Pub Date : 2024-07-24DOI: 10.1177/1532673x241263086
David P. Redlawsk, Annemarie S. Walter
Research shows that politicians are often not electorally punished for immoral behavior. Yet, voters may still desire to see politicians punished outside of the election context for committing moral transgressions. Moreover, these desires may be conditioned by the partisanship of the voter, the transgressor, and voters’ perceptions of moral violation severity. To examine such effects, we conduct a vignette study asking 2997 U. S. respondents to consider politicians’ moral violations. We randomly varied the moral principle violated (Care, Fairness, Loyalty, Authority, Sanctity, and a social norm violation) and the partisanship of the politician (Republic/Democrat/Nonpartisan). When voters perceive the severity of a moral violation to be low, Republicans express a stronger desire to punish than do Democrats. Republicans’ desire for punishment depends on the group of the transgressor, with higher levels of punitiveness desired for out-party transgressors than in-party. However, when voters perceive severity to be moderate or high, Democrats have the stronger desire to punish the politician involved, but they show no in-party bias. Across the moral violations presented, Republicans and Democrats differ in perceptions of severity of politicians’ immoral behavior. Results show partisan voters’ heterogeneity in punitiveness, with the relationship strongly mediated by perceived severity of the moral violation.
{"title":"Partisan Differences in Voters’ Desire for Punishment in Response to Politicians’ Moral Transgressions","authors":"David P. Redlawsk, Annemarie S. Walter","doi":"10.1177/1532673x241263086","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x241263086","url":null,"abstract":"Research shows that politicians are often not electorally punished for immoral behavior. Yet, voters may still desire to see politicians punished outside of the election context for committing moral transgressions. Moreover, these desires may be conditioned by the partisanship of the voter, the transgressor, and voters’ perceptions of moral violation severity. To examine such effects, we conduct a vignette study asking 2997 U. S. respondents to consider politicians’ moral violations. We randomly varied the moral principle violated (Care, Fairness, Loyalty, Authority, Sanctity, and a social norm violation) and the partisanship of the politician (Republic/Democrat/Nonpartisan). When voters perceive the severity of a moral violation to be low, Republicans express a stronger desire to punish than do Democrats. Republicans’ desire for punishment depends on the group of the transgressor, with higher levels of punitiveness desired for out-party transgressors than in-party. However, when voters perceive severity to be moderate or high, Democrats have the stronger desire to punish the politician involved, but they show no in-party bias. Across the moral violations presented, Republicans and Democrats differ in perceptions of severity of politicians’ immoral behavior. Results show partisan voters’ heterogeneity in punitiveness, with the relationship strongly mediated by perceived severity of the moral violation.","PeriodicalId":51482,"journal":{"name":"American Politics Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2024-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141806547","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-07-24DOI: 10.1177/1532673x241263090
Kwadwo Poku-Agyemang, James C. Garand
In this paper we consider how political ideology, attitudes toward historically-marginalized groups, and identification with grievance groups shape Americans’ self-reported participation in political consumerism (i.e., political boycotts and buycotts). Using data from the 2016 and 2020 American National Election Studies (ANES) surveys, we find that ideological intensity has an asymmetrical effect on boycott behavior in 2016, with strong liberals considerably more likely to engage in boycott behavior than strong conservatives. In 2020 the effect of ideological intensity shifts upward dramatically for conservatives, with both liberals and conservatives likely to engage in boycott behavior. We also find mixed results for the effects of attitudes toward and identification with historically-marginalized groups, though we do find that general political participation (and related variables) are strongly related to boycott activity. We discuss the implications of our findings, particularly as they relate to the effects of ideological intensity for liberals and conservatives.
