Charles Taber - US grants

Foreign policy decisions are influenced to a considerable extent by the nature of the information available to the decision maker and by the way that information is analyzed and processed. A long tradition of previous research demonstrates that the way decisions makers perceive and respond to information depends significantly on their prior beliefs. To date, however, the complexity of these beliefs has made them very difficult to study systematically using standard empirical methods. This project uses computational modeling techniques, including expert system technology, to more systematically examine the impact of complex belief systems on the processing of foreign policy information. Specifically, this research continues development of a large expert system model, called POLI, of U.S. foreign policy making in Asia. Prior work with this model has focussed on the 1950s and has proven highly successful in reproducing U.S. responses to Asia during that decade. This project will attempt to validate and refine the model by extending its analysis of foreign policy in Asia from 1960 through the present. When completed this project not only should provide a better understanding of the processes through which U.S. foreign policy is made but should provide a powerful tool that can be used by policy makers to improve decision making.

This research investigation brings together research and methods from behavioral decision theory and computational modeling to explore process theories of voting. Combining survey data with computer simulations, in what is called computational experiments, the investigators can compare and evaluate process theories of candidate evaluation and choice. The investigators undertake five experimenal studies using this method to investigate important isssues in the candidate evaluation process, including the impact of issue complexity (whether candidates qualify their positions or state them simply), information order, presentation format, and the affect of trait inferences of candidates on the evaluation of the candidates. This unique investigation allows significant methodological advances in our understanding of the affect of issue and trait in candidate evaluation and candidate selection.

9515344 Scholz Why do citizens obey democratic laws? Consider, for example tax laws to collect money for desired public goods or environmental laws to minimize widely-recognized public bads. Obedience would leave everyone better off, but the temptation to free ride and shirk citizenship duties makes obedience an uncertain proposition. Is Hobbesian deterrence essential to gain compliance, or can social cooperation support compliance with laws designed to resolve collective action problems? Scholz's prior NSF research suggests that compliance behavior can only partly be explained by deterrence, and that a theory of cooperation in collective action situations is needed to understand obedience with democratic laws. His proposed "trust heuristic" explains cooperation in terms of trust in government, trust in other citizens, and other civic attitudes that reflect the positive and negative experiences the citizen has with the cooperative. Tm the extent that the individual's likelihood of cooperation increases as attitudes become more positive toward the collective, these attitudinal heuristics replicate the "nice, retaliatory, yet forgiving" characteristics associated with robust cooperative strategies in prisoners dilemma games, and hence may provide the basis for social cooperation. The trust heuristic represents "social capital" which dramatically increases the ability of weak enforcement agencies to maintain compliance (cooperation) with laws resolving collective action problems. To further develop and test this hypothesis and also to provide a more solid foundation for the theory of cooperation in large-scale collective action settings, the current research: 1) extends existing results based on 2-person, full information prisoners dilemma games to investigate the generic properties of robust strategies capable of supporting cooperative solutions to n- person collective action problems. 2) utilizes laboratory experiments to test the correspondence bet ween formal strategies and heuristics used by human subjects in collective action settings. The research integrates the diverse approaches of five productive researchers essential for tackling the challenging problem of cooperation in large-scale collective action settings. The combined methodology can be applied to numerous other collective action problems and should be of great interest to a variety of social science researchers. ***

Citizens are rarely, if ever, dispassionate when thinking about politics. Rather than treating information about political parties, candidates, or issues evenhandedly, as normative models of rational decisionmaking prescribe, they are prone to accept those facts and arguments they agree with and discount or actively counter argue those which challenge their preconvictions. In short, citizens often are "partisan" in their political beliefs, motivated more by their desire to maintain prior beliefs than by their desire to make "accurate" or otherwise optimal decisions. More telling, even when people try hard to be faithful to the evidence, they often are unable to treat information evenhandedly, for affect and cognition are linked inseparably in cognitive architecture and information processes. Cognition is "hot" - affect becomes information in the decisionmaking calculus. This grant proposal suggests a series of experimental and computational tests of the theory of motivated political reasoning as applied to the evaluation of candidates and issues.

