Seeing Speed Clearly: Relative Risk and Public Support for Automated Enforcement

Can a racial justice frame help overcome opposition to automated traffic enforcement?

Nearly 50% of U.S. highway–rail crossing accidents occur at public crossings equipped with automated warning devices, of which 78% are passive and 22% have active warning systems. This is a disproportionate amount of accidents occurring at active sites. The use of photo enforcement at public highway–rail grade crossings became a focal point for study. This technology observes and records driver and pedestrian behavior, as driver behavior is at the root of the crossing safety problem. Judicial concerns and public perception and support levels are also issues of concern. Photo enforcement is an option to assist law enforcement to increase safety at public crossings. While some privacy issues remain, this system can be a reliable, cost-effective way to discourage unsafe driver behavior. Today, 75 countries use traffic cameras. Internationally, photo enforcement has been in use for more than 20 years. Experience has shown that visible, high-profile law-enforcement programs like photo enforcement reduce the number of highway–rail crossing violations. Photo enforcement at six highway–rail crossings across the United States showed positive results in reducing violations. The results of investigations at the six sites indicated a reduction of violations in the range of 34% to 92%. Implementing the technology to detect a violator is one aspect of reducing violations; persuading police and civil officials to adapt enforcement programs is another.

Attributes affecting preferences for traffic safety camera programs

Three Essays on the Political Economy of Corporate Bailouts

Can constitutional court decisions shape public opinion on a governmental policy? Previous studies have focused on the US Supreme Court, which enjoys a high degree of public support as the major resource of power for courts. In this study, we examine the extent to which courts can influence public opinion regarding a government bill at European courts. First, we argue that the public support for courts also allows them to move public opinion on policies into the direction of their decisions. This works in both directions: they can confer legitimacy to a policy that they support, but they can also de‐legitimize a policy that they oppose. Second, we argue that this mechanism strongly depends on the amount of support that a court receives. It only has an effect for courts that possess a higher institutional legitimacy and among the group of citizens trusting a court.We test our arguments by combining a most different systems design for France and Germany with a survey priming experiment on a school security bill. France and Germany are selected for a most different systems design as they exhibit different institutional designs as well as different levels of support for the court at the aggregate level. The survey experiment is implemented within large national election surveys, the German Internet Panel and the French National Election Study. Both experiments contain more than 2,600 respondents each. Our survey experiment primes for decision outcomes and different institutions to understand whether there are differences between an institution supporting and opposing a policy and between a court and alternative institutions.Our findings confirm that with higher public support, courts can move the opinion of citizens to both legitimize and de‐legitimize a policy. This effect can be found at the aggregate level for a court enjoying higher public support, but also at the individual level for respondents with higher trust in the court. Interestingly, courts can even move the opinion of citizens with strong prior attitudes in the opposite direction, if these citizens highly trust the court.These findings have implications beyond the study itself. First, they confirm that the legitimacy‐conferring effect can also be observed for European courts, not only for the US Supreme Court. Second, they show that the relevance of a mechanism identified for a single case, like the US Supreme Court, might only hold for specific conditions. As public support for courts strongly varies across countries in Europe, we also expect the impact of any mechanism relying on public support to strongly vary, as we can observe in our own analysis.

There has been extensive research into the extent to which voters utilise short cuts based on gender and race stereotypes when evaluating candidates, but relatively little is known about how they respond to other background characteristics. We compare the impact of candidates' sex, religion, age, education, occupation and location/residence through a survey experiment in which respondents rate two candidates based on short biographies. We find small differences in the ratings of candidates in response to sex, religion, age and education cues but more sizeable effects are apparent for the candidate's occupation and place of residence. Even once we introduce a control for political party into our experimental scenarios the effect of candidate's place of residence continues to have a sizeable impact on candidate evaluations. Our research suggests that students of electoral behaviour should pay attention to a wider range of candidate cues.

Global vaccine prices that are tiered across countries, equitable for poorer countries, and profitable for manufacturers (TEP) can promote global vaccine equity but its implementation may require political will and public support in rich countries. A survey experiment with a demographically representative sample of US adults was conducted between April and May 2021 to investigate public support for TEP and the likelihood of collective agreement on TEP relative to alternative global vaccine pricing strategies. The experiment varied vaccine cost and provision of information about the importance of equity and profitability considerations in global vaccine pricing across eight treatment conditions. TEP of low-cost vaccines received less support than TEP of high-cost vaccines, but TEP received more public support than any alternative pricing strategy. Information about equity and profitability considerations increased support for TEP of low-cost vaccines. TEP was also the most likely pricing strategy to achieve collective agreement among participants across all treatments.

The role of framing in public support for direct air capture: A moral hazard survey experiment in the United States

Does hostility affect public support for the provision of global public goods among competing neighboring countries? A survey experiment in Northeast Asia

To what extent does the public support the use of cyber weapons? We propose that public exposure to the destructive potential of cyber-attacks will dispel the clear cross-national preference for cyber strikes. To test this, we conducted two survey experiments (n = 2,585) that examine support for cyber versus conventional military strikes in the United States, United Kingdom, and Israel. In study 1, we exposed respondents to television news reports depicting various forms of terror attacks, and then measured the subsequent support for retaliatory options. Findings indicate that the high public support for deploying cyber weapons dissipated entirely among respondents exposed to lethal cyber-attacks. In study 2, we probed this vanishing support, finding that exposure to destructive cyber-attacks undercuts the perception of cyber as a less lethal domain, therefore diminishing its appeal. We conclude by discussing how the fragile public preference for cyber weapons encourages military escalation in the short-term.

