Extensive research showcases that authoritarian propaganda can cultivate support and deter protest during “normal” times. This study examines authoritarian propaganda’s efficacy during crises and policy changes when the regime needs it most. We posit that various propaganda strategies, including “hard” and “soft” rhetoric, have significant limitations during crises. Hard propaganda’s heavy-handed slogans could signal regime strength but may also legitimize “rightful resistance” against local authorities, limiting its protest-deterrence effects. Soft propaganda may lose persuasiveness due to presenting contradictory arguments during policy changes. We leverage the turbulent period of China’s COVID policy reversal to conduct an original survey experiment in December 2022. Our findings reveal that pro-reopening hard propaganda weakens its protest-deterrence effects by reinforcing belief in protest righteousness. Moreover, inconsistent soft propaganda lowers public evaluations of China’s COVID response, diminishing its persuasive effects. Our study highlights significant limitations of authoritarian propaganda during crises and policy changes.

In survey experiments, should all covariates be administered before the experimental treatment? Some scholars argue that post-treatment items should never be used as covariates because the treatment could bias the measurement of those items and disrupt experimental randomization. Other scholars argue certain items—specifically sensitive questions measuring prejudice—should not be administered pre-treatment. They argue if asked pre-treatment, these items may prime respondents in ways that will influence how they engage with the experiment treatment, thereby affecting the overall outcome of the experiment. Using evidence from four studies (two original collections) that vary the placement of sensitive items—pre-treatment, post-treatment, or in a separate wave—we find little evidence that the placement of sensitive items influences the measurement of those items, the experimental outcomes, nor heterogeneously affects the outcome conditional on the treatment. However, we find the placement of sensitive items inconsistently affects the experimental outcome by interacting with both the measurement of the items and the experimental treatment condition. Overall, we find these measures to be robust to where they are administered. It may be best to place items pre-treatment to preserve randomization. If researchers have reason to include sensitive moderators post-treatment, they should transparently discuss this choice and the anticipated trade-offs.

Researchers applying evolutionary theory to political psychology discover that in democracies, most citizens struggle to select political leaders based on their ideologies. Rather, they tend to concentrate on procedural fairness during public decision-making when evaluating their leaders. We re-examine such evolutionary propositions in China using eight Wason selection experiments. In autocracies, where accountability systems are weak or absent, little is known about how citizens judge politicians’ ideologies and their cheating behaviors. Our findings show that Chinese citizens are incapable of identifying political leaders’ ideological orientations; instead, they rely on a cheater-detection mechanism, evaluating leaders based on their adherence to procedural fairness. These results contribute to our understanding of democratic competence and the cognitive mechanisms of political judgment in autocratic contexts.

Presidential primary elections arguably represent the most dynamic campaigns in American politics. Television advertising is a key aspect of strategy that candidates can marshal throughout the campaign. We develop a methodology for measuring the impact of advertising in primary elections that accounts for endogeneity and apply it to the 2000 through 2016 elections. We find that advertisements—both positive and negative—improve the favorability and the vote share of the candidate running the ads. We find that negative advertising is more effective than positive advertising, but that only high polling candidates lose support when attacked.

Can the “us versus them” dynamic in politics undermine support for democracy even in the absence of strong party identification? While much is known about affective polarization in the USA, its impact on democratic commitment in other contexts remains understudied. We examine Chile’s 2022 plebiscite, where voters decided whether to approve or reject a new constitution amid low levels of party trust and identification. Through an experiment using an unobtrusive primer, we successfully induced short-term affective polarization, heightening animosity across multiple dimensions. Our findings show that individuals primed to this polarization significantly reduced their support for democracy, mirroring patterns observed in the USA. These results emphasize the importance of studying affective polarization, especially in regions with fragile democratic histories.

Industrial concentration has increased in recent years with large companies consolidating their dominant positions. Concentrated markets are thought to benefit large firms as they earn elevated profits and gain political influence. Antitrust law is the main policy tool to reduce concentration. Calls to strengthen antitrust have come from the political left and the right, yet we know little about public support for such policies. We test how economic, moral, and democratic concerns influence support for antitrust. We find that the public does not respond to the consumer price benefits of antitrust but is moved by arguments invoking concerns for fairness and the importance of maintaining democratic institutions. We find that Republicans and Democrats often respond in divergent ways, with Republicans being less supportive of antitrust when informed that it could punish successful companies, whereas Democrats are more concerned about using antitrust to curb corporate influence. The findings accord with a general concern on the left for limiting business influence in politics and a concern on the right for maintaining business growth.

