegroupofindividualstodoaseriesof
smalltasksineffortstoproblem-solveonamassivescale(Benoitetal.2016).
Wearguethatthisareaofstudyactuallyrequiressomethingakinto
crowdsourcingbecausethetheoryhingesonwhatelectedofficialsthinktheir
constituents’perceptionsoftargetgroupsare.Crowdsourcingthecategorizationof
politicallyrelevantgroupsprovidesscholarswithempiricallyverifiable,systematic,
replicableresults,andallowsthemtodiscerntheextenttowhichaconsensus
emergesonthestereotypesofvariousgroups.GiventhefactthatSchneider,Ingram,
andtheircolleaguesplacemeaning-makingofgroupsandtheirreputationsatthe
centeroftheirtheory,notingthat“sharedunderstandingsamongpeoplegiveriseto
rules,norms,identities,concepts,andinstitutions”(SchneiderandSidney2009,106
,emphasisadded),wetakethattomeanthatsocialconstructionsarisefromthe
aggregationofpublicattitudes,whichcanbeuncoveredbyanalyzingpublic
discourse.Bycrowdsourcing,weareabletoaccuratelydeterminetheplacementof
73targetpopulationsalongthetwo-dimensionsoutlinedbythetheoryaswellasto
discernthelevelofagreementthatarisesaroundtheseconstructionsamong
membersofsociety.
MethodsandData
Consideringtheconstructionofgroupsisbasedlargelyonthepublicimageor
stereotypesofvariousgroups,weemployedthelaborof1,572workerstoappraise
thesocialconstructionof73targetpopulations.Werelyoncrowdsourcingthrough
Amazon’sMechanicalTurk(MTurk)toevaluatethedeservingnessandperceived
powerofseveralgroups.MTurkisamarketplacewhereindividualscanoptinto
7
performtasksbestdelegatedtohumans.ScholarsshowthatalthoughMTurk
workersarelessrepresentativethannationalprobabilitysamples,theyaremore
representativethansamplesrecruitedoncollegecampuses(Berinsky,Huber,and
Lenz2012,HuffandTingley2015).ResearchershavealsofoundMTurk
respondents’worktobereliable,especiallythosewhohavehighlyregarded
reputationsbasedonMTurkevaluationstandards(Peer,Vosgerau,andAcquisti
2014,Rouse2015).Oursamplereliesonthosewithatleasta99%accuracyrating,
andweincludedattentionchecks,whichresearchshowstoimprovethequalityof
thedata(Rouse2015).
Weposedtwotasks;eachconcernsoneaspectofthecentraltheory.First,we
explainedtotheworkers,“Somegroupsaremoreunited,easytomobilize,wealthy,
skilled,focusedontheirgoals,oraccustomedtovotingordirectlycontactingpublic
officials.”Weaskedthemtoevaluategroupsfrompowerless(0)topowerful(100)
basedontheseattributes.Second,wetaskedthemtoevaluatedeservingness,from0
(thoseviewedasgreedy,disrespectful,disloyal,immoral,disgusting)to100(groups
describedasgood,smart,hardworking,loyal,disciplined,generous).2Theworkers
weretaskedtoevaluateseventy-threetargetgroups,suchasethno-racialsubgroups
(e.g.Whitemen,youngBlackmen),professionalgroups(e.g.attorneys,teachers),
criminals(e.g.sexoffenders,welfarecheats),andmanyotherpoliticallysalient
groups(e.g.unions,illegalimmigrants).
Results
2Weoutlinetheexactwordingofthetasksaswellaslistthe73groups,theirpointestimates,andstandarddeviationsintheappendix.
8
Figure1providesanillustrationoftheplacementofthesegroupsonthetwo-
dimensionalmatrixproposedbySchneiderandIngram(1993).Weaveragethe
scoresofthe1,572MTurkworkersgavetoeachofthegroupsondeservingnessand
power.Whereagroupfallsonthehorizontalaxisrelatestotheirlevelsof
deservingness,wherethosewhoarehighindeservingnessareontheleft.The
verticalaxisisrelatedtoperceivedlevelsofpoliticalpower.Thoseatthetopare
perceivedasverypowerful,whereasthoseatthebottomareviewedaspowerless.3
ThoughsomehaveinterpretedSchneiderandIngramtosuggestthatgroupsare
categorizedinadichotomousway—asdeservingorundeserving,andpolitically
powerfulorweak(SchroedelandJordan1998)—itshouldbemadeclearthat
groupsarearrangedonaspectrumacrossthesetwodimensions.
