Q 1-On page 60 the author discusses the Matthew effect’s implications on multiple, independent scholars reaching the same conclusions. What is this accumulative effect? How does the author describe this phenomenon advancing scientific understanding?
Q2-The authors note on page 567 that there is a “generic claim” that it is “difficult (some say impossible) to extract causal inferences from observational data at all.” What are the potential obstacles to causality with observational studies and data?
Q3- On page 153, the authors state that the “methods we use to study the general properties of policy change are stochastic process approaches.” What are stochastic process approaches? Why is it appropriate (or not appropriate) to borrow this process approach from the natural and biological sciences to political science?
Q4-On page 97, Jones states, “Because party identification is both emotive and cognitive, and because voters selectively attend to politics (Iyengar 1990), a straightforward Bayesian updating process is highly unlikely.” What are the emotional and cognitive constraints that might keep or move people away from their established party identification when supplied with new information?