Peer-Reviewed Publications

“Does Political Sophistication Moderate How Citizens Use Information to Infer Left-Right Distances between Parties?” with Will Horne, Simon Weschle, James Adams, and Christopher Wlezien. 2025. Published in the Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties.

Abstract: Research identifies numerous factors associated with citizens’ perceptions of party ideologies, including the Left-Right orientations of parties’ election manifestos, governing coalition arrangements, and media reports of party elites’ interactions. We analyze whether citizens’ reliance on these factors varies with their levels of education and political knowledge. In analyses of 51 election surveys from 18 countries between 2001 and 2015, we find that more politically sophisticated citizens attach (modestly) more weight to parties’ election manifestos and media reports of political elites’ interactions, but no evidence that sophistication moderates citizens’ reactions to governing coalition arrangements. There thus appears to be far more homogeneity than heterogeneity in the structure of party placement perceptions.

“A comment on Herzog, Baron, and Gibbons (2022)” with Haley Daarstad and RyuGyung (Rio) Park. 2023. Published in I4R Discussion Paper Series, No. 97, Institute for Replication (I4R), s.l.

Abstract: Herzog, Baron, and Gibbons (2022) explore the effects of exposure to official elite rhetoric and group cues on public support against the international nuclear weapons prohibition norm. The authors find that elite cues, in particular security and institutional cues, increase individuals’ opposition to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). However, elite cues do not seem to have an effect on changing individuals’ broader attitudes towards nuclear weapons, as measured by individuals’ existing opposition to nuclear arms. We replicate and expand the authors’ methods and results to test the robustness of the effects found in the study. First, we reproduce the main finding using the authors’ original data and method. We do not find any coding errors that undermine the authors’ analysis or conclusions. Second, we test the robustness of the results by (1) using a different operationalization of party identity, and (2) calculating additional subgroup analysis for gender. We find no significant differences between our replicated and the original results, however females’ support for the TPNW is more responsive to security cues, while males’ support is more responsive to institutions cues.

Invitations to Revise and Resubmit

“Conjoint Analysis of Interpersonal Affective Polarization: Limits of Partisan Bias in Dating, Housing, and Shopping” with Spencer Kiesel and Sharif Amlani.

Abstract: Scholarship shows that partisanship can inform individuals’ decisions in areas outside of politics, such as roommate choice, spousal selection, and economic behavior. However, few studies can systematically determine whether these decisions are based on partisanship or if they use partisanship to make inferences about other characteristics relevant to a given social choice. To determine to what extent partisanship informs decisions, we use a conjoint analysis to isolate the impact of partisanship on nonpolitical considerations across three types of social decisions: selecting a spouse to marry, a neighborhood to live in, and a business to frequent. We find that partisanship influences all three social decisions, even while controlling for other salient considerations. Further, we find that the degree to which partisanship matters is similar to and, in some cases, exceeds other relevant considerations. Overall, we show that when individuals make key decisions that affect the trajectory of their life, partisanship is a fundamental consideration.

Working Papers

“Policies, But for Whom? Testing the Effect of Social Group Appeals on British Voters’ Party Preferences” [Job Market Paper]

Abstract: This study examines how political parties’ rhetorical appeals to social groups affect voters’ party preferences. Parties regularly appeal to social groups in their political communications, often pairing these appeals with policy promises. Yet, existing models of voting behavior focus almost exclusively on the role of policies. I use a pre-registered conjoint experiment fielded on a nationally representative sample of British adults that has voters consider parties’ promises to social groups in four different issue areas, and I show that voters punish parties who explicitly appeal to women, while appeals to workers are more generally accepted. Moreover these effects are moderated by the importance of the group to the individual. I find that the punishing effect of appeals to women are not driven by men, but rather those who do not consider women important. These findings shed light on the role of group attitudes in explaining voting behavior and advance our understanding of the consequences of group appeals.

“The Greens’ Disadvantage: How Parties’ Policy Reputations Shape Public Perceptions of Environmental Policy” with RyuGyung (Rio) Park

Abstract: Traditionally, environmental policies, including measures to combat climate change, have been closely associated with left-wing parties, especially green parties, while right-wing parties have often been perceived as prioritizing economic interests over environmental concerns. However, we see an increasing number of right-wing parties starting to advocate more for environmental regulations, such as France’s National Rally, Spain’s Vox, or Latvia’s National Alliance. Do right-wing parties enjoy a certain advantage from their previous reputation for prioritizing the economy? We hypothesize that, controlling for individuals’ ideology and stated issue priorities, environmental policies supported by parties that own economic issues will be perceived more favorably. On the other hand, environmental policies supported by parties that own environmental issues will be perceived less favorably. Meanwhile, when the policy is supported by an environment prioritizing party, the expected environmental impact will be more positive, but the expected economic impact will be more negative. To test our hypotheses, we use survey experiments conducted in the U.S. using vignettes on a hypothetical climate policy.

“Who Attacks Whom? The Correlates of Media Reports of Inter-party Conflict and Cooperation Between European Elites” with James Adams, Josephine Andrews, Braeden Davis, and Alexa Federice

Abstract: Political scientists are increasingly concerned about citizens’ hostility and distrust towards political opponents, i.e., affective polarization, but also about citizens’ declining confidence in parties, in government, and in democratic satisfaction. These phenomena are plausibly linked to media reports of elite-level inter-party conflict, which may intensify citizens’ hostility towards opponents while more generally depressing their trust in political institutions. We analyze the correlates of European elites’ inter-party conflict and cooperation in thirteen democracies between 2001 and 2019, based on the machine codings of nearly 15,000 news reports of elite interactions from legacy media. We estimate that the probability that a coded elite-level interaction is conflictual increases with party differences on European integration and on economic issues, with parties’ differing populist orientations, and is also related to governing coalition arrangements. By contrast, we estimate no significant association between reports of elite-level conflict and party differences over cultural issues such as immigration and the national way of life.

“Protecting Migrant Rights: Barriers to Naturalization” with Enrico Antonio La Viña and Jeannette Money

“Introducing the Transnational Security Cooperation Agreement Dataset (TSCAD)” with Brandon Kinne