Oscar Castorena, Noam Lupu, Adam D. Wolsky, Elizabeth J. Zechmeister
Classic theories of public opinion suggest that negative shocks can undermine system support in weak democracies, but scant work has systematically assessed this thesis. We identify Peru’s explosive Vacuna-gate scandal as a most-likely case for finding a connection between corruption and political support. The scandal’s unexpected revelation in the middle of the 2021 AmericasBarometer Peru survey created conditions for a natural experiment. Applying an unexpected-event-during-survey design, we consider the consequences of the scandal for perceptions of corruption, system support, and support for democracy. We find robust evidence that the scandal increased even already high perceptions of corruption and lowered system support. Contrary to expectations derived from prior theories, we find no effect on explicit support for democracy. In the conclusion, we discuss the nuanced ways that scandal may shape democratic stability.
{"title":"Corruption and Political Support: The Case of Peru’s Vacuna-gate Scandal","authors":"Oscar Castorena, Noam Lupu, Adam D. Wolsky, Elizabeth J. Zechmeister","doi":"10.1017/xps.2023.7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/xps.2023.7","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Classic theories of public opinion suggest that negative shocks can undermine system support in weak democracies, but scant work has systematically assessed this thesis. We identify Peru’s explosive Vacuna-gate scandal as a most-likely case for finding a connection between corruption and political support. The scandal’s unexpected revelation in the middle of the 2021 AmericasBarometer Peru survey created conditions for a natural experiment. Applying an unexpected-event-during-survey design, we consider the consequences of the scandal for perceptions of corruption, system support, and support for democracy. We find robust evidence that the scandal increased even already high perceptions of corruption and lowered system support. Contrary to expectations derived from prior theories, we find no effect on explicit support for democracy. In the conclusion, we discuss the nuanced ways that scandal may shape democratic stability.","PeriodicalId":37558,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Political Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2023-03-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42068263","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
We are excited to take the helm at JEPS and honored to follow previous editorial teams, who collectively have established JEPS as the journal of record for experimental research in political science. We are especially grateful to Kevin (Vin) Arceneaux who served as editor for 5 years. Under Vin’s leadership, the journal introduced new article formats and adopted a “strong” associate editor model. These policies have elevated the quality of the research that ultimately appears in the journal, and we plan to continue them. Before describing journal policies in more detail, we would like to introduce the team of Associate Editors who will serve with us. They are Bert Bakker (Senior Associate Editor), Claire Adida, Matthew Hayes, Holger Kern, Jonathan Renshon, John Barry Ryan, Beth Simas, and Gijs Schumacher. This is an impressive group of scholars whose expertise in different areas of experimental research will help ensure the methodological diversity of the journal. Consistent with the previous editorship, Associate Editors will have complete autonomy over manuscripts that have been assigned to them. The two Editors will share the task of reviewing with the Associate Editors, taking on submissions that are relevant to their expertise. The Senior Associate Editor will serve as Acting Editor when a submission presents a conflict of interest for either Editor. Since JEPS was founded in 2014, experiments have “evolved from an emergent method to an accepted method to a primary method” (Druckman and Green 2021, p. 1). This evolution reflects the distinctive advantages of experimentation when it comes to identifying causal effects. There’s no denying that it also is easier to conduct experiments today than it was two decades ago (e.g., in terms of data availability and technological advances). Yet, the ease of conducting experiments belies the challenges of using this method effectively. A high-quality experiment must provide: (1) a theoretical and/or empirical contribution, (2) appropriate comparisons in a well-powered design, and (3) statistical analyses that are informative and transparent. While JEPS takes a broad view of what counts as an experiment, authors must articulate how their design identifies the causal effect that they are studying. To preserve an already overburdened reviewer pool, submissions that do not meet the above criteria will be desk-rejected. Past practice at the journal has demonstrated that desk rejects can be used in a fair manner, and we strive to do the same.
