发表机构
University of Konstanz; University of Bristol; University of Potsdam; Complexity Science Hub（康斯坦茨大学; 布里斯托大学; 波茨坦大学; 复杂性科学中心）
机构由 AI 辅助整理，请以论文原文为准。AI 中文总结
本研究利用证据减去直觉得分分析美国国会议员演讲和推文，发现意识形态极端者证据导向语言更少，且该语言与立法效能正相关。
AI 中文摘要
基于事实和证据的沟通为民主治理、问责制和集体决策提供了重要基础。先前的研究表明，自20世纪70年代中期以来，美国国会众议院演讲中面向证据的语言有所减少，同时伴随着立法生产率和两极化方面的更广泛变化。本研究将分析从国会会期转向国会议员个体，以考察认知取向是否在立法者之间存在系统性差异，以及它是否与政治行为和立法效能相关。我们使用“证据减去直觉”（EMI）得分来衡量国会众议院演讲和Twitter帖子中面向证据的语言相对于面向直觉的语言的相对普遍程度。我们将这些度量与关于意识形态、机构职位、沟通背景和立法效能得分（LES）的立法者层面数据联系起来。结果表明，意识形态更极端的议员在国会众议院使用面向证据的语言较少。EMI还表现出跨平台一致性，即在众议院演讲中使用更多面向证据语言的议员在Twitter上也更倾向于面向证据，尽管总体上Twitter上的EMI较低。最后，即使在控制意识形态以及广泛的政治、机构、人口统计、主题和沟通量变量之后，国会演讲中的EMI与个体立法效能呈正相关。这些发现表明，面向证据的语言不仅是国会话语的一个总体特征，也是个体层面立法沟通和效能的一个有意义的属性。
英文摘要
Truth and evidence-based communication provide important foundations for democratic governance, accountability, and collective decision-making. Prior work shows that evidence-oriented language in US congressional floor speeches has declined since the mid-1970s, alongside broader changes in legislative productivity and polarization. This study shifts the analysis from congressional sessions to individual members of Congress to examine whether epistemic orientation varies systematically across legislators and whether it relates to political behavior and legislative effectiveness. Using the Evidence-Minus-Intuition (EMI) score, we measure the relative prevalence of evidence-oriented versus intuition-oriented language in congressional floor speeches and Twitter posts. We link these measures to legislator-level data on ideology, institutional position, communication context, and Legislative Effectiveness Score (LES). The results show that more ideologically extreme members use less evidence-oriented language on the congressional floor. EMI also exhibits cross-platform consistency with members who use more evidence-oriented language in floor speeches also being more evidence-oriented on Twitter, although EMI is lower on Twitter overall. Finally, EMI in congressional speeches is positively associated with individual legislative effectiveness, even after accounting for ideology and extensive political, institutional, demographic, topical, and communication volume controls. These findings suggest that evidence-oriented language is not only an aggregate feature of congressional discourse but also a meaningful attribute of individual-level legislative communication and effectiveness.