Atfirstglance,mostofthegroupsarewhereonemightintuitthemtobe.For
example,criminalsofallsortsareperceivedasdeviants.Meanwhile,childrenare
classifiedasdependents,anddoctorsareintheadvantagedgroup.However,afew
groupsarenotablydifferentinplacementthantheyareinSchneideretal.’s(2014)
figure.Forinstance,Schneideretal.categorizesmallbusinessesandtaxpayersas
advantaged,butourresultsshowthatareclearlyperceivedasdependentsbyour
sample.Youngblackmensimilarlyareinthedependentcategoryinoursample
insteadofthedeviantcategory,where“youngminoritymales”isplacedinthe
comparablefigure.Inotherinstances,groupslikeuninsured,DREAMers,andillegal
aliensaremoreclearlyinonecategorybasedonpower,whereastheyareplacedin
themiddleofthepowerspectrumintheSchneideretal.chapter.Itisalso
3Theorientationoftheaxesmimicsthatofthematrixinthe1993APSRarticle.
9
interestingtonotethatthereareveryfewgroupsthatsocietyviewsasboth
politicallypowerfulanddeserving.
Figure1illustrateswherethesegroupsarelocatedonthetwodimensions,
butacloseranalysisofthepointestimatesrevealthatthereisagreatdealof
variationontheextenttowhichsocietyagreesonlevelsofdeservingnessand
power.Evenwithaverylargesample,therearestillsomegroupswithagreatdeal
ofcontentionastowheretheyshouldbecategorized.Wedepictthisresultin
Figures2and3.Thesizeofthebubblerepresentsthemagnitudeofthestandard
deviationsindeservingnessandpower,respectively.Essentially,oureffortto
empiricallyestimatethepositionofvariousgroupselucidatestheunderlying
contentionandvariationthatexists.
[Figure2andFigure3]
Figure4presentsthisinformationinanotherway.Here,weprovidea
representativeseriesofscatterplotsthatallowustoseewhereeachofthe1,572
MTurkworkersevaluatedgroups’levelsofdeservingness(horizontal-axis)and
power(vertical-axis).Altogether,therearethreepatternsthatarise,ofwhichwe
provideafewexamplesinFigure4.
[Figure4abouthere.]
Tobegin,therearesomegroupsthathaveagreatdealofconsensusonboth
dimensions.Groupslikechildren,sexoffenders,andbigbanksofferthreeexamples
ofgroupsthatareeasilycategorized,inthiscase,asdependents,deviants,
contenders,respectively.Inthecaseofchildren,forinstance,mostpeopleview
themashighlydeservingbutperceivethemashavinglowlevelsofpower.Thisis
10
representedbythefactthatthedotsinthescatterplotareclumpedinthelower-left
handcorner.Weseesomethingsimilarforsexoffendersandbigbanks.
Ontheotherendofthecertaintyspectrumaregroupslike
“environmentalists.”Thescatterplotrevealsagreatdealofempiricalnoisearound
theevaluationofthisgroup.Noconsensusarisesoneitherdimensionofconcern.
Otherlessextremeexamplesofthispatternarisesinhowpeopleevaluatepoliceand
alsotransgenderpeople.Generallyspeaking,wefoundthispatternformostidentity
groups(e.g.AfricanAmericans,Latinos,gaymen).
Thethirdpatternthatarisesincludesthosethathaveconsensusonone
dimensionbutlackconsensusontheother.Veterans,terrorists,“illegalaliens”are
examples.Thereissignificantagreementonthenotionthatterroristsarelowin
deservingness,butthereisnoconsensusastohowmuchpowerthistargetgroup
has.Thismakesintuitivesense.Somearelikelytobelievethatpeoplewhobecome
terroristsdosobecausetheyhavelittlepoliticalpower.Meanwhile,othersview
terroristsashavingagreatdealofpoliticalpower,asmeasuredbyinfluenceor
sophisticationoforganization(e.g.ISIL,KKK).Similarly,ourdatasuggeststhat
societyagrees“illegalaliens”haveverylittlepoliticalpower,butthereisgreat
disagreementonlevelsofdeservingness.Thisislikelytohavepoliticalimplications,
butinwhatdirection?Ifundocumentedimmigrantsareviewedasdeviants,we
shouldexpectpolicymakerstopunishthisgroupandtodosowithfewpolitical
consequences,butifsocietyviewsthemasdependents,wewouldexpectadifferent
setofpolicyoutcomes.Newadvancesinthetheorywouldprovidemoreguidance
forpredictingthefatesofambiguouslyconstructedorhighlycontestedgroups.