{"title":"Voting in the Mall: Ideology, Grievance, and Political Consumerism","authors":"Kwadwo Poku-Agyemang, James C. Garand","doi":"10.1177/1532673x241263090","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x241263090","url":null,"abstract":"In this paper we consider how political ideology, attitudes toward historically-marginalized groups, and identification with grievance groups shape Americans’ self-reported participation in political consumerism (i.e., political boycotts and buycotts). Using data from the 2016 and 2020 American National Election Studies (ANES) surveys, we find that ideological intensity has an asymmetrical effect on boycott behavior in 2016, with strong liberals considerably more likely to engage in boycott behavior than strong conservatives. In 2020 the effect of ideological intensity shifts upward dramatically for conservatives, with both liberals and conservatives likely to engage in boycott behavior. We also find mixed results for the effects of attitudes toward and identification with historically-marginalized groups, though we do find that general political participation (and related variables) are strongly related to boycott activity. We discuss the implications of our findings, particularly as they relate to the effects of ideological intensity for liberals and conservatives.","PeriodicalId":51482,"journal":{"name":"American Politics Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2024-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141807910","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-07-24DOI: 10.1177/1532673x241263084
Meghan Condon, Amber Wichowsky
Gender gaps in partisanship, vote choice, and opinion are well documented in the American electorate. In 2016, men’s and women’s subjective economic evaluations—of their own circumstances and the broader economy—also diverged considerably. We investigate the size, structure, and explanations of this gap. Drawing on cross-sectional and panel data, we show that the gap widened to historic levels following Trump’s election, driven by increased optimism among white men and decline among women of color. Though partisan and objective economic differences across race-gendered groups contribute, they do not fully explain the widening divide. We hypothesize that Trump’s election altered Americans’ understanding of the socioeconomic hierarchy, producing new divides in subjective status perceptions. Gendered and racialized divides in subjective perceptions combined with partisanship and economic circumstances to re-open the gender gap in economic attitudes.
{"title":"The Size and Structure of the Gender Gap in Economic Evaluations","authors":"Meghan Condon, Amber Wichowsky","doi":"10.1177/1532673x241263084","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x241263084","url":null,"abstract":"Gender gaps in partisanship, vote choice, and opinion are well documented in the American electorate. In 2016, men’s and women’s subjective economic evaluations—of their own circumstances and the broader economy—also diverged considerably. We investigate the size, structure, and explanations of this gap. Drawing on cross-sectional and panel data, we show that the gap widened to historic levels following Trump’s election, driven by increased optimism among white men and decline among women of color. Though partisan and objective economic differences across race-gendered groups contribute, they do not fully explain the widening divide. We hypothesize that Trump’s election altered Americans’ understanding of the socioeconomic hierarchy, producing new divides in subjective status perceptions. Gendered and racialized divides in subjective perceptions combined with partisanship and economic circumstances to re-open the gender gap in economic attitudes.","PeriodicalId":51482,"journal":{"name":"American Politics Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2024-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141809634","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-07-24DOI: 10.1177/1532673x241263079
Lisa P. Argyle, Melanie Freeze
Both in their quantity and their quality, informal political conversations can provide an important bellwether for democratic health. However, not everyone is willing to participate in political conversations in all settings, and systematic imbalances in who chooses not to share political attitudes can distort perceptions of public opinion. Using data from three original surveys, including both observational and experimental analysis, we examine people’s decisions to initiate political discussions using a psychological framework of self-threat and self-affirmation. We find that political conversations pose a higher level of self-threat when disagreement is probable and the relationship with the potential discussion partner is weaker. High levels of self-threat, measured via self-reported anxiety, are associated with a lower willingness to initiate a political conversation. However, self-threat can be counteracted. While it does not reduce the anxiety associated with a threatening situation, self-affirmation increases people’s willingness to initiate a political conversation in higher threat circumstances. This suggests that efforts to find common ground or boost confidence by reflecting on non-political values could increase the pool of people willing to bring up and share their political views.