{"title":"Welcome from the Editors","authors":"Jennifer Jerit, Scott Clifford","doi":"10.1017/XPS.2023.5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/XPS.2023.5","url":null,"abstract":"We are excited to take the helm at JEPS and honored to follow previous editorial teams, who collectively have established JEPS as the journal of record for experimental research in political science. We are especially grateful to Kevin (Vin) Arceneaux who served as editor for 5 years. Under Vin’s leadership, the journal introduced new article formats and adopted a “strong” associate editor model. These policies have elevated the quality of the research that ultimately appears in the journal, and we plan to continue them. Before describing journal policies in more detail, we would like to introduce the team of Associate Editors who will serve with us. They are Bert Bakker (Senior Associate Editor), Claire Adida, Matthew Hayes, Holger Kern, Jonathan Renshon, John Barry Ryan, Beth Simas, and Gijs Schumacher. This is an impressive group of scholars whose expertise in different areas of experimental research will help ensure the methodological diversity of the journal. Consistent with the previous editorship, Associate Editors will have complete autonomy over manuscripts that have been assigned to them. The two Editors will share the task of reviewing with the Associate Editors, taking on submissions that are relevant to their expertise. The Senior Associate Editor will serve as Acting Editor when a submission presents a conflict of interest for either Editor. Since JEPS was founded in 2014, experiments have “evolved from an emergent method to an accepted method to a primary method” (Druckman and Green 2021, p. 1). This evolution reflects the distinctive advantages of experimentation when it comes to identifying causal effects. There’s no denying that it also is easier to conduct experiments today than it was two decades ago (e.g., in terms of data availability and technological advances). Yet, the ease of conducting experiments belies the challenges of using this method effectively. A high-quality experiment must provide: (1) a theoretical and/or empirical contribution, (2) appropriate comparisons in a well-powered design, and (3) statistical analyses that are informative and transparent. While JEPS takes a broad view of what counts as an experiment, authors must articulate how their design identifies the causal effect that they are studying. To preserve an already overburdened reviewer pool, submissions that do not meet the above criteria will be desk-rejected. Past practice at the journal has demonstrated that desk rejects can be used in a fair manner, and we strive to do the same.","PeriodicalId":37558,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Political Science","volume":"10 1","pages":"1 - 3"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49310656","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Conspiracy theories and misinformation have become increasingly prominent in politics, and these beliefs have pernicious effects on political behavior. A prominent line of research suggests that these beliefs are promoted by repeated exposure. Yet, as scholars have rushed to understand these beliefs, they have exposed countless respondents to conspiratorial claims, raising the question of whether researchers are contributing to their spread. We investigate this possibility using a pre-registered within-subjects experiment embedded in a panel survey. The results suggest that exposure to a standard conspiracy question causes a significant increase in the likelihood of endorsing that conspiracy a week later. However, this exposure effect does not occur with a question format that offers an alternative, non-conspiratorial explanation for the target event. Thus, we recommend that researchers reduce the likelihood of spreading conspiracy beliefs by adopting a question format that asks respondents to choose between alternative explanations for an event.
{"title":"Do Survey Questions Spread Conspiracy Beliefs?","authors":"Scott Clifford, Brian W. Sullivan","doi":"10.1017/XPS.2023.1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/XPS.2023.1","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Conspiracy theories and misinformation have become increasingly prominent in politics, and these beliefs have pernicious effects on political behavior. A prominent line of research suggests that these beliefs are promoted by repeated exposure. Yet, as scholars have rushed to understand these beliefs, they have exposed countless respondents to conspiratorial claims, raising the question of whether researchers are contributing to their spread. We investigate this possibility using a pre-registered within-subjects experiment embedded in a panel survey. The results suggest that exposure to a standard conspiracy question causes a significant increase in the likelihood of endorsing that conspiracy a week later. However, this exposure effect does not occur with a question format that offers an alternative, non-conspiratorial explanation for the target event. Thus, we recommend that researchers reduce the likelihood of spreading conspiracy beliefs by adopting a question format that asks respondents to choose between alternative explanations for an event.","PeriodicalId":37558,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Political Science","volume":"10 1","pages":"231 - 241"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2023-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47110234","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Experiments on the responsiveness of elected officials highlight the tension between the freedom to carry out research and the right of subjects to be treated with respect. Controversy emerges from the power of politicians to block or object to experimental designs using identity deception. One way to resolve this conundrum is to consult citizens who, as constituents of politicians, have an interest in promoting the accountability of elected representatives. Building on the work of Desposato and Naurin and Öhberg, this survey experiment presented research designs to UK citizens for their evaluation. The findings show that citizens strongly approve of experimental research on Members of Parliament (MPs) and are glad to see their representatives participate. There are no differences in support whether designs use identity deception, debriefing, confederates or pre-agreement from MPs. Linked to high interest in politics, more citizens are glad their MPs participate in studies using identity deception than those deploying confederates.