This article investigates the effect of gender equality frames on public support for economic relief policies in the context of the Covid‐19 pandemic and economic crisis. Data stem from a survey experiment conducted in the German‐speaking part of Switzerland during Summer 2021. In the survey, a representative sample of the population was asked to read descriptive texts randomly using gender equality or universal frames about two different economic relief policies, before rating the policies. Results show that gender equality frames do not have a significant effect on public support for the economic relief policies during the crisis. This paper solidifies previous findings regarding emergency settings and public policy support by showing that a crisis setting strongly increases public policy support.

Under what conditions do mass publics support military aid abroad? Specifically, does the American public support extending or ending military aid to a state’s military differently from extending or ending military aid to a non-state armed group? I propose that a statist bias underpins the American public’s attitudes on military aid. I argue that the public prefers the US government develop and maintain ties to state militaries over non-state armed groups and posit a number of instrumental assumptions about these actors that could drive this preference. Namely, because the public considers states more responsible, accountable, and capable actors than non-state armed groups, individuals are more likely to support providing state militaries than non-state armed groups with military aid, but also are more likely to oppose the removal of that aid from states while seeing aid to non-state armed actors as more expendable. I find support for this statist bias in two survey experiments on samples of the American public run in December 2019 and June 2020. A statist bias matters for a variety of dynamics in international security, from secrecy in foreign policy, to audience costs, to ways rival states might be constrained by their publics in competing with one another on the world stage.

Environmental managers face major challenges related to project implementation and communicating the significance of those projects to the public. Effective communication can mitigate public opposition or increase support for specific projects and increase public and political support for environmental management more generally. In this study, we evaluate which types of benefits or losses environmental managers should communicate and how to frame those attributes to achieve greater public support. To do so, we field a survey experiment that presents the benefits of an invasive species management project, utilizing a two (economic, ecological) by two (gain, loss) factorial design as well as a control message. Ecological messages lead to significantly more support for invasive species management than economic messages, and loss frames are more effective than gain frames. We also find that treatment responses differ across several covariates including political ideology and environmentalism. These results indicate that the public is more concerned with managing invasive species for intrinsic environmental worth than economic benefit and that preventing further environmental degradation is more motivating than promoting additional environmental gains.

Do teachers have accurate beliefs about their effort and ability? This paper explores this through a survey experiment in public-private partnership schools in Uganda, wherein teacher self-beliefs are contrasted with their beliefs about other teachers in the same school. The study finds that, on average, teachers tend to rate ability, effort, and job satisfaction more positively for themselves than for other teachers. This tendency is called high relative self-regard. The study finds no systematic evidence of high relative self-regard around perceptions of student engagement quality and available support structures. More experienced teachers are less likely to exhibit high relative self-regard, while teachers showing low effort are more likely to exhibit it. This is analogous to the Dunning-Kruger effect in psychology, except respondents rate themselves as better than most (not better than average) and variation is explored over effort (not cognitive ability). High relative self-regard is less pronounced in owner-managed public-private partnership schools, suggesting that when principle-agent problems are less severe, schools find ways to correct for inaccurate teacher self-beliefs. These results provide suggestive evidence of cognitive biases that help teachers rationalize suboptimal effort in the classroom. This in turn points to the importance of providing objective feedback to teachers about their effort and performance as one potential way to improve their performance. Teacher self-beliefs are important areas of intervention because they are likely to affect how teachers optimize their effort and training investments. Self-beliefs are also likely to affect how teachers respond to changes in incentive and accountability regimes.

Do teachers have accurate beliefs about their effort and ability? This paper explores this through a survey experiment in public-private partnership schools in Uganda, wherein teacher self-beliefs are contrasted with their beliefs about other teachers in the same school. The study finds that, on average, teachers tend to rate ability, effort, and job satisfaction more positively for themselves than for other teachers. This tendency is called high relative self-regard. The study finds no systematic evidence of high relative self-regard around perceptions of student engagement quality and available support structures. More experienced teachers are less likely to exhibit high relative self-regard, while teachers showing low effort are more likely to exhibit it. This is analogous to the Dunning-Kruger effect in psychology, except respondents rate themselves as better than most (not better than average) and variation is explored over effort (not cognitive ability). High relative self-regard is less pronounced in owner-managed public-private partnership schools, suggesting that when principle-agent problems are less severe, schools find ways to correct for inaccurate teacher self-beliefs. These results provide suggestive evidence of cognitive biases that help teachers rationalize suboptimal effort in the classroom. This in turn points to the importance of providing objective feedback to teachers about their effort and performance as one potential way to improve their performance. Teacher self-beliefs are important areas of intervention because they are likely to affect how teachers optimize their effort and training investments. Self-beliefs are also likely to affect how teachers respond to changes in incentive and accountability regimes.