Emotions and their sociopolitical impact have received increasing scholarly attention. However, it remains largely unclear whether emotional expression within surveys is subject to social desirability bias. By drawing on impression management theory and the disclosure decision model, I argue that emotional expression is likely prone to social desirability bias in interviewer-administered survey modes and test my hypotheses on mixed-mode ANES data. The findings demonstrate that respondents significantly underreport negative emotions—anger and fear—when interviewed face-to-face as compared to online. Furthermore, positive emotions, such as hope and pride, are not exempt from biased reporting related to interview mode. These results highlight the risks of estimating emotions and their salience by either relying on interviewer administration or combining survey modes.

Despite growing interest in the political consequences of the urban–rural divide, we know little about whether urban and rural populations differ in the policy problems they view as most important. This study explores urban–rural differences in policy priorities over an extended period (1939–2020), using data from 850 U.S. surveys. The analysis reveals modest but persistent gaps between urban and rural residents in several key policy areas. However, while urban–rural differences remain stable across diverse economic and political contexts, partisan affiliation significantly outweighs place-based identities in shaping these priorities. The findings suggest that despite geographic distinctions, urban and rural populations predominantly rely on partisan cues when forming policy agendas, which contributes to a nuanced understanding of political representation.

It is widely agreed that politicians are prone to hyperbole, proposing platforms that no one expects them to fully accomplish. We develop a theory of electoral competition focusing on politicians who differ in terms of both ideological preferences and in their capability to “get things done.” An imperfect ability to implement platforms introduces a novel role for status quo policies. We first show that the traditional left-right orientation of political competition arises only when the status quo is relatively moderate. Otherwise, an extreme status quo becomes the dominant dimension of electoral competition, providing a novel rationale for “populist” campaigns. Our second set of results address when campaign platforms can serve as effective empirical proxies for policies. We show that when there is a shock to voter preferences, the effect on platforms and policies is qualitatively the same, hence platforms are good qualitative proxies for policy implications. But when shocks are to the platform-policy linkage, platforms and policies respond in qualitatively different ways.

This paper introduces a simple approach for assessing which survey questions are more likely to elicit political identity-influenced responses. We use daily data from Gallup to test which survey self-reports exhibit more or less susceptibility to politicization, finding the highest likelihood of politicization for societal-level questions. Conversely, we show that self-reported assessments of personal finances are less sensitive to partisan motivated responding. We also show how egotropic economic evaluations are influenced by the presence of other items on the same survey. Taken together, our results uncover scope conditions for how to interpret self-reported views of the economy, and we argue that measures of public opinion which have not yet been strongly politicized are better proxies for capturing the underlying welfare of the public.

Governments shape policy outcomes using two distinct mechanisms: rules and discretion. A simple decomposition strategy is proposed for distinguishing between these policymaking mechanisms on income inequality in the American states from 1986 to 2020. This analytical strategy is easily applicable to other policy settings. The statistical evidence, for the most part, that income inequality observed in the American states is generally unaffected by both TELs and partisan control of state governments—the lone exception being unified Republican state governments operating under a TEL. The decomposition evidence, however, shows that this is primarily the result of discretionary policymaking differences among partisan governments. This study underscores the importance of disentangling policy mechanisms that jointly occur when evaluating the consequences of government policymaking authority.

Voters’ issue preferences are key determinants of vote choice, making it essential to reduce measurement error in responses to issue questions in surveys. This study uses a MultiTrait MultiError approach to assess the data quality of issue questions by separating four sources of variation: trait, acquiescence, method, and random error. The questions generally achieved moderate data quality, with 76% on average representing valid variance. Random error made up the largest proportion of error (23%). Error due to method and acquiescence was small. We found that 5-point scales are generally better than 11-point scales, while answers by respondents with lower political sophistication achieved lower data quality. The findings indicate a need to focus on decreasing random error when studying issue positions.

Covariance structure analysis or structural equation modeling is critical for political scientists measuring latent structural relationships, allowing for the simultaneous assessment of both latent and observed variables, alongside measurement error. Well-specified models are essential for theoretical support, balancing simplicity with optimal model fit. However, current approaches to improving model specification searches remain limited, making it challenging to capture all meaningful parameters and leaving models vulnerable to chance-based specification risks. To address this, we propose an improved Lagrange multiplier (LM) test incorporating stepwise bootstrapping in LM and Wald tests to detect omitted parameters. Monte Carlo simulations and empirical applications underscore its effectiveness, particularly in small samples and models with high degrees of freedom, thereby enhancing statistical fit.