11
NewInsights
Thesocialconstructionoftargetpopulationstheoryhasbeencriticalinthepolicy
designscholarship.Atitscore,thetheoryisincrediblyhelpfulbecauseitprovidesa
greatdealofpredictiveinsight,especiallyasitrelatestohowandwhypolicymakers
exacerbateinequalitythroughthepolicyprocess.Ourresultsresolvethequestions
weraised,particularlyaboutthedegreeofcontentionaroundthesocial
constructionofgroups,butalsosparknewpointsofdiscussion.
Tobegin,weshowthatcrowdsourcingcanbeusedasahighlyreplicable,
accurate,andinexpensivewaytodeterminethecontemporarysocialconstructionof
targetpopulations.ThemethodssuggestedbySchneiderandIngram(1993)would
likelyleadtoagreatdealofinconsistencyinthecategorizingprocess,especiallyfor
highlycontentiousgroups.Throughcrowdsourcing,however,scholarswouldbe
abletocollectdataonjudgmentsofgroups’deservingnessandpowerinawaythat
isaccurate,reproducible,andreplicable.
SchneiderandIngram(1993)notedintheiroriginalarticlethatsomegroups
arelikelytobemorecontentiousthanothersbutimpliedthatweshouldlargely
expectconsensus.Ourresultsempiricallyassesstheclaim.Here,wecalculatedpoint
estimatesthatrepresenthowdeservingorpoliticallypowerfulsocietyviews
variousgroupsaswellasillustratetheextenttowhichconsensusarosearound
theseconstructions.Wefindthatwhilethereareseveralgroupswhosesocial
constructionsareclearlyagreedupon,thereareagreatmanythatareincredibly
contentious.
12
What’smore,whilecrowdsourcedworkersevaluatedgroupssimilarlyto
SchneiderandIngram’s(1993)hypotheticalplacementofgroups,manyareplaced
inawhollydifferentcategory.Itiswellknownthattheaggregationofanswersfrom
alargenumberoflaypeoplecanoftencomeclosertothe“truth”thantheestimates
ofafewexperts(LyonandPacuit2013).Thedifferencesmayresultfromthebiasof
experts.Additionally,ourresultsreflectthenotionthatsomegroupsbordertwo
categories.Makingpredictionsaboutoutcomesofthepolicyprocessforthese
groupswouldprovetobedifficult,asmovementfromonecategorytoanother
shouldresultinverydifferentoutputsofthepolicyprocess.Wealsofindthatthere
aregroupsthathaveconsensusononedimensionbutnottheother.
ThedifferencebetweenwhatSchneiderandIngramimplicitlyexpectedand
whatwefindspeaksvolumesbothaboutAmericans’worldviewaswellasto
questionsaboutwhogetswhat,when,how,andwhy.Theoretically,ourresults
suggestthatnotonlyshouldwethinkaboutthegroupsintermsofthetwo
dimensionsposedbythetheory,buttoalsothinkofathird:degreeofconsensus.
SchneiderandIngraminitiallydevelopedthistheorywhenthetwomajorAmerican
politicalpartieswereabletoagreeonagreatnumberofpolicymatters,butthis
thirddimensionislikelytobeparticularlyrelevantinaneraofpoliticalpolarization.
