Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-02T22:37:54.629Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

God Save This “Broken” Land: The Efficacy of Closed-Circuit Voter Targeting in a U.K. Election

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 February 2013

Brian Robert Calfano ,
Paul A. Djupe  and
Angelia R. Wilson
Brian Robert Calfano*
Affiliation:
Missouri State University
Paul A. Djupe*
Affiliation:
Denison University
Angelia R. Wilson*
Affiliation:
The University of Manchester
*
Address correspondence and reprint request to: Brian Robert Calfano, Department of Political Science, Missouri State University, Springfield, MO 65897. E-mail: briancalfano@missouristate.edu
Paul A. Djupe, Department of Political Science, Denison University, Granville, OH 43023. E-mail: djupe@denison.edu
Angelia R. Wilson, Department of Politics, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom. E-mail: a.r.wilson@manchester.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent research in the United States has found candidates for elected office are able to use a rhetorical form of closed-circuit communication with evangelical Protestants — “God Talk” — that communicates valuable political information without alerting other constituencies. Close observation of the 2010 parliamentary elections in the United Kingdom (U.K.) uncovered what appeared to be a form of God Talk in use by David Cameron and the Conservative Party, especially the use of “broken” to describe the state of Britain. Thus, we assess whether God Talk is an efficacious communication strategy in the U.K. using an experiment that selectively exposes participants to God Talk statements. The mixed results suggest that some forms of God Talk are better than others in conveying to U.K. evangelicals that a candidate is conservative and religious without triggering the same associations by non-evangelical voters. We close with a discussion of the normative impact of such communication strategies.

