Replication Data

Recent work in political science has taken up the question of issue voting under conditions of uncertainty – situations in which voters have imperfect information about the policy positions of candidates. We move beyond the assumption of a particular spatial utility function and develop a model to estimate voters ’ pref-erences for risk. Contrary to the maintained hypothesis in the literature, voters do not appear to have the strongly risk averse preferences implied by quadratic preferences. Do voters have preferences over the policy risks presented by candidates in elections? If they do, what are those risk preferences? Answering these questions involves two consid-erations: (i) the shape of the utility function that maps the policy positions of candidates into vote choice and (ii) the degree to which voters incorporate uncertainty about the policies that will be implemented as the result of an election into their utility calcu-lus. In previous work, these two considerations are largely treated in isolation (Meban

Persuading the enemy: estimating the persuasive effects of partisan media with the preference-incorporating choice and assignment design

Does media choice cause polarization, or merely reflect it? We investigate a critical aspect of this puzzle: how partisan media contribute to attitude polarization among different groups of media consumers. We implement a new experimental design, called the Preference-Incorporating Choice and Assignment (PICA) design, that incorporates both free choice and forced exposure. We estimate jointly the degree of polarization caused by selective exposure and the persuasive effect of partisan media. Our design also enables us to conduct sensitivity analyses accounting for discrepancies between stated preferences and actual choice, a potential source of bias ignored in previous studies using similar designs. We find that partisan media can polarize both its regular consumers and inadvertent audiences who would otherwise not consume it, but ideologically-opposing media potentially also can ameliorate existing polarization between consumers. Taken together, these results deepen our understanding of when and how media polarize individuals.Accepted manuscrip

2008 Survey of the Performance of American Elections: Final Report

Analyzes results of a survey on the 2008 elections voting experience, voter confidence in the system, reasons for not voting, and support for reform proposals. Examines how age, race/ethnicity, and length of residency affect voters' experiences

Processing political misinformation:comprehending the Trump phenomenon

his study investigated the cognitive processing of true and false political information. Specifically, it examined the impact of source credibility on the assessment of veracity when information comes from a polarizing source (Experiment 1), and effectiveness of explanations when they come from one's own political party or an opposition party (Experiment 2). These experiments were conducted prior to the 2016 Presidential election. Participants rated their belief in factual and incorrect statements that President Trump made on the campaign trail; facts were subsequently affirmed and misinformation retracted. Participants then re-rated their belief immediately or after a delay. Experiment 1 found that (i) if information was attributed to Trump, Republican supporters of Trump believed it more than if it was presented without attribution, whereas the opposite was true for Democrats and (ii) although Trump supporters reduced their belief in misinformation items following a correction, they did not change their voting preferences. Experiment 2 revealed that the explanation's source had relatively little impact, and belief updating was more influenced by perceived credibility of the individual initially purporting the information. These findings suggest that people use political figures as a heuristic to guide evaluation of what is true or false, yet do not necessarily insist on veracity as a prerequisite for supporting political candidates

Exploring Lightweight Interventions at Posting Time to Reduce the Sharing of Misinformation on Social Media

When users on social media share content without considering its veracity, they may unwittingly be spreading misinformation. In this work, we investigate the design of lightweight interventions that nudge users to assess the accuracy of information as they share it. Such assessment may deter users from posting misinformation in the first place, and their assessments may also provide useful guidance to friends aiming to assess those posts themselves. In support of lightweight assessment, we first develop a taxonomy of the reasons why people believe a news claim is or is not true; this taxonomy yields a checklist that can be used at posting time. We conduct evaluations to demonstrate that the checklist is an accurate and comprehensive encapsulation of people's free-response rationales. In a second experiment, we study the effects of three behavioral nudges -- 1) checkboxes indicating whether headings are accurate, 2) tagging reasons (from our taxonomy) that a post is accurate via a checklist and 3) providing free-text rationales for why a headline is or is not accurate -- on people's intention of sharing the headline on social media. From an experiment with 1668 participants, we find that both providing accuracy assessment and rationale reduce the sharing of false content. They also reduce the sharing of true content, but to a lesser degree that yields an overall decrease in the fraction of shared content that is false. Our findings have implications for designing social media and news sharing platforms that draw from richer signals of content credibility contributed by users. In addition, our validated taxonomy can be used by platforms and researchers as a way to gather rationales in an easier fashion than free-response.Comment: To appear in CSCW'2

Emotion may predict susceptibility to fake news but emotion regulation does not help

Misinformation is a serious concern for societies across the globe. To design effective interventions to combat the belief in and spread of misinformation, we must understand which psychological processes influence susceptibility to misinformation. This paper tests the widely assumed -- but largely untested -- claim that people are worse at identifying true versus false headlines when the headlines are emotionally provocative. Consistent with this proposal, we found correlational evidence that overall emotional response at the headline level is associated with diminished truth discernment, except for experienced anger which was associated with increased truth discernment. A second set of studies tested a popular emotion regulation intervention where people were asked to apply either emotional suppression or emotion reappraisal techniques when considering the veracity of several headlines. In contrast to the correlation results, we found no evidence that emotion regulation helped people distinguish false from true news headlines

Polls and elections: Is Loyalty a Powerful Thing? Republican Senate Campaign Strategy and Trump Coattails in the 2016 Election

Presidential candidates provide a boost to their congressional candidate counterparts, in which congressional candidates should ride the proverbial coattails into office (Campbell and Sumners 1990; Stewart 1989). The 2016 election, however, provides an instance in which the presidential coattails were less than desirable. In this article, we argue that state politics determines the optimal strategy for how candidates should position themselves vis‐à‐vis a controversial presidential candidate. Based on our findings, voters rewarded candidates at varying levels for distancing themselves from then candidate Trump. Specifically, the disloyal strategy, in which candidates completely disavowed Trump, worked best in swing states and among Democrats, liberals, and Clinton voters. The ambiguous strategy, in which candidates took an unclear position on Trump, was less effective, but still received gains in appeal among independents and liberals

Political Science Scope and Methods

This course is designed to provide an introduction to a variety of empirical research methods used by political scientists. The primary aims of the course are to make you a more sophisticated consumer of diverse empirical research and to allow you to conduct advanced independent work in your junior and senior years. This is not a course in data analysis. Rather, it is a course on how to approach political science research