When are far right parties punished for their extreme positions? We argue that the punishments of deviant position-taking are conditional on the degree to which a far right party is normalized or stigmatized in the party system. When the far right is treated as normal, the costs suffered from these parties’ extreme positions decrease, as moderate voters discount the authenticity of their commitment to such positions. We use a survey experiment to test this argument in Spain, finding evidence for discounting on the far right’s extreme anti-LGBTQ+ statements, but not on its embrace of authoritarian history. This study thus shows that normalization and stigmatization of the far right can change how its extreme positions are interpreted by voters.

A growing literature explores the effect of economic inequality in citizens’ surrounding environment on their political attitudes and behavior. This literature typically relies on measures of income concentration or gap-size, which reflect under-tested presumptions about how citizens perceive the economic conditions surrounding them. Utilizing survey data to explore perception of economic inequality in Americans’ residential environment, this note finds that measures capturing income concentration or gap-size perform poorly relative to a measure capturing the joint prevalence of “haves” and “have-nots.” These results suggest that commonly used measures of economic inequality may not fully capture the features of people’s daily environment used to perceive the existence or magnitude of inequality. The results guide future research toward using contextual indicators that treat inequality as a compound phenomenon involving manifestations of poverty and affluence.

Many studies argue that the World Bank grants favorable loan conditions to allies of its powerful principals. These studies typically use the count of conditions as a proxy for how demanding loans are on borrowers, even though some conditions are more difficult to comply with than others. We propose a new operationalization: a measure of conditionality stringency in Bank loans constructed using Latent Semantic Scaling. Using this new measure, we find little evidence of a generalizable influence of powerful principals. Instead, the stringency of loan conditions is associated with bureaucratic assessments of risk. To facilitate future research, we provide a new dataset of World Bank loan condition texts and our measure of text stringency for all loans in the dataset.

This paper demonstrates how Bayesian reasoning can be used for an analog of replication analysis with qualitative research that conducts inference to best explanation. We overview the basic mechanics of Bayesian reasoning with qualitative evidence and apply our approach to recent research on climate change politics, a matter of major importance that is beginning to attract greater interest in the discipline. Our re-analysis of illustrative evidence from a prominent article on global collective-action versus distributive politics theories of climate policy largely accords with the authors’ conclusions, while illuminating the value added of Bayesian analysis. In contrast, our in-depth examination of scholarship on oil majors’ support for carbon pricing yields a Bayesian inference that diverges from the authors’ conclusions. These examples highlight the potential for Bayesian reasoning not only to improve inferences when working with qualitative evidence but also to enhance analytical transparency, facilitate communication of findings, and promote knowledge accumulation.

The extent to which legislators pursue their privately held preferences in office has important implications for representative democracy and is exceedingly difficult to measure. Many models of legislative decision-making tacitly assume that members are willing and able to carry out the wishes of their constituents so as to maximize their reelection prospects and, in so doing, relegate their personal preferences. This project explores this assumption by examining the role that members’ place of birth plays in shaping legislative behavior, apart from other politically relevant factors like partisanship. We find that birthplace exerts an independent influence on members’ voting behavior. Using a variety of geographic measures, we find that members who are born in close proximity to one another tend to exhibit similar patterns in roll call voting, even when accounting for partisanship, constituency attributes, and a variety of other determinants of voting. We also demonstrate in a secondary analysis that the agricultural composition of members’ birthplace influences their support for agricultural protection. Our findings suggest that members’ personal history shapes the representational relationship they have with their constituents.

Politicians appear to overestimate how conservative public opinion is in the U.S. and other Western democracies. Whether this “conservative bias” extends to voters remains unclear but has important implications for belief formation and behavior. I examine this in the context of abortion access after the Dobbs decision. Despite the salience of the topic, original survey data collected post-Dobbs reveal consistent underestimation of public support for abortion access. Individuals identifying as “pro-life” drive most of this underestimation, suggesting the presence of egocentric biases in which “pro-life” Americans overestimate the commonality of their views. Conservative biases among voters may contribute to a skewed information environment for politicians, potentially providing leverage for further restrictions on abortion access.