Representative Survey Experiment Research Articles

Getting the message right: what are the impacts of counter-serious and organised crime awareness-raising strategies?

Abstract Counter-serious and organised crime (SOC) strategies often include an awareness-raising element. Such messaging aims to build support for counter-SOC efforts, and intolerance for organised criminal activity. However, a growing body of research suggests that raising awareness to ‘social bads’ like SOC may risk backfiring by encouraging pessimistic attitudes about whether they can be controlled and could even nudge people to agree with populist narratives which argue that political outsiders represent the only hope for tackling systemic problems. A nationally representative survey experiment in Albania was conducted to test, for the first time, the impact of messages about SOC. Typical of counter-SOC messaging in practice, the first message emphasised the harms SOC causes. The second was more positive, highlighting high levels of social disapproval of SOC, a theme that social norms research suggests may be effective. We find that the first message backfires by reducing confidence in law enforcement and encouraging support for populist ideas. The second message is unexpectedly found to also encourage support for a populist sentiment, while having no positive impact on attitudes about law enforcement. This suggests that even positive messaging about ‘social bads’ can risk triggering unwanted responses.

The effect of experts on attitude change in public-facing political science: Scientific communication on term limits in the United States.

How can scientists best inform the public and change attitudes? Does the message or the messenger matter more? We test the effect of scientific expert messengers and messages in a preregistered, nationally representative survey experiment in the United States. Consistent with our hypotheses, scientists can move public attitudes in areas where knowledge is based on a non-ideological misperception to a greater extent than the same science-based message from another source. Although we focus on political science as a field and Congressional term limits in the United States as a topic area, our findings have broader implications for science communication with policymaking relevance given the persistence of misperceptions among the public across all natural and social science research fields.

Influencing People’s Populist Attitudes With Rhetoric and Emotions: An Online Experiment in the United States

Interest in populist voters has risen with the election of Donald Trump in the United States, the rise of right-wing populist parties in Europe, and the longevity of populist leaders in countries like Italy, Hungary, Turkey, and Venezuela. Yet, little attention has been given to what mechanisms may affect populist attitudes, leaving us without recommendations for media or politicians on how to mitigate populism’s known negative effects. This study investigates one such mechanism—political rhetoric working through emotional states—to determine whether grievances centered on subjective perceptions of injustice and inequities in the system operate through negative emotions to increase populist attitudes, as is often assumed in the literature, and whether an antidote to those perceptions may be found in a sense of solidarity and mutual support. For our analysis, we conducted a nationally representative online survey experiment of 2,006 respondents in the United States in November 2018. Broadly, we find evidence that negative emotional states increase populist attitudes, but positive emotions do not have an impact. Likewise, political rhetoric reinforcing a sense of unfair advantage for some people further increases populist attitudes. Importantly, we find that reducing these negative emotions by emphasizing solidarity can reduce populist attitudes. These findings not only deepen our understanding of the triggers of populism, but also take the first step in building a tested toolbox of strategies to minimize its negative effects.

How do citizens define and value the rule of law? A conjoint experiment in Germany and Poland

ABSTRACT Democratic and rule of law backsliding are observed worldwide, but in Europe these tendencies are particularly salient as they endanger the entire European Union's cohesion. Poland, along with Hungary, has for years been perceived as a member state where the rule of law was in alarming decline. We attempt to understand what enabled this backsliding and to what extent differences in public perception of the rule of law can shed light on this issue. Specifically, we ask whether in Poland, as compared to Germany, the public values the rule of law less and whether it has a different understanding of what the rule of law is. Differences in appreciation of the rule of law could explain why it has been under threat in Poland, which otherwise successfully transitioned to a market economy. Interestingly, our quota representative conjoint survey experiments suggest that Germans and Poles value and define the rule of law very similarly. We show that the rule of law is valued much less by respondents who support populist parties and those who are less educated and more religious. Differences in valuation of the rule of law are determined by personal characteristics, rather than general differences between the two countries.