ConsideringthehighlevelsofpoliticalpolarizationintheAmericanpolitical
landscape,wemightexpecttheretofindmultiplerealitiesbywhichDemocratsand
Republicans,orliberalandconservativeslive.Perhapstherearemultiple
constructionsoftargetgroupsthatshouldbemappedout.Drasticallydifferent
worldviewsoughttoleadtodifferentpolicyoutcomesasmajoritiesinlegislatures
13
shiftfromonepartytoanother.Bygatheringdataaboutrespondents’political
identificationanddemographicprofiles,onewouldbeabletogenerateanumberof
relevantandimportantpredictions.Thisadditionaldatawouldallowustouncover
theunderlyingpoliticaldeterminantsofconsensus,orlackthereof.Scholarswould
alsobeabletodelineatepredictionsabouthowpolicymakersofvarious
demographicgroupsmightviewtheworld;thatistosay,wemaygetatightergrasp
ofhowdescriptiveandsubstantiverepresentationarerelated.Gatheringthiskind
ofdatamightalsoallowustogainsystematicinsightonhowmembersoftarget
groupsviewthemselves,andtherebymakepredictionsaboutchancesforgroup
mobilization,perhapsevendevelopintuitiononthewhethermobilizationislikely
tohappenwithin(e.g.voting,lobbying)oroutside(e.g.protest,riots)ofAmerican
politicalinstitutions.Altogether,methodologicaladvancescanbeleveragedto
advancethecontributionsofthistried-and-truetheory.
Butourfindingsalsospeaktothepropositionthatnotallpolicyenhances
democracy.Forinstance,wefoundthattherewereveryfewgroupsthatcanbe
easilycategorizedasadvantaged,therearenogroupsinthemostupper-leftcorner,
andtherearemanymoregroupsinthecontenders’areaincomparisontothe
matrixdepictedinSchneideretal.’s(2014)mostrecentchart.Because“no
legislatorswanttoopenlydogoodthingsforshadypeople”(116),ourresultsmay
speaktoapublicmoodmarkedbycynicism,orportendanincreasinglylargegap
betweenharshrhetorictowardcontendersandthehollowregulationspresentedto
them.
14
Inaneramarkedbypolarization,whatdirectionshouldweexpect
policymakerstotakeongroupswhoseconstructionisunclearorambiguous?
Undocumentedimmigrantsmakeanexcellentcaseinpoint.Inthe1980s,theparties
wereabletoagreeonamnesty.AlthoughourresultsrevealthatAmericansview
undocumentedimmigrantsaspowerless,thereislittleagreementaroundtheextent
towhichtheyaredeserving.Itispossiblethatsocialconstructionsmaynowpivot
onpartisanlines,oritmaybethecasethatlackofconsensusorambiguityaround
theconstructionofagroupsuggeststhatthereisbothinterpartyandintraparty
contentionaroundhowtobestdealwiththesegroups.Indeed,groupsthatwefound
havingagreatdealofempiricalnoise(e.g.veterans,environmentalists)maybestbe
understoodaswedgegroups,potentiallyafifthcategory.Theseissuescanbe
resolvedempirically.
Beforeweclose,SchneiderandIngramsuggestedthat“contestedsocial
constructionsareinherentlyunstableandripeforpolicychangethatsubdividesthe
populationsintomoredeservingandlessdeservingcategories(2005,10),”and
furthermore,politicalentrepreneurscancapitalizebyscapegoatingnegatively
constructedgroups,therebysustainingorfacilitatingdegenerativepolitics,orthe
“exploitationofderogatorysocialconstructions,manipulationofsymbolsorlogic,
anddeceptivecommunicationthatmasksthetruepurposeofpolicy”(11).Our
resultsshow,unexpectedly,thattherearealargenumberofpoliticallyrelevant,
salienttargetgroupsthathaveagreatdealofcontentionandcontroversyaround
theirsocialconstruction.Animportantnextstepwouldbetoempiricallydiscernthe
consequencesofaseeminglygrowingnumberofcontestedsocialconstructionson
15
policy,particularlyasthoseimplicationsspeaktowhetherpolicyisincreasingly
likelytoresultindegenerativepolitics.
16
References
Benoit,Kenneth,DrewConway,BenjaminELauderdale,MichaelLaver,andSlava
Mikhaylov.2016."Crowd-sourcedtextanalysis:reproducibleandagile
productionofpoliticaldata."AmericanPoliticalScienceReviewno.110
(2):278-295.
Berinsky,AdamJ,GregoryAHuber,andGabrielSLenz.2012."Evaluatingonline
labormarketsforexperimentalresearch:Amazon.com'sMechanicalTurk."
PoliticalAnalysisno.20(3):351-368.
Huff,Connor,andDustinTingley.2015."“Whoarethesepeople?”Evaluatingthe
demographiccharacteristicsandpoliticalpreferencesofMTurksurvey
respondents."Research&Politicsno.July-September:1-12.
Lyon,Aidan,andEricPacuit.2013."TheWisdomofcrowds:methodsofhuman
judgementaggregation."InHandbookofHumanComputation,599-614.
