This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
In Ohio and Arizona, two critical swing states, restaurant workers, community partners, and election lawyers have teamed up to implement peer-to-peer voter programs that use raising the minimum wage as a motivating issue to engage in elections—with hundreds of thousands of low-wage workers telling each other to “vote ourselves a raise.”
By understanding core motivations, intentions, perspectives reflected in this webinar, you will be able to build a stronger case for support, increase the impact you have, and gain strategies for creating and preserving community. We’ve got almost 100% participation and it looks like it’s a tie. So what does it look like?
This was seen as a politically smart means to avert White backlash. A 1996 politicalscience journal article, for example, argued that policies were most likely to be effective in addressing race and economic inequality if they were targeted to benefit Black Americans but “advanced and defended on universalistic grounds.”
The letters referenced family upbringing as the source motivating generosity. American PoliticalScience Review, 75 (2), 306-318. [6] This worked even when participants were randomly assigned and anonymous. The researchers classified some recipients as potential collaborators, potential competitors, or neutrals.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 27,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content