James O. Freedman Presidential Professor of Government
Dartmouth College
My new Upshot column is on pundit predictions and how the miracle of aggregation can make even a group of individuals with strong partisan biases collectively more accurate than they are individually. Here’s how it begins:
Watching pundits and politicos speculate about what will happen in a coming election can feel like an exercise in futility. Most predict that their side will win, so what do we learn?
This blather may be more informative than it seems, however.
Read the whole thing for more.
My new column for The Upshot focuses on a potential threat to Hillary Clinton’s presidential prospects that is more significant than Benghazi – Obama fatigue after eight years of Democratic control of the White House. Here’s how it begins:
The latest investigation into the Benghazi attack reminds us that the issue isn’t going away any time soon. Pundits are already speculating about potential damage to Hillary Clinton’s presidential prospects, but don’t believe the hype: Scandals rarely matter much in presidential election campaigns.
A far more significant threat to her potential candidacy is Americans’ desire for new leadership after eight years of the Obama administration. A Pew Research Center/USA Today poll found this week that 65 percent of Americans would “like to see a president who offers different policies and programs.” Only 30 percent said they wanted ones “similar to those of the Obama administration.”
Some of those disaffected citizens are presumably Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents who will ultimately support the party’s nominee in 2016, but the problem that the poll highlights is real. Alan Abramowitz, an Emory University political scientist, calls this the “time for change” effect.
In a column posted at The Upshot on Thursday, I draw on my research with Jason Reifler, Sean Richey, and Gary Freed to explore the reasons that educational efforts in support of childhood vaccines may sometimes fail:
Vaccines will prevent the deaths of tens of thousands of children born this year over their lifetimes. So why are potentially dangerous numbers of parents in some states opting out of one of the great achievements of modern medicine?
One explanation is that these parents are misinformed, seduced by the false claims like the myth that vaccines cause autism. If so, giving them accurate information might change their minds about protecting their children against communicable diseases like measles — a near-eradicated disease that has flared anew.
That’s apparently the assumption behind the educational mandates that some states are creating or considering for parents who want exemptions from vaccine requirements.
But I recently conducted a study with several colleagues in which we found that parents with mixed or negative feelings toward vaccines actually became less likely to say they would vaccinate a future child after receiving information debunking the myth that vaccines cause autism.
For more, read the whole thing.
My new Upshot column for the New York Times focuses on the social science of political dynasties like the Bushes and Clintons. Here’s how it begins:
Maybe it’s time for Americans to admit that we like the familiar faces and names of politicians from famous families.
How else can we make sense of the continuing presence of dynasties in our politics?
Read the whole thing for more.
My first post is up at The Upshot, the new politics and policy site at the New York Times where I’m now a contributor. Here’s how it begins:
Should the United States be devoting so much effort to criticizing the anti-Semitic fliers that appeared last week in Ukraine?
…There are compelling reasons to take anti-Semitism seriously when it appears, and for American officials to speak up forcefully against the oppression of minority groups.
But there’s a risk that the American response in this case could make the problem worse.
Read the whole thing for more.
My final column for CJR is about how social scientists can contribute to media coverage of politics. Here’s an excerpt:
This is my last post for CJR’s United States Project—starting this month, I will instead serve as a contributor to David Leonhardt’s new data-driven site at the New York Times. As I shift roles in my public writing from media critic to political analyst, it seems worthwhile to reflect on how the relationship between political science and journalism has changed over the last few years and to examine what academic insights journalists seem to have found to be especially valuable.
Read the whole thing for more.
I have a new study on the effectiveness of vaccine messaging with Jason Reifler, Sean Richey, and Gary Freed that is out today in Pediatrics (pre-publication version):
Effective Messages in Vaccine Promotion: A Randomized Trial
Brendan Nyhan, Jason Reifler, Sean Richey, and Gary L. Freed
Pediatrics; originally published online March 3, 2014;
DOI: 10.1542/peds.2013-2365
OBJECTIVES: To test the effectiveness of messages designed to reduce vaccine misperceptions and increase vaccination rates for measles-mumps-rubella (MMR).
METHODS: A Web-based nationally representative 2-wave survey experiment was conducted with 1759 parents age 18 years and older residing in the United States who have children in their household age 17 years or younger (conducted June–July 2011). Parents were randomly assigned to receive 1 of 4 interventions: (1) information explaining the lack of evidence that MMR causes autism from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; (2) textual information about the dangers of the diseases prevented by MMR from the Vaccine Information Statement; (3) images of children who have diseases prevented by the MMR vaccine; (4) a dramatic narrative about an infant who almost died of measles from a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention fact sheet; or to a control group.
RESULTS: None of the interventions increased parental intent to vaccinate a future child. Refuting claims of an MMR/autism link successfully reduced misperceptions that vaccines cause autism but nonetheless decreased intent to vaccinate among parents who had the least favorable vaccine attitudes. In addition, images of sick children increased expressed belief in a vaccine/autism link and a dramatic narrative about an infant in danger increased selfreported belief in serious vaccine side effects.
CONCLUSIONS: Current public health communications about vaccines may not be effective. For some parents, they may actually increase misperceptions or reduce vaccination intention. Attempts to increase concerns about communicable diseases or correct false claims about vaccines may be especially likely to be counterproductive. More study of pro-vaccine messaging is needed.
My new CJR column points out that the 2016 general election trial heat polls currently being reported now have no predictive value and displace attention from the real action taking place in the invisible primary:
We’re still almost three years away from November 2016, but political journalists seem to want to fast-forward past the ongoing Washington stalemate to the next presidential election. How else can we explain the recent flurry of coverage for trial heat polls, which pit possible presidential contenders against each other in hypothetical general election matchups?
There’s just one problem: These polls—which exist mainly to generate press coverage for pollsters and fill space in the media—have zero predictive power at this point in the election cycle, don’t tell us anything we can’t learn from other metrics, and distract attention from the real action at this stage of the campaign.
Read the whole thing for more.
My new column at CJR reports on new research into the civic benefits of newspapers and the challenges facing new journalism business models in preserving those benefits. Here’s how it begins:
It seems like ambitious new journalism projects are everywhere these days. The announcement that former New York Times editor Bill Keller will lead a nonprofit startup covering the criminal justice system arrived just as Pierre Omidyar’s First Look Media launched its first “digital magazine” and as Ezra Klein begins staffing up his “Project X” venture at Vox Media. Meanwhile, powerful incumbents like The Washington Post, The New York Times and ESPN are producing new branded online initiatives that move away from traditional newsgathering and reporting routines. It’s an important moment for rethinking how to organize and fund the production of news.
As we watch these projects unfold, however, it’s worth remembering that the staid local newspaper still offers specific civic benefits that the new models will be hard-pressed to replace, especially at the local and state level.
Read the whole thing for more.
My new column at CJR is on mistakes journalists make in coverage of the State of the Union. Here’s how it begins:
The myth of the bully pulpit runs deep in the DNA of political journalists, so it’s no surprise that the importance of the president’s annual State of the Union address to the president’s political standing is so often overstated by the press. With President Obama set to deliver this year’s address Tuesday night, we’re again republishing my media prebuttal (below) to try to preempt some common mistakes and promote a reality-based view of the SOTU’s effects.
Read the whole thing for more.