Springer.
Peer,Eyal,JoachimVosgerau,andAlessandroAcquisti.2014."Reputationasa
sufficientconditionfordataqualityonAmazonMechanicalTurk."Behavior
researchmethodsno.46(4):1023-1031.
Rouse,StevenV.2015."AreliabilityofMechanicalTurkdata."ComputersinHuman
Behaviorno.43:304-307.
Sabatier,PaulA.1999.TheoriesofthePolicyProcessBoulder,CO:WestviewPress.
Schneider,Anne,andHelenIngram.1993."Socialconstructionoftargetpopulations:
Implicationsforpoliticsandpolicy."AmericanPoliticalScienceReviewno.87
(2):334-347.
17
Schneider,AnneL,HelenIngram,andPeterDeLeon.2014."Democraticpolicy
design:Socialconstructionoftargetpopulations."InTheoriesofthepolicy
process,editedbyPaulASabatierandChristopherWeible,105-149.
Schneider,Anne,andMaraSidney.2009."Whatisnextforpolicydesignandsocial
constructiontheory?"PolicyStudiesJournalno.37(1):103-119.
Schroedel,JeanReith,andDanielRJordan.1998."Senatevotingandsocial
constructionoftargetpopulations:AstudyofAIDSpolicymaking,1987–
1992."JournalofHealthPolitics,PolicyandLawno.23(1):107-132.
Figure1:EstimatingthePowerandDeservingnessofSociallyConstructedGroups
Note:TheaxesarearrangedtomimicthematrixdevelopedbySchneiderandIngram(1993)
Figure2:EstimatingtheContentionofDeservingnessofSocialConstructions
Note:Thesizeofthebubblesrepresentthemagnitudeofthestandarddeviationindeservingnessforeachofthetargetgroupsbasedonn=1,572.
Figure3:EstimatingtheContentionofPowerofSocialConstructions
Note:Thesizeofthebubblesrepresentthemagnitudeofthestandarddeviationinpowerforeachofthetargetgroupsbasedonn=1,572.
Figure4:PatternsofConsensusamongIndividualRespondents
Note:SimilartoFigures1-3,deservingness(horizontalaxis)scalemovesfromhigh(left)tolow(right).Power(verticalaxis)shiftsfromhigh(top)tolow(bottom),asdelineatedinSchneiderandIngram(1993).
AppendixSurveyQuestionWordingforPowerandDeservingMeasuringPower:Somegroupsinsocietyhaverelativelymorepoliticalpowerandresourcesthanothers.Bypoliticalresourceswemeanthatsomegroupsaremoreunited,easytomobilize,wealthy,skilled,focusedontheirgoals,oraccustomedtovotingordirectlycontactingpublicofficials.Basedonwhatyouknowaboutthegroupslistedbelow,howpoliticallypowerfulwouldyousayeachofthesegroupsare,generallyspeaking.Here0meansthatmostpeopleinthatgroupareverypowerless.100meansthatmostpeopleinthatgroupareincrediblypowerful.MeasuringDeservingness:Somegroups,onaverage,areviewedaspeoplewhocontributetothegeneralwelfareofsocietyandworthy,andthusaredeservingofsympathy,pity,orhelp.Typically,wedescribemembersofthisgroupasgood,smart,hardworking,loyal,disciplined,generous,caringofothers,respectful,andcreative.Meanwhile,therearemanyothergroupsthatareviewedasaburdentothegeneralwelfareofsociety,andarebelievedtobeunderservingofsympathy,pity,orhelp.Typically,wedescribemembersofthisgroupasgreedy,disrespectful,disloyal,immoral,disgusting,dangerous,lazy,andexpectotherstocareforthem.Basedonwhatyouknowaboutthesegroups,howdeservingorunderservingwouldyousayeachofthesegroupsare,generallyspeaking.Here,0meansmostpeopleinthatgrouparecompletelyundeserving.100meansmostpeopleinthatgroupareverydeserving.
PointEstimatesandStandardDeviationsofAllGroups
GroupPowerRanking
(lowest=1)
PowerEstimate
PowerStd.