{"title":"The Role of Self-Threat and Self-Affirmation in Initiation of Political Conversations","authors":"Lisa P. Argyle, Melanie Freeze","doi":"10.1177/1532673x241263079","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x241263079","url":null,"abstract":"Both in their quantity and their quality, informal political conversations can provide an important bellwether for democratic health. However, not everyone is willing to participate in political conversations in all settings, and systematic imbalances in who chooses not to share political attitudes can distort perceptions of public opinion. Using data from three original surveys, including both observational and experimental analysis, we examine people’s decisions to initiate political discussions using a psychological framework of self-threat and self-affirmation. We find that political conversations pose a higher level of self-threat when disagreement is probable and the relationship with the potential discussion partner is weaker. High levels of self-threat, measured via self-reported anxiety, are associated with a lower willingness to initiate a political conversation. However, self-threat can be counteracted. While it does not reduce the anxiety associated with a threatening situation, self-affirmation increases people’s willingness to initiate a political conversation in higher threat circumstances. This suggests that efforts to find common ground or boost confidence by reflecting on non-political values could increase the pool of people willing to bring up and share their political views.","PeriodicalId":51482,"journal":{"name":"American Politics Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2024-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141809791","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-07-19DOI: 10.1177/1532673x241263087
Kara Newby
Rural voters are often portrayed as a monolith of White and conservative, although 22% of the rural population are non-White. Rural minorities, specifically Black rural voters, intersect two potentially competing identities informing political partisanship. First, place: there is a growing geographic schism between rural and urban voters, with rural voters aligning more closely with the Republican party. Second, race: there is a political gap between White and Black voters, with Black voters aligning more closely with the Democratic party. Using data from the 2019 and 2020 ANES Studies I investigate the effects of these intersecting identities on political identification accounting for rural resentment. Rural resentment, or feelings of a loss of political power to urban areas, is found among both White and Black rural voters. For Black rural voters, a strong race identity can buffer the effects of rural resentment, keeping them from pushing toward the Republican party.
{"title":"Race or Place: Partisanship Among Black Rural Voters","authors":"Kara Newby","doi":"10.1177/1532673x241263087","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x241263087","url":null,"abstract":"Rural voters are often portrayed as a monolith of White and conservative, although 22% of the rural population are non-White. Rural minorities, specifically Black rural voters, intersect two potentially competing identities informing political partisanship. First, place: there is a growing geographic schism between rural and urban voters, with rural voters aligning more closely with the Republican party. Second, race: there is a political gap between White and Black voters, with Black voters aligning more closely with the Democratic party. Using data from the 2019 and 2020 ANES Studies I investigate the effects of these intersecting identities on political identification accounting for rural resentment. Rural resentment, or feelings of a loss of political power to urban areas, is found among both White and Black rural voters. For Black rural voters, a strong race identity can buffer the effects of rural resentment, keeping them from pushing toward the Republican party.","PeriodicalId":51482,"journal":{"name":"American Politics Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2024-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141821130","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-07-01DOI: 10.1177/1532673X241236196
Alan Simmons, Nicholas W. Waterbury
The academic debate on how voters decide which candidates to support often centers on whether they prioritize their personal preferences or consider who can beat the opposing candidate. American research on voting behavior has largely focused on first-past-the-post (FPTP) elections. However, considering jurisdictions are adopting new electoral systems such as ranked-choice voting (RCV) this leads to several questions about the impact of system adoption on voter decision-making. Particularly, does the voter decision-making process differ depending on the system used? To investigate the impact of RCV on voter decision-making across electoral systems we conducted a survey experiment in a federal senate election. Our findings indicate that in comparison to FPTP elections, RCV elections may lead to decreases in both sincere and strategic voting. Instead, RCV appears to increase voter uncertainty around how to decide which candidates to support and leads to voters who appear to be neither sincere nor strategic.