This project, submitted under the Small Grant for Exploratory Research (SGER) program, will examine public attitudes toward the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The researchers are undertaking telephone interviews with approximately 100 individuals each week for six months as part of a national rolling-cross section design. The research offers the opportunity to study public attitudes in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks and assess the impact of threat on public opinion and its interaction with public policy decision making.

These data will be of value to scholars interested in the topic and also to decision-makers trying to differentiate among threats to physical safety, the American economy, and the American culture, status and way of life. The researchers will be able to gauge how public opinion changes over time on issues under debate in Washington in tandem with changes in perceived threat.

In a series of experiments carried out under an earlier project employing an attitude priming paradigm, the researchers found strong support for the automaticity of affect toward political leaders, as well as for groups, and issues. Then to explore the impact of prior attitude on political judgment the researchers looked at how citizens evaluated arguments about two public policies, affirmative action and gun control. They found strong evidence, especially among those subjects who feel the strongest and are the most knowledgeable about an issue, of a prior attitude effect, a disconfirmation, and a confirmation bias, with all three of these effects of prior attitude promoting attitude polarization. In the 1st year of this investigation, building on the demonstration of the automaticity of affect for political leaders, groups, and issues the researchers test basic premises of the primacy of affect hypothesis. Their first pair of studies explores the creation and updating of automatic affect, with one experiment using a fictitious political candidate and the other using real but unknown U.S. Congressmen as stimuli. In years 2 and 3 the investigators turn to the "so-what?" question. They undertake studies testing the primacy of affect theory; to wit: that when one's affect is directly linked to a political object, be it leader, group, or issue, this affective tally will be "primary" in that it enters the judgment process first and dominates subsequent judgments and evaluations from start to finish. Taking their lead from social identity theory which links one's self identifications to affect the researchers explore how one's political identifications (starting with party, ideology, and symbolic identifications and then turning to the most general "we" vs. "they" primes) will spontaneously impact how citizens think about and evaluate new political information that is directly or indirectly linked to self Employing a subliminal variant of the attitude-priming paradigm (to rule out conscious considerations), the investigators predict that the priming of self-identification will automatically invoke a strong affective response which will significantly impact one's political attitudes, orientations, and judgments.

Political scientists have long debated the role of racism in political attitudes in the United States, with some scholars arguing that racism is no longer the potent force it once was and others arguing that racism remains potent, but now takes a more subtle form. This debate cannot be satisfactorily addressed with explicit measures (i.e., those the respondent is fully aware of) because of self-presentational and social desirability biases or because citizens may not be fully aware of their own racial attitudes. I use an experimental method adapted from cognitive psychology to explore the implicit associations (non-conscious, spontaneous) to race-related policies that people carry in their minds. This method allows me to assess the degree to which race affects attitudes on policies like affirmative action, welfare, or crime, without the influence of social desirability (people may not want to admit to their racial attitudes).
The research on race in politics offers several competing hypotheses about whether race stereotypes or an ideological concern for merit and hard work will become more accessible when people think about race-related policies like affirmative action. First, David Sears, Donald Kinder, and Tali Mendelberg among others suggest that affirmative action will be perceived primarily as a race issue, and only secondarily as an ideological one. A second position, associated with the work of Paul Sniderman and colleagues, suggests that ideological considerations, first and foremost, should be present in response to these policy issues, especially for political conservatives. While racial thoughts may become accessible for some conservatives, they ought to be no more accessible for conservatives than for liberals.
Our pilot study shows, using a student sample, that race remains the most potent implicit consideration for most subjects, even conservatives, when primed with affirmative action. But when asked to think consciously about affirmative action and other race-related issues, most participants bring both racial and ideological considerations to mind. This suggests an important implicit/explicit divide in thinking on racial issues that is reminiscent of some earlier studies of racial attitudes (e.g., Devine, 1989). We are reluctant to draw general conclusions from the pilot findings, however, since the student sample may be quite unrepresentative of the American public (and of principled conservatives in particular). Accordingly, I have conducted a series of follow-up studies that takes our laboratory method "on the road" to assess race and ideology with a broader sample of adult Americans.

Individual human beings and collectives alike face cooperation problems ranging from the relation between the taxi driver and customer to fragile alliances between nations. Relative success in solving these problems on a regular basis has made modern society possible. Thus, how people solve cooperation problems and survive situations where their personal interests conflict with the interests of the groups to which they belong is a central question within the social sciences.