DeservingRanking
(lowest=1)
DeservingEstimate
DeservingStd.
abortionproviders 59 31.81 24.97 72 45.46 33.37africanamericans 47 35.87 23.99 47 61.51 29.24americanindians 25 22.55 21.56 42 67.26 28.92attorneys 40 67.08 23.33 50 37.77 29.33autoindustry 49 64.44 24.06 30 35.20 27.60bigbanks 17 85.22 19.60 25 23.24 27.04bigcorporations 11 86.52 18.18 31 25.01 27.63blacklivesmatter 65 34.30 25.49 73 45.94 34.49ceos 19 82.36 19.71 44 29.64 28.96children 13 12.56 19.10 28 76.60 27.52collegestudents 33 31.25 22.72 23 62.35 26.92congress 18 84.26 19.71 32 27.75 27.84criminals 15 15.44 19.22 5 17.70 23.69disabled 20 19.06 19.80 26 75.04 27.27doctors 52 61.19 24.32 48 61.32 29.30DREAMERs 43 25.81 23.50 62 51.23 31.34elderly 64 33.66 25.47 8 76.33 24.26environment 54 41.37 24.43 56 60.92 30.50ex-felons 4 11.87 15.83 34 31.22 27.97farmers 38 37.09 23.15 13 69.19 25.31feminists 57 37.93 24.75 65 50.17 31.71forprofcolleges 68 54.93 26.75 33 28.10 27.93gaymen 48 33.40 24.05 59 56.70 31.12gunmanuf 67 64.32 26.57 35 27.18 28.16hackers 71 43.69 28.73 11 20.59 24.59homeless 1 7.37 13.42 64 63.47 31.61homeowners 42 43.94 23.41 16 62.53 25.69illegalaliens 14 13.64 19.17 69 35.45 32.32insuranceco 34 74.63 22.78 19 25.02 26.55jobcreaters 58 61.17 24.79 39 62.36 28.76laborunions 61 57.16 25.10 57 48.01 30.59latino 36 31.96 22.92 46 57.94 29.17lesbians 51 31.41 24.10 63 56.54 31.37marijuanasmoker 24 24.38 21.46 58 38.91 30.84media 31 74.76 22.39 24 28.47 27.04mentallyhandicapped 7 11.32 16.89 37 73.78 28.31middleclass 21 44.14 20.88 7 67.44 24.18military 63 65.35 25.25 55 64.10 30.49millennials 41 38.40 23.39 40 52.65 28.86
mothers 62 41.77 25.13 9 74.56 24.42muslimmen 37 25.91 23.08 68 47.64 31.92muslims 32 25.35 22.67 70 49.48 32.45opiodaddict 3 10.53 15.26 61 33.42 31.30pharmaceuticalcompanies 27 80.24 21.62 21 24.82 26.79police 44 64.51 23.76 52 59.92 30.05pollutingindustries 70 61.07 27.70 3 12.05 19.76poorfamilies 6 14.14 16.67 27 69.42 27.49primarycarephysicians 56 54.27 24.61 38 61.03 28.38prisoners 2 8.65 14.51 20 25.19 26.68richpeople 12 84.30 18.75 51 32.53 29.79scientists 46 53.26 23.97 36 66.57 28.18sexoffender 5 10.79 16.61 2 9.55 18.80smallbusiness 28 39.43 22.10 17 68.02 25.69smokers 23 24.19 21.12 49 32.69 29.33soldiers 66 44.95 25.89 15 74.32 25.55students 26 28.03 21.62 18 64.33 26.55superpacs 72 72.52 29.22 10 19.67 24.53taxpayers 53 41.96 24.35 14 71.60 25.34teachers 50 40.35 24.09 12 74.45 24.65teaparty 69 45.65 26.82 43 29.70 28.94teenagers 10 16.64 18.07 41 55.05 28.90terrorists 73 30.62 29.55 1 5.84 15.27transgender 35 23.74 22.79 71 55.95 32.92unemployed 8 14.96 17.11 54 58.41 30.18uninsured 9 15.92 17.89 66 57.65 31.75vegans 39 27.40 23.19 60 47.08 31.27veterans 55 38.78 24.53 6 79.01 24.02wallstreetbrokers 30 76.55 22.24 29 25.25 27.55welfarecheats 22 17.29 20.90 4 12.27 21.59welfaremothers 16 16.83 19.55 67 58.28 31.77whitemen 60 68.36 24.97 45 53.94 29.06whitewomen 45 49.98 23.90 22 62.48 26.79youngblackmen 29 25.04 22.20 53 58.35 30.16