Bayesian probability holds the potential to serve as an important bridge between qualitative and quantitative methodology. Yet whereas Bayesian statistical techniques have been successfully elaborated for quantitative research, applying Bayesian probability to qualitative research remains an open frontier. This paper advances the burgeoning literature on Bayesian process tracing by drawing on expositions of Bayesian “probability as extended logic” from the physical sciences, where probabilities represent rational degrees of belief in propositions given the inevitably limited information we possess. We provide step-by-step guidelines for explicit Bayesian process tracing, calling attention to technical points that have been overlooked or inadequately addressed, and we illustrate how to apply this approach with the first systematic application to a case study that draws on multiple pieces of detailed evidence. While we caution that efforts to explicitly apply Bayesian learning in qualitative social science will inevitably run up against the difficulty that probabilities cannot be unambiguously specified, we nevertheless envision important roles for explicit Bayesian analysis in pinpointing the locus of contention when scholars disagree on inferences, and in training intuition to follow Bayesian probability more systematically.

How does political polarization affect the welfare of the electorate? We analyze this question using a framework in which two policy and office motivated parties compete in an infinite sequence of elections. We propose two novel measures to describe the degree of conflict among agents: antagonism is the disagreement between parties; extremism is the disagreement between each party and the representative voter. These two measures do not coincide when parties care about multiple issues. We show that forward-looking parties have an incentive to implement policies favored by the representative voter, in an attempt to constrain future challengers. This incentive grows as antagonism increases. On the other hand, extremism decreases the electorate’s welfare. We discuss the methodological and empirical implications for the existing measures of political actors’ ideal points and for the debate on elite polarization.

What explains why some survey respondents answer truthfully to a sensitive survey question, while others do not? This question is central to our understanding of a wide variety of attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, but has remained difficult to investigate empirically due to the inherent problem of distinguishing those who are telling the truth from those who are misreporting. This article proposes a solution to this problem. It develops a method to model, within a multivariate regression context, whether survey respondents provide one response to a sensitive item in a list experiment, but answer otherwise when asked to reveal that belief openly in response to a direct question. As an empirical application, the method is applied to an original large-scale list experiment to investigate whether those on the ideological left are more likely to misreport their responses to questions about prejudice than those on the right. The method is implemented for researchers as open-source software.

We extend the scaling methodology previously used in Bonica (2014) to jointly scale the American federal judiciary and legal profession in a common space with other political actors. The end result is the first dataset of consistently measured ideological scores across all tiers of the federal judiciary and the legal profession, including 840 federal judges and 380,307 attorneys. To illustrate these measures, we present two examples involving the U.S. Supreme Court. These data open up significant areas of scholarly inquiry.

Researchers studying discrimination and bias frequently conduct experiments that use racially distinctive names to signal race. The ability of these experiments to speak to racial discrimination depends on the excludability assumption that subjects’ responses to these names are driven by their reaction to the individual’s putative race and not some other factor. We use results from an audit study with a large number of aliases and data from detailed public records to empirically test the excludability assumption undergirding the use of racially distinctive names. The detailed public records allow us to measure the signals about socioeconomic status and political resources that each name used in the study possibly could send. We then reanalyze the audit study to see whether these signals predict legislators’ likelihood of responding. We find no evidence that politicians respond to this other information, thus providing empirical support for the excludability assumption.

Do natural disasters help or hurt politicians’ electoral fortunes? Research on this question has produced conflicting results. Achen and Bartels (2002, 2016) find that voters punish incumbent politicians indiscriminately after such disasters. Other studies find that voters incorporate the quality of relief efforts by elected officials. We argue that results in this literature may be driven, in part, by a focus on contemporary cases of disaster and relief. In contrast, we study a case of catastrophic flooding in the American South in 1927, in which disaster aid was broadly and fairly distributed and Herbert Hoover (the 1928 Republican presidential candidate) was personally responsible for overseeing the relief efforts. Despite the distribution of unprecedented levels of disaster aid, we find that voters punished Hoover at the polls: in affected counties, Hoover’s vote share decreased by more than 10 percentage points. Our results are robust to the use of synthetic control methods and suggest that—even if voters distinguish between low- and high-quality responses—the aggregate effect of this disaster remains broadly negative. Our findings provide some support for Achen and Bartels’ idea of blind retrospection, but also generate questions about the precise mechanisms by which damage and relief affect vote choice.

This article presents a conceptual clarification of asymmetric hypotheses and a discussion of methodologies available to test them. Despite the existence of a litany of theories that posit asymmetric hypotheses, most empirical studies fail to capture their core insight: boundaries separating zones of data from areas that lack data are substantively interesting. We discuss existing set-theoretic and large-N approaches to the study of asymmetric hypotheses, introduce new ones from the literatures on stochastic frontier and data envelopment analysis, evaluate their relative merits, and give three examples of how asymmetric hypotheses can be studied with this suite of tools.

Political scientists commonly focus on quantities of interest computed from model coefficients rather than on the coefficients themselves. However, the quantities of interest, such as predicted probabilities, first differences, and marginal effects, do not necessarily inherit the small-sample properties of the coefficient estimates. Indeed, unbiased coefficient estimates are neither necessary nor sufficient for unbiased estimates of the quantities of interest. I characterize this transformation-induced bias, calculate an approximation, illustrate its importance with two simulation studies, and discuss its relevance to methodological research.

An influential paper by Caughey and Sekhon (2011a) suggests that the outcomes of very close US House elections in the postwar era may not be as-if random, thus calling into question this application of regression discontinuity for causal inference. We show that while incumbent party candidates are more likely to win close House elections, those who win are no different on observable characteristics from those who lose. Further, all differences in observable characteristics between barely winning Democrats and barely winning Republicans vanish conditional on which party is the incumbent. Any source of a special incumbent party advantage in close elections must be due to variables that cannot be observed. This finding supports the conclusion of Eggers et al. (2015) that Caughey and Sekhon’s discovery of lopsided wins by incumbents in close races is a mere statistical fluke.

Validly measuring sensitive issues such as norm violations or stigmatizing traits through self-reports in surveys is often problematic. Special techniques for sensitive questions like the Randomized Response Technique (RRT) and, among its variants, the recent crosswise model should generate more honest answers by providing full response privacy. Different types of validation studies have examined whether these techniques actually improve data validity, with varying results. Yet, most of these studies did not consider the possibility of false positives, i.e., that respondents are misclassified as having a sensitive trait even though they actually do not. Assuming that respondents only falsely deny but never falsely admit possessing a sensitive trait, higher prevalence estimates have typically been interpreted as more valid estimates. If false positives occur, however, conclusions drawn under this assumption might be misleading. We present a comparative validation design that is able to detect false positives without the need for an individual-level validation criterion — which is often unavailable. Results show that the most widely used crosswise-model implementation produced false positives to a nonignorable extent. This defect was not revealed by several previous validation studies that did not consider false positives — apparently a blind spot in past sensitive question research.

Parametric and nonparametric duration models assume proportional hazards: The effect of a covariate on the hazard rate stays constant over time. Researchers have developed techniques to test and correct nonproportional hazards, including interacting the covariates with some function of time. Including this interaction term means that the specification now involves time-varying covariates, and the model specification should reflect this feature. However, in situations with no time-varying covariates initially, researchers often continue to model the duration with only time-invariant covariates. This error results in biased estimates, particularly for the covariates interacted with time. We investigate this issue in over forty political science articles and find that of those studies that begin with time-invariant covariates and correct for nonproportional hazards the majority suffer from incorrect model specification. Proper estimation usually produces substantively or statistically different results.