This research project engages the most recent theories of cooperation. Among the most promising approaches to the cooperation problem is Altruistic Punishment theory. In a nutshell, altruistic punishment refers to the willingness to punish defectors (free riders, who refuse to contribute to a collective good) even when doing so is materially costly and provides no direct benefits. This dissertation will attempt to answer three interlinked questions: (1) Is there evidence for a framework of adaptation for social exchange that involves altruistic punishment? (2) What are the psychological determinants of cooperation and altruistic punishment? (3) To what extent do these psychological factors explain individual differences observed in the laboratory experiments? Answers to these three questions would shed light not only on the specific research question of the psychology of altruistic punishment but also on how cooperation problems are solved.

In order to answer these three research questions a series of experiments have been designed that involve economic decision making tasks - specifically, providing collective goods in small groups and punishing, as the participants please, those who do not contribute. Participants are tested on two key psychological scales, Machiavellianism, which measures a person's tendency to deceive and manipulate others for personal gain, and social conformism. In a second series of experiments, the affective components of altruistic punishment will be investigated. The project expects that altruistic punishment is basically an emotional response to a norm violation. In order to test this theory, the participants' mood is manipulated in experiments.

This study will have broader impacts as the psychological insight resulting from this research could aid field researchers who investigate real life cooperation problems, such as those involving fisheries and management of other common pool resources. A better understanding of the mechanisms responsible for inducing cooperation can ultimately influence how policymakers design institutions. Societies rely heavily upon formalized institutions to remain intact, and a psychologically realistic model of cooperative behavior would undoubtedly help calibrate the institutional framework for addressing cooperation problems.

The State University of New York Alliance for the Graduate Education and the Professoriate (SUNY AGEP) started in 1999 as a minority graduate education program that included four major SUNY institutions: Stony Brook University as lead institution and its strategic partners University at Albany, Binghamton University, and University at Buffalo. Since the program?s inception, these institutions have supported the career and professional development of 116 Ph.D. graduates and have provided direct support to over 500 students and 80 graduate programs. The broader goal of the AGEP Alliance is to catalyze institutional change to increase the number of underrepresented minority faculty at American universities and colleges. Working towards this goal, each Alliance partner has developed an individualized program for its campus population. The diversified activities at each institution cover financial, academic, social, and professional development aspects of the graduate student experience; areas that are critical for the successful degree completion of underrepresented minority doctoral students and their future advancement into the professoriate. The goal of this evaluation project is to analyze the conditions required for the institutionalization of the most effective policies and practices that emerged through the project. In pursuit of this goal the PI will conduct an in-depth analysis of the project's measurable outcomes through a summative evaluation that will provide evidence of project impact in key areas of recruitment, retention and career advancement. The findings will reveal best practices for institutionalization and opportunities for future exploration and programming.
Intellectual Merit: Most of the studies of academic support focus on the K-12 and undergraduate levels, thus there is a critical need for more data and analysis from the perspective of graduate school and career advancement. The findings of the evaluation component of this project will contribute to the knowledge base on effective strategies for STEM graduate persistence and graduation.
Broader Impacts: The NSF AGEP project is a pioneer program that has introduced effective models for engaging and supporting underrepresented minority graduate students towards success. The findings of the Alliance?s ten year history will reveal useful procedures and strategies for recruitment, retention and career advancement that will be transferable to other graduate programs within the SUNY AGEP Alliance and beyond. Ultimately, this research will support efforts to increase race/ethnicity representation in the science and engineering workforce as well as in the Academy. The evaluation will conclude with a report for publication.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) Graduate Research Fellowship Program (GRFP) is a highly competitive, federal fellowship program. GRFP helps ensure the vitality and diversity of the scientific and engineering workforce of the United States. The program recognizes and supports outstanding graduate students who are pursuing research-based master's and doctoral degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and in STEM education. The GRFP provides three years of financial support for the graduate education of individuals who have demonstrated their potential for significant research achievements in STEM and STEM education. This award supports the NSF Graduate Fellows pursuing graduate education at this GRFP institution.