Why do Citizens Criminalize Migrants? Experimental Evidence from a Multi-Role Country, Mexico

Every year, millions of immigrants arrive in countries that play multiple roles: they expel them, receive them, or shelter them. Sometimes, citizens welcome immigrants with open arms. Other times, they perceive them as potential criminals. Surprisingly, there is little research on the determinants of criminalization in multi-role countries. In this article, we analyze the results from a nationally representative survey experiment where we investigate how two sources of variation (the skin tone and national origin of others) bias citizens’ willingness to blame suspects for crime. We find that individuals criminalize suspects more when they have a darker skin tone and, against expectations, less when they come from El Salvador. Moreover, in exploratory analyses, we find that coloristic bias is exacerbated among individuals with lower levels of education and, surprisingly, among those with a darker skin tone. Also interesting is that we found that, against contact theory, anti-American bias is stronger among Mexicans with direct or indirect cross-national contact. Our results highlight the various degrees to which migratory contexts influence public opinion.

A representative survey experiment of motivated climate change denial

A representative survey experiment of motivated climate change denial

Information Provision and Support for Inheritance Taxation: Evidence from a Representative Survey Experiment in Germany

Information Provision and Support for Inheritance Taxation: Evidence from a Representative Survey Experiment in Germany

Information Provision and Support for Inheritance Taxation: Evidence from a Representative Survey Experiment in Germany

Information Provision and Support for Inheritance Taxation: Evidence from a Representative Survey Experiment in Germany

Information Provision and Support for Inheritance Taxation: Evidence from a Representative Survey Experiment in Germany

Information Provision and Support for Inheritance Taxation: Evidence from a Representative Survey Experiment in Germany

The times they are a‐changin': An experimental assessment of the causes and consequences of sudden policy U‐turns

AbstractPast research has long documented that voters dislike parties and leaders who reverse their policy positions. But would they tolerate (principled) policy U‐turns if they are motivated by external events, such as a large‐scale crisis or scientific evidence? In this study, we explore whether the motivation behind positional shifts affects voter evaluations of political parties. To do so, we seek to connect the causes and consequences of policy shifts, a synergy still unexplored in the literature. We suggest that, while U‐turns, in general, can be damaging to a party's reputation, principled changes brought about by new scientific evidence or major crises should not necessarily have negative implications, because these changes can be necessary for the public good. We conducted a nationally representative survey experiment in Germany (n = 3127) featuring two classes of policy reversals: strategic and principled. Surprisingly, however, we find that voters by and large hold negative views of different types of policy U‐turns, thus including when external circumstances suggest change may be necessary. Interestingly, our empirical analysis reveals intriguing patterns. First, voters are willing to tolerate all sorts of policy reversals if the party ends up adopting their positions, suggesting that proximity matters even in the event of exogenous events. Second, voters with high levels of political trust tolerate different types of policy reversals, even when the party changes for mere strategic office‐seeking motivations. Coming from the premise that political and societal change is imperative, these findings have direct implications for democracies.

Biased beliefs about immigration and economic concerns: Evidence from representative experiments

We investigate the causal relationship between biased beliefs about immigrants and the host country's attitudes towards immigration. Using representative survey experiments with over 7000 respondents, we find substantial biases in respondents' beliefs about the immigrant population in several domains. Exposure to different types of information about immigrants reduces concerns about negative effects of immigration on the welfare state. On the contrary, different types of information offset their effects on concerns about increased competition in the labor market. Using a data-driven approach to uncover systematic heterogeneity in treatment effects, we find that prior beliefs about immigration and their distribution in the host country's population are crucial for the effectiveness of information interventions. We conclude that different distributions of beliefs therefore require appropriately targeted information policies.

Emotional researchers or emotional audiences? The effect of emotions in climate change communication