{"title":"Using Citizen Voice to Evaluate Experiments on Politicians: A UK Survey Experiment","authors":"P. John, Kristina Kim, Luis Soto-Tamayo","doi":"10.1017/xps.2023.3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/xps.2023.3","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Experiments on the responsiveness of elected officials highlight the tension between the freedom to carry out research and the right of subjects to be treated with respect. Controversy emerges from the power of politicians to block or object to experimental designs using identity deception. One way to resolve this conundrum is to consult citizens who, as constituents of politicians, have an interest in promoting the accountability of elected representatives. Building on the work of Desposato and Naurin and Öhberg, this survey experiment presented research designs to UK citizens for their evaluation. The findings show that citizens strongly approve of experimental research on Members of Parliament (MPs) and are glad to see their representatives participate. There are no differences in support whether designs use identity deception, debriefing, confederates or pre-agreement from MPs. Linked to high interest in politics, more citizens are glad their MPs participate in studies using identity deception than those deploying confederates.","PeriodicalId":37558,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Political Science","volume":"6 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2023-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41292644","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Matthew J. Camp, Michael Schwam-Baird, Adam Zelizer
It is widely thought that lobbyists exert influence over legislators’ policy positions and, as a result, over policy outcomes. One mechanism of influence is the provision of policy expertise. Yet, there is little credible empirical evidence that lobbyists’ expertise influences legislative outcomes. Across four experiments fielded with three lobbyists in two state legislatures that examine two public measures of legislators’ positions, we find no evidence that lobbyists’ expertise influences legislators’ policy positions. We do find, in contrast, that the same policy expertise treatment is influential when provided by a legislative staffer. We conclude that policy information can influence legislators’ positions, but that legislators are cautious when that information is provided by lobbyists.
{"title":"The Limits of Lobbying: Null Effects from Four Field Experiments in Two State Legislatures","authors":"Matthew J. Camp, Michael Schwam-Baird, Adam Zelizer","doi":"10.1017/xps.2022.25","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/xps.2022.25","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 It is widely thought that lobbyists exert influence over legislators’ policy positions and, as a result, over policy outcomes. One mechanism of influence is the provision of policy expertise. Yet, there is little credible empirical evidence that lobbyists’ expertise influences legislative outcomes. Across four experiments fielded with three lobbyists in two state legislatures that examine two public measures of legislators’ positions, we find no evidence that lobbyists’ expertise influences legislators’ policy positions. We do find, in contrast, that the same policy expertise treatment is influential when provided by a legislative staffer. We conclude that policy information can influence legislators’ positions, but that legislators are cautious when that information is provided by lobbyists.","PeriodicalId":37558,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Political Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2023-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48103450","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Experimentalists and survey researchers regularly measure the makeup and size of respondent personal discussion networks to learn about the social context in which citizens make political choices. When measuring these personal networks, some scholars use question prompts that specifically ask respondents about whom they discuss “politics” with, while others use more general prompts that ask respondents about whom they discuss “important matters” with. Prior research suggests that “political” discussion network prompts create self-reported networks that are substantively similar to “important matters” prompts. We conduct a nationally representative survey experiment to re-evaluate this question. Our results suggest that, although the size of networks generated by the two questions may be similar on average, the two questions generate different response distributions overall. In particular, respondents interested in politics report larger political discussion networks than general discussion networks, and respondents uninterested in politics report smaller political discussion networks than general discussion networks.
{"title":"Political and Social Discussion Network Survey Items Are Not Interchangeable","authors":"J. Reilly, Jack K. Belk","doi":"10.1017/XPS.2022.34","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/XPS.2022.34","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Experimentalists and survey researchers regularly measure the makeup and size of respondent personal discussion networks to learn about the social context in which citizens make political choices. When measuring these personal networks, some scholars use question prompts that specifically ask respondents about whom they discuss “politics” with, while others use more general prompts that ask respondents about whom they discuss “important matters” with. Prior research suggests that “political” discussion network prompts create self-reported networks that are substantively similar to “important matters” prompts. We conduct a nationally representative survey experiment to re-evaluate this question. Our results suggest that, although the size of networks generated by the two questions may be similar on average, the two questions generate different response distributions overall. In particular, respondents interested in politics report larger political discussion networks than general discussion networks, and respondents uninterested in politics report smaller political discussion networks than general discussion networks.","PeriodicalId":37558,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Political Science","volume":"10 1","pages":"459 - 464"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2023-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43735749","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
{"title":"XPS volume 10 issue 3 Cover and Back matter","authors":"","doi":"10.1017/xps.2023.38","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/xps.2023.38","url":null,"abstract":"An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.","PeriodicalId":37558,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Political Science","volume":"129 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135841194","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"XPS volume 10 issue 1 Cover and Back matter","authors":"","doi":"10.1017/xps.2023.9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/xps.2023.9","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":37558,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Political Science","volume":"96 1","pages":"b1 - b4"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"57592414","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"XPS volume 10 issue 1 Cover and Front matter","authors":"","doi":"10.1017/xps.2023.2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/xps.2023.2","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":37558,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Political Science","volume":"10 1","pages":"f1 - f2"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"57592295","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
{"title":"XPS volume 10 issue 3 Cover and Front matter","authors":"","doi":"10.1017/xps.2023.37","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/xps.2023.37","url":null,"abstract":"An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.","PeriodicalId":37558,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Political Science","volume":"283 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135841198","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：