This award reflects NSF's statutory mission and has been deemed worthy of support through evaluation using the Foundation's intellectual merit and broader impacts review criteria.

The Stony Brook-Brookhaven AGEP Frontiers of Research and Academic Models of Excellence (FRAME) Alliance for Transformation was created in response to the NSF's Alliances for Graduate Education and the Professoriate (AGEP) program solicitation (NSF 12-554) for the AGEP-Transformation (AGEP-T) track. The AGEP-T track targets strategic alliances of institutions and organizations to develop, implement, and study innovative evidence-based models and standards for STEM graduate education, postdoctoral training, and academic STEM career preparation that eliminate or mitigate negative factors and promote positive practices for URMs.

This is an alliance between SUNY at Stony Brook (SBU) and Brookhaven National Laboratory's Office of Educational Programs (BNL) that is partnering with eight organizations who are members of the Brookhaven Science Associates (BSA), the company that was formed to operate BNL for the U.S. Department of Energy: Battelle, SBU, Columbia University, Cornell University, Harvard University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Princeton University and Yale University. The Stony Brook-Brookhaven AGEP FRAME Alliance is engaging Historically Black Colleges and Universities, as well as other minority service institutions, through collaborations with the Interdisciplinary Consortium for Research and Educational Access in Science and Engineering (INCREASE).

The FRAME Alliance is working on a goal to help U.S. citizens who are underrepresented minority (URM) graduate students and postdoctoral trainees develop the essential skills to succeed in the competitive professional environment of the professoriate. An Alliance participant is defined as a URM U.S. citizen who is a graduate student or postdoctoral fellow in STEM.

The objectives for this project are:
Objective 1: Double the number of URM U.S. citizens who are postdoctoral trainees at SBU and BNL, from the current baseline of 18, to 36.
Objective 2: Establish a postdoctoral fellow training regimen for U.S. URM citizens with formal pedagogical and professional competencies.
Objective 3: Provide targeted support and intensive training for U.S. citizens who are URM STEM doctoral students at SBU/BNL to become productive and independent researchers who receive offers, and accept postdoctoral positions, at BSA member institutions (Columbia University, Cornell University, Harvard University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Princeton University and Yale University) or other top tier research institutions.
Objective 4: Develop and sustain a mutually beneficial relationship between INCREASE institutions and SBU in order to strengthen the research training, mentoring and networking opportunities across a broad community of URM students, who are U.S. citizens, whereby there is an increase from 30% to 60% in the number of INCREASE institutions that provide pathways for their undergraduates to pursue graduate study at SBU.

The activities that contribute to the model for the SBU/BNL AGEP FRAME Alliance are very specific and they include:
1. Building a mutually beneficial partnership between SBU, BNL, BSA, and INCREASE whereby an increase in joint publications, diversity centered collaborations and appointments of the postdoctoral fellows in positions within the consortium will be measures of success.
2. Providing high level training to U.S. citizens who are URM graduate students and postdoctoral trainees about professional and research skills whereby an increase in their research productivity, engagement in mentoring activities, improved science writing, and science communication skills will be measures of success.
3. Transitioning U.S. citizens who are URM graduate students and postdoctoral trainees into professoriate positions at research intensive universities with change measured by an increase in the number of students applying to, receiving offers from, and entering postdoctoral and faculty positions at BSA institutions or other top tier institutions, and postdoctoral fellows applying to, receiving offers, and entering faculty positions at BSA institutions or other top tier institutions.

The proposal includes a social science research study that explores whether the level and stability of STEM identity among graduate and postdoctoral fellows is enhanced by increasing levels of self-efficacy over time, and predicts STEM success and persistence outcomes among URMs who are U.S. citizens. The research is testing the psychosocial processes underlying this goal. The research team is assessing two key psychosocial factors, and their corresponding processes, theorized to impact STEM success and persistence among URM graduate students and postdoctoral trainees: the level and stability of STEM specific self-efficacy and STEM identity among URM graduate students and postdoctoral fellows, compared to non-URM graduate students and postdoctoral trainees. A primary vehicle for expected changes in STEM self-efficacy and STEM identity among URM students and postdoctoral fellows should be exposure to the SBU/BNL AGEP FRAME Alliance programming interventions.