• Korean Journal of Legislative Studies
• /
• v.25 no.1
• /
• pp.45-78
• /
• 2019

This study examines the relationship between individuals' perceptions on party conflict and affective polarization. It pays particular attention to party identification as a moderating variable. Using a survey conducted in the context of the 2014 Korean local election, the present study hypothesizes that perceiving serious inter-party conflict in the political arena is likely to increase negative feelings toward out-group political party among partisans only. Not only do the results confirm our hypothesis but suggest that conflict perception leads to affective polarization among partisan voters. This paper contributes to our understanding of the mechanism that links the attribution of blame to out-group political party for legislative gridlock with ever-growing affective polarization of the electorate.

• Electronics and Telecommunications Trends
• /
• v.35 no.6
• /
• pp.12-23
• /
• 2020

Because of economic polarization and difficulties, extreme personalization, and the complexity of social relationships, modern people are experiencing various mental disorders or pathologies. Accordingly, there is an urgent need to prepare more active countermeasures and support those with mental health difficulties to improve mental health and prevent abnormal pathologies. Artificial intelligence (AI) is expected to improve the mental health of individuals through emotional enhancement beyond affective computing. We investigated how to use AI to prevent and diagnose mental diseases or disorders, support treatment, and manage followup. In particular, promising services that can be used in daily life or medical clinics were discovered and active directions for realizing these services are suggested.

• Analyses & Alternatives
• /
• v.6 no.2
• /
• pp.79-115
• /
• 2022

This study aims to account for electoral choice in the 2020 presidential election by focusing on social identity which forms the basis for core partisan groups. Two views compete to explain the origins of polarization, policy versus party. One emphasizes policy as more influential in choosing presidential candidates. This follows the tradition of retrospective voting theory in which voters' choice rely on government performance. Incumbent president whose performance proves well are rewarded to be reelected. Policy performance is based on measures around distinctive preferences for government spending. Republican Individuals prefer individual responsibility to government support, while Democratic counterparts support government support. Another perspective put an emphasis on the role partisanship which favors in-party members and disfavors partisan out-groups. Interparty animosity plays the key role in determining electoral behavior. This study relies on the Views of the Electorate Research (VOTER) Survey which provides a panel data of several waves from 2011 to 2020. A comparative evaluation of two views highlights three findings. First, policy matters. Policy preferences of voters are the primary drives of political behavior. Electoral outcomes in 2020 turned out to be the results of policy considerations of voters. 53.7 percent of voters tilted toward individual responsibility voted for Trump, whereas 70.4 percent of those favorable views of government support than individual responsibility voted for Biden. Thus effects of policy correspond to a positive difference of 26.4 percent points. Second, partisanship effects are of similar extent in influencing electoral choice of candidates: Democrats are less likely to vote for Trump by 42.4 percent points, while Republicans are less likely to vote for Biden by 48.7 percent points. Third, animosity of Republicans toward Democrat core groups creates 26.5 percent points of favoring Trump over Biden. Democrat animosity toward Republican core groups creates a positive difference of 13.7 percent points of favoring Biden.