{"title":"Sincere, Strategic, or Something Else? The Impact of Ranked-Choice Voting on Voter Decision Making Processes","authors":"Alan Simmons, Nicholas W. Waterbury","doi":"10.1177/1532673X241236196","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X241236196","url":null,"abstract":"The academic debate on how voters decide which candidates to support often centers on whether they prioritize their personal preferences or consider who can beat the opposing candidate. American research on voting behavior has largely focused on first-past-the-post (FPTP) elections. However, considering jurisdictions are adopting new electoral systems such as ranked-choice voting (RCV) this leads to several questions about the impact of system adoption on voter decision-making. Particularly, does the voter decision-making process differ depending on the system used? To investigate the impact of RCV on voter decision-making across electoral systems we conducted a survey experiment in a federal senate election. Our findings indicate that in comparison to FPTP elections, RCV elections may lead to decreases in both sincere and strategic voting. Instead, RCV appears to increase voter uncertainty around how to decide which candidates to support and leads to voters who appear to be neither sincere nor strategic.","PeriodicalId":51482,"journal":{"name":"American Politics Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141714600","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-03-28DOI: 10.1177/1532673x241236198
Justin Michael Zyla
Imagine two incidents of political violence. In the first, you share political affiliation with the victim. In the second, they reside in the opposite party. How would this minor change – a shifting label, the difference of a word – impact your reaction? This article offers empirical insight through an experiment: U.S. participants read a mock college controversy, where a student sent death threats to, and doxed, a professor. The treatment varied whether the perpetrator described the professor as a Democrat, Republican, or used otherwise non-descript (e.g., “political”) adjectives. A posttreatment survey then measured respondents’ discrete emotions, the penalties they preferred the student receive, and their partisan group identity strength. Participants who read about violence against a copartisan victim showed a statistically significant increase in preferred penalty severity. But violence against an outparty victim mirrored the control, with subjects reacting as if they didn’t know the political affiliation of anyone involved. Posttreatment measures also demonstrated the potential for anxiety (but not anger or partisan strength) to mediate this underlying partisan bias.
{"title":"Partisan Bias in Episodes of Political Violence","authors":"Justin Michael Zyla","doi":"10.1177/1532673x241236198","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x241236198","url":null,"abstract":"Imagine two incidents of political violence. In the first, you share political affiliation with the victim. In the second, they reside in the opposite party. How would this minor change – a shifting label, the difference of a word – impact your reaction? This article offers empirical insight through an experiment: U.S. participants read a mock college controversy, where a student sent death threats to, and doxed, a professor. The treatment varied whether the perpetrator described the professor as a Democrat, Republican, or used otherwise non-descript (e.g., “political”) adjectives. A posttreatment survey then measured respondents’ discrete emotions, the penalties they preferred the student receive, and their partisan group identity strength. Participants who read about violence against a copartisan victim showed a statistically significant increase in preferred penalty severity. But violence against an outparty victim mirrored the control, with subjects reacting as if they didn’t know the political affiliation of anyone involved. Posttreatment measures also demonstrated the potential for anxiety (but not anger or partisan strength) to mediate this underlying partisan bias.","PeriodicalId":51482,"journal":{"name":"American Politics Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2024-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140372908","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-03-01DOI: 10.1177/1532673x241236197
Huchen Liu
I explore the potential impact of rulemakers’ professional experience on the efficiency of rulemaking by U.S. federal agencies. I highlight two types of professional experience rulemakers may have—inside experience gathered by working in the federal government, if not the same agency, and outside experience gained before entering the civil service or between stints in government. I discuss several plausible mechanisms through which inside and outside experience may affect rulemaking efficiency. Using data combining rulemakers’ career backgrounds with rulemaking life-cycles from 1999 to 2023, I show that outside experience, and not inside experience, is associated with two measures of rulemaking efficiency: a higher likelihood for proposed rules to be promulgated as final and a lower likelihood of unanticipated events—extensions of public comment periods, other delays to the rulemaking timetable, and the withdrawal of rules already issued.