How should researchers communicate about (politicized) risks, such as climate change? Some argue that researchers should express more emotions to emphasize the seriousness of the climate issue and persuade the public to act. However, there is still a lack of research on the consequences of emotion expressions in research communication. In the current study, we investigated people's evaluations of climate researchers described as being angry or sad when communicating about climate change and whether the effects depend on the researcher's gender. Our results, based on a nationally representative survey experiment (Study 1, N = 2046), showed no significant interaction effects between the researchers' gender and emotion expression nor any main effects of gender. However, we did find that information provided by angry researchers was less trusted than information provided by researchers described as expressing sadness or no emotion. Researchers described as angry were further taken less seriously compared to researchers who did not express emotions. Still, the effects were very small and were not replicated in a follow-up study (Study 2, N = 1219). In Study 1, we also considered the respondents' own climate emotions. Those reporting stronger anger or sadness both took the researcher more seriously and had higher trust in the provided information. The effects of the respondents' own emotions were far larger than those of the emotion expressed by the researchers. We found no interaction effects for emotion similarity between the researcher and the respondent with regards to taking the researcher seriously. However, those reporting no sadness or low to moderate levels of anger had higher trust in information provided by non-emotional as compared to sad or angry researchers, respectively.

The legitimacy of land use decisions by public authorities in the Netherlands: Results from a survey experiment

Because of the ever-growing scarcity of land, decisions on land use are increasingly contested. Public authorities and policy makers rely on the legitimacy of their powers to make these decisions. This contribution empirically tests three legitimacy claims commonly used by public officials. We compare the political claim of representation of the public interest with the participative claim of co-decision and the judicial claim of neutrality and general legal norms applied equally to all. Our representative survey experiment (N = 1501) tests these claims in the context of land use decisions in the Netherlands. It appears that the participative and the judicial claim produce substantially more public legitimacy than the political claim of representing the public interest. Both co-decision and judicialization of decision-making can thus be effective ways to secure legitimacy of land use decisions.

Shifting partisan public opinion towards Community Choice Aggregation through outreach and awareness.

Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) is a rapidly expanding electricity supply model in the United States. By enabling local governments to obtain electricity for their residents, CCAs have the potential to increase the use of renewable energy while lowering costs. Recent studies have focused on how CCAs will impact renewable energy markets, since at least five more states are currently considering CCA-enabling legislation. However, little research has been done on partisan attitudes towards CCAs or how to shift public opinion to support the continued expansion of CCAs. We use a nationally representative survey experiment of 1,862 respondents to evaluate outreach and awareness campaigns by nonprofit and government organizations seeking to expand CCAs. We find that most Americans are currently unfamiliar with CCAs, but exposing them to educational outreach information increases their support for CCAs at the state, local, and personal levels. Furthermore, this information is equally effective at increasing support among both Democrats and Republicans, despite partisan polarization on renewable energy. However, this information did not significantly affect respondents' price sensitivity with regard to CCAs. Our results suggest that outreach and awareness campaigns can be effective at increasing support for CCA among both Democrats and Republicans.

Does moral rhetoric fuel or reduce divides between parties and non-copartisan voters?

Political parties at times use moral appeals to voters outside of their support base, i.e., non-copartisan voters. Yet, morality is typically considered a divisive force in politics. Does moral rhetoric actually alleviate or exacerbate divides between parties and non-copartisan voters? The paper addresses this question by focusing on non-copartisans’ attitudes towards the party. Insights from previous work on moral persuasion and attitudinal bias suggest a conflicting picture. On the one hand, moral rhetoric is likely to make morally aligned non-copartisans more favourable towards the party. On the other hand, moral rhetoric is unlikely to make even the morally aligned favourable towards the party. In fact, moral rhetoric may further push away non-copartisans with pre-existing hostility. Using original, representative survey experiments from Britain, the paper finds that moral rhetoric can increase favourable attitudes and that it does not further promote hostility. Morality in party competition does not necessarily fuel division.

The Fragile Male: An Experimental Study of Transgender Classification and the Durability of Gender Categories

Is maleness as durable a social classification as femaleness? Theories of gender suggest that men’s dominance in the gender hierarchy affords them greater privileges than women, whereas theories of status predict that men would be subject to greater scrutiny precisely because they occupy a higher-status position. We interrogate the nature of gender categories themselves by examining which theories hold in the context of gender nonconformity. Using a nationally representative survey experiment, we examine how a child’s sex assigned at birth affects their likelihood of being reclassified as transgender for engaging in gender-nonconforming behavior. We find that people are more likely to reclassify boys exhibiting feminine behavior into an alternative identity category (transgender) than girls exhibiting analogous masculine behavior. Thus, membership in the “male” category is more fragile than in the “female” category. These findings suggest that gender nonconformity is itself a gendered process, and that the durability of membership in a social category depends on the status of that social identity. This study provides the first causal evidence of the effect of gender nonconformity on perceptions of both transgender and homosexual identity.