Type
Articles
Information
Politics and Religion , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , March 2013 , pp. 50 - 73
Copyright
Copyright © Religion and Politics Section of the American Political Science Association 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Adams, J., Green, J., and Milazzo, C.C.. Forthcoming. “Has the British Public Depolarized Along with Political Elites? An American Perspective on Public Opinion.” Comparative Political Studies.Google Scholar
Asher, H.B. 1980. Presidential Elections and American Politics: Voters, Candidates, and Campaigns Since 1952. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.Google Scholar
Berry, W.D. 1993. Understanding Regression Assumptions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Brady, H.E., and Sniderman, P.M.. 1985. “Attitude Attribution: A Group Basis for Political Reasoning.” American Political Science Review 79:1061–1078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brewer, M.B. 1999. “The Psychology of Prejudice: Ingroup Love or Outgroup Hate?” Journal of Social Issues 55:429–444.Google Scholar
Bruce, S. 2003. Politics and Religion. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Bruce, S., and Voas, D.. 2004. “The Resilience of the Nation-State: Religion and Politics in the Modern Era.” Sociology 38:1025–1034.Google Scholar
Bullock, J., Green, D.P., and Ha, S. 2010. “Yes, But What's the Mechanism? (Don't Expect an Easy Answer).” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 98:550–558.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burack, C., and Wilson, A.R.. 2008. “Enemies and Allies: The Impact of U.S. Christian Right Rhetoric on EU Politics.” In Remoralizing Britain. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Burack, C. 2008. Sin, Sex and Democracy. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Calfano, B.R., and Djupe, P.A.. 2009. “God Talk: Religious Cues and Electoral Support.” Political Research Quarterly 62:329–339.Google Scholar
Calfano, B.R., and Djupe, P.A.. 2011. “Not in His Image: The Moderating Effect of Gender on Religious Appeals.” Politics and Religion 4:338–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calfano, B.R., and Paolino, P.. 2010. “An Alan Keyes Effect? Examining Anti-Black Sentiment Among White Evangelicals.” Political Behavior 32:133–156.Google Scholar
Fiorina, M.P., Abrams, S.J., and Pope, J.C.. 2006. Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America. New York, NY: Pearson Longman.Google Scholar
Campbell, D.E. 2006. “Religious ‘Threat’ in Contemporary Presidential Elections.” Journal of Politics 68:104–115.Google Scholar
Djupe, P.A., and Calfano, B.R.. Forthcoming. God Talk: Experimenting with the Religious Causes of Public Opinion. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Dolowitz, D., and Marsh, D.. 1996. “Who Learns What from Whom: a Review of the Policy Transfer Literature.” Political Studies 44:343–357.Google Scholar
Druckman, J.N., and Kam, C.D.. 2011. “Students as Experimental Participants: A Defense of the ‘Narrow Data Base.” In Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science, eds. Druckman, J.N., Green, D.P., Kuklinksi, J.H., and Lupia, A.. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Druckman, J.N., Green, D.P., Kuklinski, J.H., and Lupia, A.. 2011. Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Green, D.P., and Gerber, A.S.. 2003. “The Underprovision of Experiments in Political Science.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 589:94–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, J. 2010. “Strategic Recovery? The Conservatives Under David Cameron.” Parliamentary Affairs 63:667–688.Google Scholar
Green, J. 2007. “When Voters and Parties Agree: Valence Issues and Party Competition.” Political Studies 55:629–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, P., and Hunter, J.. 1984. “On Maintaining Plausibility: The Worldview of Evangelical College Students.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 23:221–238.Google Scholar
Hough, A. 2010. “‘TaxPayers' Alliance seeks advice from Tea Party movement leaders.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/7993781/TaxPayers-Alliance-seeks-advice-from-Tea-Party-movement-leaders.html (Accessed on September 10, 2010).Google Scholar
Imai, Kosuke, Keele, Luke, Tingley, Dustin, and Yamamoto, Teppei. 2011. “Unpacking the Black Box of Causality: Learning about Causal Mechanisms from Experimental and Observational Studies.” American Political Science Review 105:765–789.Google Scholar
Issenberg, S. 2010. “Nudge the Vote.” The New York Times, October 29, MM28.Google Scholar
Jones, R.P., and Cox, D.. 2010. Religion and the Tea Party in the 2010 Election. Washington, DC: Public Religion Research Institute.Google Scholar
Kinder, D.R. 1998. “Communication and Opinion.” Annual Review of Political Science 1:167–197.Google Scholar
Kuo, D. 2006. Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
Leege, D., Wald, K., Krueger, B., and Mueller, P.. 2002. The Politics of Cultural Differences: Social Charge and Voter Mobilization in the Post-New Deal Period. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Mendelberg, T. 1997. “Executing Hortons: Racial Crime in the 1988 Presidential Campaign.” Public Opinion Quarterly: Special Issue on Race 61:134–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton, R.B., and Williams, K.C.. 2010. Experimental Political Science and the Study of Causality: From Nature to the Lab. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norrander, B., and Smith, G.W.. 1985. “Type of Contest, Candidate Strategy, and Turnout in Presidential Primaries.” American Politics Quarterly 13:25–50.Google Scholar
Pattie, C., Seyd, P., and Whiteley, P.. 2004. Citizenship in Britain: Values, Participation and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, S.W., and McCafferty, P.. 1987. “The Image and the Vote Manipulating Voters’ Preferences.” The Public Opinion Quarterly 51:31–47.Google Scholar
Sabato, L. 1981. The Rise of Political Consultants: New Ways of Winning Elections. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Scott, Peter M., Baker, Christopher R., and Graham, Elaine L.. 2009. Remoralizing Britain?: Political, Ethical and Theological Perspectives on New Labour. London: Contiuum.Google Scholar
Sears, D.O. 1986. “College Sophomores in the Laboratory: Influences of a Narrow Database on Social Psychology's View of Human Nature.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51:515–530.Google Scholar
Smith, C. 2007. “Why Christianity Works: An Emotions Focused and Phenomenological Account.” Sociology of Religion 68:165–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sniderman, P.M., Brody, R.A., and Tetlock, P.E.. 1991. Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stanyer, J. 2005. “Political Parties and the Internet in the 2005 General Election: From Web Presence to E-Campaigning?” Journal of Marketing Management 21:1049–1065.Google Scholar
Tajfel, H. 1970. “Experiments in intergroup discrimination.” Scientific American 232:96–102.Google Scholar
Tajfel, H., and Turner, J.C.. 1986. “The social identity theory of intergroup behavior.” In Psychology of Intergroup Relations, eds. Worchel, S., and Austin, W.G.. Chicago, IL: Nelson.Google Scholar
Wolman, H. 1992. “Understanding Cross National Policy Transfers: The Case of Britain and the U.S.” Governance 5:27–45.Google Scholar
Zaller, J.R. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar