Political Research Quarterly

How do messages from political elites interact with individual traits of citizens to spur intergroup aggression? Building on research in social psychology, we expect that in places of protracted conflict, violent rhetoric from elites will be enough to mobilize antagonism toward an outgroup, especially among those who are generally less apt to be hostile toward the outgroup. We present results from two large survey experiments, the first conducted with young Jewish-Israeli adults across Israel and the second with a nationally diverse sample of adults in India. The results show that mild “fighting” words (e.g. “battle,” “fight”), combined with a reference to the outgroup, provoke significantly greater support for policies that harm the outgroup among some citizens. This effect is largest among individuals low in outgroup prejudice and low in aggressive personality traits, people who are usually less inclined to support policies that hurt the outgroup. Effects of violent rhetoric persist even with policies and rhetoric to help the outgroup. This work highlights the importance of considering both individual traits and contextual factors together to understand their full impact in the study of intergroup conflict.

The direct initiative process, often referred to as a gun behind the door, provides an incentive for legislators to pass legislation more in line with voters’ wishes. Concomitantly, legislative procedures such as the filibuster and executive veto often impede the ability of the legislature to pass policies. We explore the tension between these two forces by incorporating legislative procedures and initiative proposal into a spatial model of the policymaking process. We find that the ability to propose initiatives sometimes breaks legislative gridlock, but that other times pivotal players may prefer the initiative outcome and therefore prevent the legislature from preempting a ballot measure. In particular, we show that initiative use increases with the distance between pivotal actors and the median voter. An empirical analysis of initiative use in the American states provides support for this prediction.

By situating contemporary food movements within a larger history of dietary advice, this study demonstrates both that diet has long been an important topic in Western political thought and that eating, not just speaking, voting, and legislating, is an important political act. Three distinct discursive formations have shaped the history of Western dietetics. Historians have already described two, the humoral and nutritionist traditions. I contend that a third discourse, eco-dietetics, emerged in the mid-twentieth century in the form of fresh, local, organic, and “Slow” food movements. Dietetic discourses can be distinguished by their conceptualizations of the body, healthy food, moral eating, and authoritative knowledge about aliment. Just as humoral and nutritionist dietetics, respectively, created knowledge of humors and nutrients, eco-dietetics has created a new object of knowledge: the effects of eating on the environment. But eco-dietetics contains two distinct variants, one agrarian, the other corporate, and the failure to distinguish between them has obscured the radical political potential of agrarian eco-dietetics, leading some critics to argue that it represents a disguised endorsement of neoliberalism. Agrarian eco-dietetics, however, challenges rather than bolsters neoliberalism by prioritizing food that is pleasurable rather than profitable and grown rather than purchased by the eater.

Members of Congress (MCs) are concerned about reelection and act in office with this goal in mind. Whether citizens notice this behavior and how they respond remains an open question. We examine the relationships between legislators’ characteristics and activity and their constituents’ evaluations of their performance in office. We argue that MCs’ behavior does filter down to citizens, but that their responses are conditioned by their partisanship and interest in politics. Our analyses combine 2006 and 2008 Cooperative Congressional Election Study survey data on citizens with information on legislators’ activity in office in the 109th and 110th Congresses. The results reveal that there are widespread linkages between MC behavior and constituency approval, but that legislators’ copartisan, outpartisan, and independent constituents respond in different, yet predictable, ways. Moreover, these effects are strongest among the most interested constituents. Our findings have important implications for our assessments of legislators’ strategies and constituency representation.

A growing literature demonstrates that “unearned income”—such as that which stems from natural resources—stabilizes authoritarian regimes. In this paper, we refine this argument to emphasize not just the volume of these rents but also their diversity and the extent to which they can act as substitutes for one another. Specifically, a greater number of distinct sources of rents, and a more equitable distribution among them, provide an important hedge against any sudden change in the ability of autocracies to capture these rents and should lead to more stable regimes. We use a procedure from the literature on market concentration to develop a single measure, termed rent diversification, which captures these characteristics. We then use this new measure in a quantitative analysis examining the likelihood of regime failure. Our findings provide strong evidence that autocracies with more diversified rent portfolios are much less likely to collapse.

Previous research suggests that women’s descriptive representation may have a role-model effect on young women, encouraging them to greater levels of political participation. Using data from the Monitoring the Future Survey and the National Survey of Political and Civic Engagement of Young People, we examine whether highly visible female role models like Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and Sarah Palin, and viable female candidates for governor and senator had a role-model effect on young women. At the national level, we find some evidence of a role-model effect resulting from the election of Speaker Pelosi and the presidential candidacy of Hillary Clinton, but the effects are largely concentrated among young women who are Democratic and liberal. We find little evidence that Sarah Palin’s vice-presidential run had a role-model effect on young women, regardless of party or ideology. Our state-level analysis of viable female gubernatorial and senatorial candidates finds that role-model effects on young women and men are mediated in different ways by ideology and, to a lesser extent, party.

Does electing female political leaders reduce gender stereotypes about leadership? Scholars know little about how the increasing presence of female executives alters gender stereotypes about political leadership. Some studies suggest gender stereotypes change slowly because they are embedded in cultural values and structural factors that reinforce traditional gender roles. Other research suggests stereotypes change more quickly with the increasing presence of female political leadership. We address this question by examining the effect of being governed by a female mayor in Mexico. We find that the presence of a current female mayor reduces gender stereotypes among males. However, past female mayors have little effect on current gender stereotypes about leadership. Our results suggest women must be present in executive offices more frequently to produce long-term change in gender stereotypes.

When does Congress repeal laws enacted by prior generations? Although the substantial body of work on policy creation provides tentative explanations, we believe repeals represent an alternative way of examining the effects of congressional organization on legislative behavior. In this paper, we develop hypotheses based on both the conditional nature of party power and the location of pivot points, and test these hypotheses with a new data set of repeals from 1877 to 2012. We find that the largest effects on Congress’s capacity to repeal legislation are variation in the majority’s positive agenda control and shifts in the gridlock interval. We also find that when the majority claims control of both chambers after a long stretch in the minority, there is an increased likelihood of repeal beyond what is predicted by conditional party government alone. Because the partisan factors in our model have the largest substantive effects, and because repeals do not occur automatically in productive Congresses, we characterize repeals as long-term contests between two great “teams” over the location of the status quo.

Religion has increasingly become important in conflicts worldwide. Religious leaders may play a key role in mobilizing believers as they can call for peace or instigate violence. But what makes religious leaders support peace or promote violence? Drawing on a survey poll of 102 religious leaders in Juba, South Sudan, this paper represents virtually the first attempt to study the correlates of pro-violence opinions of religious elites in a more quantitative manner in a developing country. The paper analyzes when and why some religious leaders support faith-based violence while others do not. Employing a unique combination of innovative measures, our results have many implications for mobilization processes. We find that leaders’ support for faith-based violence is largely independent of individual demographic or personal determinants but is closely related to religious attitudes. Tolerance toward other faiths and secularism reduce pro-violence attitudes. Muslims seem to be more ready to support faith-based violence, probably given their minority status and other peculiarities of Islam in (South) Sudan. Surprisingly, interreligious activities do not reduce support for violence but increase appreciation for peaceful protest. Generally, determinants of peaceful protest substantially differ, suggesting that any support for violence follows its own distinct logic.

For candidates and voters alike, U.S. politics is a gendered space in which women are often underrepresented. Participation from women is assumed to equalize representation and voice in the political process; however, little research has explored gender influence on campaign agendas, particularly in non-news contexts. This study applies a quantitative content analysis to explore the influence of (1) candidate gender, (2) journalist gender, and (3) voter gender on the presidential debate agenda. In examining the issue focus of debate questions, we find that participation from women candidates and women journalists does little to improve agenda diversity and that the agendas set by women journalists fail to satisfy the issue priorities of women voters participating in these same debates.

Scholars of political parties and elections around the globe have devoted extensive study toward understanding how party polarization affects the criteria voters use to determine their party preferences in elections. In American politics, previous empirical research suggests that congressional job performance ratings do not affect public attitudes toward parties and therefore have no significant ramifications for the electoral fortunes of parties. Building on the existing literature from American and comparative traditions, I demonstrate that congressional performance evaluations can be important for American parties and elections, but this depends on the extent of party polarization in Congress. First, when congressional parties are more distinct, congressional performance evaluations have a greater effect on the relative favorability of the majority party brand: when citizens like how Congress is performing under the leadership of the majority party, this boosts the favorability of that party overall. Second, because partisan polarization increases the effect of congressional performance evaluations on party brand favorability, partisan polarization also increases the role played by congressional performance evaluations in a variety of elections outside of Congress. These results inform our understanding of public opinion, parties, and elections, both in the U.S. and from a comparative perspective.

Many scholars have offered explanations as to why women are underrepresented at all levels of government. Conventional wisdom states that fewer women are in public office due to lower ambition, and that the presence of gendered perceptions among women considering elected office contributes to women’s disinterest in the political arena. Using original survey data, this article expands the theory of gendered perceptions to current state-level appointed officeholders to explain their levels of interest in pursuing higher public office. The results indicate that gendered perceptions affect the progressive ambitions of appointees; like studies of ambition in elected officials, this study of appointed officials finds that women are generally less ambitious, and unlike studies of ambition in elected officials, this study of appointed officials finds that women with higher self-assessments are less ambitious rather than more.

Campaigns invoke identity appeals to specific groups of voters, including women. To understand whether these campaign appeals matter in affecting voters’ choices, we must better understand how women respond to these appeals, the causal mechanism driving responses, and whether male and female candidates can use these ads with equal effectiveness. Using a nationally representative sample of American voters and an experimental design, we test an identity-based appeal aimed at women. We find that, although candidates of either gender can use these ads to affect women’s votes, only female candidates are able to prime female voters’ gender identity. The use of these appeals by male candidates persuades female voters of their positive traits. Male voters are generally unaffected by the appeals. Given the integration of women and men in the general population, our results demonstrate the utility of targeted appeals in encouraging support from a specific group and avoiding backlash from others.

While many scholars argue that ethnicity drives voting behavior in Africa, recent quantitative work finds government performance also matters. But under what conditions do Africans use ethnicity or performance to inform their vote? We argue that the importance of ethnicity and performance is conditional on whether voters evaluate co-ethnics and incumbent candidates. We hypothesize co-ethnic voters will coordinate and form blocs, whereas non-co-ethnics are more likely to divide their support between candidates. We also hypothesize that while incumbent performance matters to all voters independent of ethnicity, citizens will forgive their co-ethnic incumbent’s poor performance. Tests using data from a nationwide exit poll we conducted during Kenya’s 2007 national election strongly support our hypotheses. Our results are robust to analyses concerning the potentially confounding relationship between ethnicity and performance.

Voters face difficult choices in local elections, where information about candidates is scarce and party labels often do not distinguish candidates’ ideological positions. Can voters choose candidates who represent them ideologically in these contexts? To address this question, we conduct original surveys that ask candidates in the 2011 mayoral election in San Francisco to take positions on local policy issues. We ask voters their positions on these same policy issues on a written exit poll. We use these policy positions to construct comparable measures of candidate and voter ideology (i.e., ideal points). Within the exit poll, we experimentally manipulate cues to examine their effects on voters’ candidate preferences. We observe a strong, positive relationship between voter ideology and the ideology of the candidates they choose in the election. However, our experiments show that endorsements from political parties and newspapers with ideological reputations weaken this relationship. These findings challenge the view of local elections as nonideological and demonstrate that spatial voting theory can be usefully applied to local settings. They also indicate that voters may not treat political party and newspaper endorsements as signals of candidates’ ideological positions, but rather as nonideological signals of partisan affinity or candidate quality/viability.

Smith, Jeff. 2015. “Passion or Dollars? How Mobilization Can Spoil the Mother’s Milk of Politics.” Political Research Quarterly 68 (2): 253–65. Original doi:10.1177/1065912915578920.