Regulators as Guardians of Trust? The Contingent and Modest Positive Effect of Targeted Transparency on Citizen Trust in Regulated Sectors

Abstract Targeted transparency has become an essential tool for regulation. Through information disclosure, regulatory agencies try to get regulated companies to improve their practices and comply with regulations. In the past, regulation was associated with distrust in regulated sectors. Recent research suggests that regulation, especially targeted transparency, may also increase citizen trust in regulated sectors. However, empirical evidence on whether transparency as a regulatory tool undermines or decreases trust in a sector is lacking. We contribute to this debate by investigating the effect of targeted transparency on citizen trust through a large-scale representative survey experiment (n = 5,303). We used 12 transparency frames in three regulated domains in the Netherlands (consumer rights, healthcare safety, and nuclear plant safety). Our findings suggest that, in general, targeted transparency does not undermine trust, but has a positive effect on trust in regulated sectors. However, this effect is small and contextual, depending on the regulatory domain and type of transparency frame.

The Many Faces of Credibility: Hawks, Doves, and Nuclear Disarmament

The conventional wisdom in international relations holds that an actor’s past record of keeping her word determines her cooperative credibility, and that mutual perceptions of credibility are essential in sustaining cooperation. Yet competing reputation-skeptic and psychological perspectives dispute this conventional wisdom, suggesting that assessments of cooperative credibility result from observers’ judgments about the other’s capabilities and interests or observers’ foreign policy orientations. How do observers assess others’ cooperative credibility? We field a nationally representative survey experiment asking 2,953 Americans to evaluate a hypothetical coercer’s commitment to lift sanctions on a would-be proliferator in exchange for the latter dismantling its nascent nuclear program. We vary the coercer’s previous behavior plus several other contextual factors. We find that respondents’ hawkishness interacts with the coercer’s past actions to shape respondents’ credibility assessments and their support for the proliferator accepting the proposal, with substantial implications for theories of misperception and bargaining.

Experimental Evidence of the Benefits and Risks of Credit Claiming and Pork Busting

As appropriations earmarks return to Congress, every legislator faces a decision: pursue or refuse congressionally mandated federal spending projects. This decision is likely influenced by public messaging concerns. We theorize that both credit claiming for federal projects and position taking against spending projects (“pork busting”) can benefit legislators as they look to improve future electoral returns. We field a nationally representative survey experiment to estimate the effect of credit‐claiming and pork‐busting messages on the perceived effectiveness, fiscal responsibility, and overall approval of an unnamed member of Congress. We find that respondents are likely to penalize the representative's approval assessment when presented with an out‐party message strategy. Conversely, respondents are likely to increase the representative's personal trait assessments when presented with an in‐party message strategy. We expand on these results in an additional analysis and find that these trends persist when controlling for other partisan and demographic factors. We discuss our results in light of traditional expectations, potential mechanisms, and future directions for related research.

"Deservingness" and Public Support for Universal Public Goods: A Survey Experiment.

Voters support less spending on means-tested entitlements when they perceive beneficiaries as lacking motivation to work and pay taxes. Yet do concerns about the motivations of "undeserving" beneficiaries also extend to universal public goods (UPGs) that are free and available to all citizens? Lower spending on UPGs poses a particular trade-off: it lessens subsidization of "unmotivated" beneficiaries, but at the expense of reducing the ideal levels of UPGs that voters personally can access. Studies suggest that individuals will sacrifice their preferred amounts of public goods when beneficiaries who do not pay taxes try to access these goods, but it is unclear whether they distinguish based on motivations. To analyze this question, we field a nationally representative survey experiment in the UK that randomly activates some respondents to think about users of the country's universal National Health Service as either "motivated" or "unmotivated" noncontributors. Although effect sizes were modest and spending preferences remained high across the board, results show that respondents support less spending on the NHS when activated to think of users as "unmotivated" noncontributors. These findings suggest how the deservingness heuristic may shape public attitudes toward government spending, regardless of whether benefits are targeted or universal.