Recent accounts of American politics focus heavily on urban–rural gaps in political behavior. Rural politics research is growing but may be stymied by difficulties defining and measuring which Americans qualify as “rural.” We discuss theoretical and empirical challenges to studying rurality. Much existing research has been inattentive to conceptualization and measurement of rural geography. We focus on improving estimation of different notions of rurality and provide a new dataset on urban–rural measurement of U.S. state legislative districts. We scrutinize construct validity and measurement in two studies of rural politics. First, we replicate Flavin and Franko (2020, Political Behavior, 845–864) to demonstrate empirical results may be sensitive to measurement of rural residents. Second, we use Mummolo and Nall’s (2017, The Journal of Politics, 45–59) survey data to show rural self-identification is not well-captured with objective, place-based classifications, suggesting a rethinking of theoretical and empirical accounts of rural identity. We conclude with strategies for operationalizing rurality using readily available tools.

When experimental subjects can interact with each other, the outcome of one individual may be affected by the treatment status of others. In many social science experiments, such spillover effects may occur through multiple networks, for example, through both online and offline face-to-face networks in a Twitter experiment. Thus, to understand how people use different networks, it is essential to estimate the spillover effect in each specific network separately. However, the unbiased estimation of these network-specific spillover effects requires an often-violated assumption that researchers observe all relevant networks. We show that, unlike conventional omitted variable bias, bias due to unobserved networks remains even when treatment assignment is randomized and when unobserved networks and a network of interest are independently generated. We then develop parametric and nonparametric sensitivity analysis methods, with which researchers can assess the potential influence of unobserved networks on causal findings. We illustrate the proposed methods with a simulation study based on a real-world Twitter network and an empirical application based on a network field experiment in China.

We propose a new methodology for inferring political actors’ latent memberships in communities of collective activity that drive their observable interactions. Unlike existing methods, the proposed Bipartite Link Community Model (biLCM) (1) applies to two groups of actors, (2) takes into account that actors may be members of more than one community, and (3) allows a pair of actors to interact in more than one way. We apply this method to characterize legislative communities of special interest groups and politicians in the 113th U.S. Congress. Previous empirical studies of interest group politics have been limited by the difficulty of observing the ties between interest groups and politicians directly. We therefore first construct an original dataset that connects the politicians who sponsor congressional bills with the interest groups that lobby on those bills based on more than two million textual descriptions of lobbying activities. We then use the biLCM to make quantitative measurements of actors’ community memberships ranging from narrow targeted interactions according to industry interests and jurisdictional committee membership to broad multifaceted connections across multiple policy domains.

We develop a general approach to measuring electoral competitiveness for parties and governments, which is distinct from existing approaches in two ways. First, it allows us to estimate the actual probability of re-electing the incumbent into office, which lies closer to the theoretical concept of interest than most widely used proxies. Second, it incorporates both pre-electoral competitiveness—that is, the uncertainty about the outcome of the upcoming election—and post-electoral competitiveness—that is, the uncertainty concerning who will form the government given a certain election result. The approach can be applied to, and compared across, a multitude of institutional settings and is particularly advantageous in analyses of multiparty democracies. To demonstrate its full potential, we first apply the approach on 1,700 local government elections in Sweden. Three advantages over existing approaches are documented: Our election probability measure shows substantial variation over the election cycle, it can be accurately measured for a single party as well as a government, and it is more capable of predicting re-election into office than any previous measure of electoral competitiveness. A second application on 400 national elections in 34 democracies shows that the approach also works well in a more challenging cross-national setting.

How often do articles depend on suppression effects for their findings? How often do they disclose this fact? By suppression effects, we mean control-variable-induced increases in estimated effect sizes. Researchers generally scrutinize suppression effects as they want reassurance that authors have a strong explanation for them, especially when the statistical significance of the key finding depends on them. In a reanalysis of observational studies from a leading journal, we find that over 30% of articles depend on suppression effects for statistical significance. Although increases in key effect estimates from including control variables are of course potentially justifiable, none of the articles justify or disclose them. These findings may point to a hole in the review process: journals are accepting articles that depend on suppression effects without readers, reviewers, or editors being made aware.

One of the strongest findings across the sciences is that publication bias occurs. Of particular note is a “file drawer bias” where statistically significant results are privileged over nonsignificant results. Recognition of this bias, along with increased calls for “open science,” has led to an emphasis on replication studies. Yet, few have explored publication bias and its consequences in replication studies. We offer a model of the publication process involving an initial study and a replication. We use the model to describe three types of publication biases: (1) file drawer bias, (2) a “repeat study” bias against the publication of replication studies, and (3) a “gotcha bias” where replication results that run contrary to a prior study are more likely to be published. We estimate the model’s parameters with a vignette experiment conducted with political science professors teaching at Ph.D. granting institutions in the United States. We find evidence of all three types of bias, although those explicitly involving replication studies are notably smaller. This bodes well for the replication movement. That said, the aggregation of all of the biases increases the number of false positives in a literature. We conclude by discussing a path for future work on publication biases.

Economics games such as the Dictator and Public Goods Games have been widely used to measure ethnic bias in political science and economics. Yet these tools may fail to measure bias as intended because they are vulnerable to self-presentational concerns and/or fail to capture bias rooted in more automatic associative and affective reactions. We examine a set of misattribution-based approaches, adapted from social psychology, that may sidestep these concerns. Participants in Nairobi, Kenya completed a series of common economics games alongside versions of these misattribution tasks adapted for this setting, each designed to detect bias toward noncoethnics relative to coethnics. Several of the misattribution tasks show clear evidence of (expected) bias, arguably reflecting differences in positive/negative affect and heightened threat perception toward noncoethnics. The Dictator and Public Goods Games, by contrast, are unable to detect any bias in behavior toward noncoethnics versus coethnics. We conclude that researchers of ethnic and other biases may benefit from including misattribution-based procedures in their tool kits to widen the set of biases to which their investigations are sensitive.

The two-way linear fixed effects regression (2FE) has become a default method for estimating causal effects from panel data. Many applied researchers use the 2FE estimator to adjust for unobserved unit-specific and time-specific confounders at the same time. Unfortunately, we demonstrate that the ability of the 2FE model to simultaneously adjust for these two types of unobserved confounders critically relies upon the assumption of linear additive effects. Another common justification for the use of the 2FE estimator is based on its equivalence to the difference-in-differences estimator under the simplest setting with two groups and two time periods. We show that this equivalence does not hold under more general settings commonly encountered in applied research. Instead, we prove that the multi-period difference-in-differences estimator is equivalent to the weighted 2FE estimator with some observations having negative weights. These analytical results imply that in contrast to the popular belief, the 2FE estimator does not represent a design-based, nonparametric estimation strategy for causal inference. Instead, its validity fundamentally rests on the modeling assumptions.

Multinomial logit (MNL) differs from many other econometric methods because it estimates the effects of variables upon nominal, not ordered outcomes. One consequence of this is that the estimated coefficients vary depending upon a researcher’s decision about the choice of a reference, or “baseline,” outcome. Most researchers realize this in principle, but many focus upon the statistical significance of MNL coefficients for inference in the same way that they use the coefficients from models with ordered dependent variables. In some instances, this leads researchers to report statistics that do not reflect the correct quantities of interest and reach flawed conclusions. In this note, I argue that researchers need to orient their approach to analyzing both the substantive and statistical significance of predicted probabilities of interest that match their research questions.