{"title":"Rulemakers’ Professional Experience and Rulemaking Efficiency in U.S. Federal Agencies","authors":"Huchen Liu","doi":"10.1177/1532673x241236197","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x241236197","url":null,"abstract":"I explore the potential impact of rulemakers’ professional experience on the efficiency of rulemaking by U.S. federal agencies. I highlight two types of professional experience rulemakers may have—inside experience gathered by working in the federal government, if not the same agency, and outside experience gained before entering the civil service or between stints in government. I discuss several plausible mechanisms through which inside and outside experience may affect rulemaking efficiency. Using data combining rulemakers’ career backgrounds with rulemaking life-cycles from 1999 to 2023, I show that outside experience, and not inside experience, is associated with two measures of rulemaking efficiency: a higher likelihood for proposed rules to be promulgated as final and a lower likelihood of unanticipated events—extensions of public comment periods, other delays to the rulemaking timetable, and the withdrawal of rules already issued.","PeriodicalId":51482,"journal":{"name":"American Politics Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140088006","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-02-26DOI: 10.1177/1532673x241230050
Michael McDonald, Enrijeta Shino, Daniel A. Smith, Payton Lussier, Danielle Dietz
How did the pandemic impact turnout of young voters living in university communities? Leveraging the mandatory vacating of Florida college students living on campuses and drawing on administrative data from Florida’s voter file, we argue that on-campus registered young voters who had to leave their university housing in the days prior to Florida’s 2020 Presidential Preference Primary (PPP) were less likely to turn out compared to adjacent off-campus young voters because they lost the opportunity to cast early in-person and Election Day ballots. Using a difference-in-differences (DiD) design, we find that on-campus students, in part because they had early and Election Day voting available to them on campus in the 2020 general election, were more likely than comparable off-campus student-aged registered voters to cast ballots in the November election. Our study has important implications for academic debates concerning the turnout effects of convenience voting reforms and the ability of voters to cast ballots prior to Election Day.
{"title":"Campus Voting During the COVID-19 Pandemic","authors":"Michael McDonald, Enrijeta Shino, Daniel A. Smith, Payton Lussier, Danielle Dietz","doi":"10.1177/1532673x241230050","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x241230050","url":null,"abstract":"How did the pandemic impact turnout of young voters living in university communities? Leveraging the mandatory vacating of Florida college students living on campuses and drawing on administrative data from Florida’s voter file, we argue that on-campus registered young voters who had to leave their university housing in the days prior to Florida’s 2020 Presidential Preference Primary (PPP) were less likely to turn out compared to adjacent off-campus young voters because they lost the opportunity to cast early in-person and Election Day ballots. Using a difference-in-differences (DiD) design, we find that on-campus students, in part because they had early and Election Day voting available to them on campus in the 2020 general election, were more likely than comparable off-campus student-aged registered voters to cast ballots in the November election. Our study has important implications for academic debates concerning the turnout effects of convenience voting reforms and the ability of voters to cast ballots prior to Election Day.","PeriodicalId":51482,"journal":{"name":"American Politics Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2024-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140431137","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-01-24DOI: 10.1177/1532673x241230053
Spencer Kiesel
Religion is on the decline in the United States. Americans increasingly report low religiosity, have less attachment to religion, and a rapidly growing number identify as nonreligious. In Congress, the story is different. While a quarter of the public identifies as nonreligious, only one member of Congress does. Why are the nonreligious vastly underrepresented in government? I use a conjoint candidate choice experiment to causally link religious voters’ bias against nonreligious candidates to reduced support for them in electoral settings. I demonstrate that bias against the nonreligious affects electoral decisions and is causally linked to the exclusion of the nonreligious from government. Furthermore, I show that nonreligious voters only exhibit in-group support for candidates who explicitly identify as Atheists, not agnostic or candidates that merely lack a religious identity.
{"title":"Non-Religious Identity Salience for Candidate Choice","authors":"Spencer Kiesel","doi":"10.1177/1532673x241230053","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x241230053","url":null,"abstract":"Religion is on the decline in the United States. Americans increasingly report low religiosity, have less attachment to religion, and a rapidly growing number identify as nonreligious. In Congress, the story is different. While a quarter of the public identifies as nonreligious, only one member of Congress does. Why are the nonreligious vastly underrepresented in government? I use a conjoint candidate choice experiment to causally link religious voters’ bias against nonreligious candidates to reduced support for them in electoral settings. I demonstrate that bias against the nonreligious affects electoral decisions and is causally linked to the exclusion of the nonreligious from government. Furthermore, I show that nonreligious voters only exhibit in-group support for candidates who explicitly identify as Atheists, not agnostic or candidates that merely lack a religious identity.","PeriodicalId":51482,"journal":{"name":"American Politics Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2024-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139599874","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","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：