I work at the intersection of several different subfields: public opinion and political psychology, representation and elite behavior, gender and identity politics, and survey and experimental design. In my current research, I am primarily motivated by three overarching questions:
1) how do citizens and politicians experience and evaluate political representation?
2) how do partisan and social identities shape political representation? and
3) what influences underrepresented segments of the electorate to get involved in politics?
"More Women Candidates: The Effects of Increased Women’s Presence on Political Ambition, Efficacy, and Vote Choice." (accepted) American Politics Research (with Isabel Wallace, Dartmouth '21)
The effect of women in politics is vitally important for the study of representation, yet evidence is mixed on the extent to which women’s presence influences individuals’ symbolic attitudes and behaviors. We use a priming survey experiment to examine how information about increased women candidates in the U.S. affects political ambition, efficacy, and future support for women candidates. We present several different patterns across gender and partisanship. Republicans report higher political ambition after hearing about more women candidates, even when those women are running for the opposite party. Men had higher political efficacy in response to more same-party women running, but not opposite-party women. Importantly, our evidence does not support the widespread notion that women’s presence positively influences women’s political efficacy or likelihood to vote for female candidates. The findings highlight the importance of considering the effects of women’s presence not only for the group that is assumed to benefit.
"Ideology, Not Affect: What Americans Want From Political Representation." 2021. American Journal of Political Science.
How do citizens want to be represented by elected officials in an era of affective polarization? Contemporary narratives about American politics argue that people embrace elite expressions of negative partisanship, above and beyond representation on policy. Using three conjoint experiments, I examine how individuals weigh the relative value of substantive representation on issues, constituency service, and partisan affect. The findings challenge the notion that Americans are primarily motivated by their affective, partisan identities and demonstrate the value of policy congruence and service responsiveness in terms of perceptions of political representation. The implication is that people evaluate elected officials in ways that we would expect them to in a healthy, functioning representative democracy, rather than one characterized by partisan animus. Even if polarization is driven by "affect, not ideology," citizens prioritize representational styles centered around the issues that matter to them.
"How Partisanship and Sexism Influences Voters' Reactions to #MeToo Scandals." 2020. Research and Politics. (with students in my Experiments in Politics course)
Influential theories of motivated reasoning, as well as real-world anecdotal examples, would suggest that voters do not always penalize legislators from their own party for alleged immoral behavior, such as sexual harassment. But very little empirical evidence exists on how voters react to sexual misconduct allegations, especially since the start of the #MeToo movement. We examine how partisanship and sexist attitudes shape individuals' reactions to sexual harassment allegations about a politician. Using a pretest–posttest online experiment, we randomize both the party affiliation of the accused legislator as well as the severity of the allegations. Overall, we find some evidence of partisan bias, but that there may be a limit. Subjects were more forgiving of an accused co-partisan legislator than a legislator of the opposing party in their overall evaluation and their perceptions of punitive repercussions, but their levels of electoral support decreased just as much for co-partisans as they did for opposing partisans. Importantly, these reactions are strongly conditioned by sexism; as subjects' levels of sexism increase, the otherwise large and negative effect of allegations on evaluations of favorability and electoral support disappears.
"He Said, She Said: The Gender Double Bind in Legislator-Constituent Communication." 2020. Politics & Gender.
Citizens hold gender-specific stereotypes about women in political office, yet scholars disagree on whether these stereotypes lead to a "double bind" in which female legislators are held to higher standards than male legislators. Two survey experiments reveal how citizen evaluations of elite responsiveness to constituent mail are conditioned by gender and sexist attitudes. The findings suggest that a double bind does exist in legislator–constituent communication, even among people who have positive views of women. For instance, although the least sexist respondents favor communication from female legislators regardless of the quality of communication, they also punish women, but not men, for taking longer to respond to constituent mail. Male legislators are also more likely to be rewarded for being friendly as respondents' sexism increases, but female legislators do not enjoy the same advantage, likely due to gender stereotypes and expectations regarding women's behavior.
"Citizen Evaluations of Legislator-Constituent Communication." 2020. British Journal of Political Science.
Legislator-constituent communication is a cornerstone of most representative democracies; it is the most direct way citizens can access their elected officials, and legislators devote a significant amount of time and resources toward constituency service. A substantial body of research has therefore examined inequalities in elite responsiveness to constituent communication. However, we know very little about how citizens experience and evaluate this communication. I conduct three tests to examine how individuals evaluate legislative responsiveness to constituency service requests. Across the three tests, I find that simply using a friendly tone –e.g. greeting the constituent by name– significantly improves citizen evaluations, whereas there are mixed results regarding the substantive content of the communication, such as whether legislators actually answer constituents' requests. Overall, the findings help the field advance towards an "industry standard" measure of legislative responsiveness to constituent communication.
"Family Ties? The Impact of Fathering Daughters on Congressional Behavior." 2019. American Politics Research. (with Jill Greenlee, Tatishe Nteta, Jesse Rhodes, Elizabeth Sharrow.)
Scholars have long suggested that familial life can affect political behavior and, more recently, have found that fathering daughters leads men to adopt more liberal positions on gender equality policies. However, few have focused on the impact of fathering a daughter on congressional behavior, particularly in an era of heightened partisan polarization. Using an original data set of familial information, we examine whether fathering a daughter influences male legislators' (a) roll call and cosponsorship support for women's issues in the 110th to 114th Congresses and (b) cosponsorship of bills introduced by female legislators in the 110th Congress. We find that once party affiliation is taken into account, having a daughter neither predicts support for women's issues nor cosponsorship of bills sponsored by women. Our findings suggest there are limits to the direct effects of parenting daughters on men's political behavior, and that scholars should remain attentive to institutional and partisan contexts.
"Public Comments' Influence on Science Use in U.S. Rulemaking: The Case of EPA's National Emission Standards." 2019. American Review of Public Administration. (with Bruce Desmarais and John Hird)
Scholarship on bureaucratic policymaking has long focused on both the use of expertise and public accountability. However, few have considered the degree to which public input affects the use of research in U.S. regulatory impact analyses (RIAs). We examine changes in the research that is cited in RIAs in response to public comments to assess the influence of participation on the use of information for rulemaking. We conduct an in-depth analysis of comments on a major proposed U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule to determine whether regulators alter the evidence used based on public input and whether some types of commenters have more influence than others. We analyze the text similarity of comments to scientific research utilized in the RIAs to determine whether regulators iteratively update their rule justification based on scientific information referenced in comments. We find support for seminal subgovernment theories about the relationship between business interests, Congress, and the bureaucracy; in relation to all kinds of commenters, members of Congress and industry groups had the strongest effect on changes in the research used in the RIAs. The article provides one of the first statistical analyses of science exchange between the public and a bureaucratic agency.
"Walking the Walk? The Effect of Pledging to Vote on Youth Turnout." 2018. PLoS ONE 13(5): e0197066. (with Brian Schaffner and Alicia Prevost)
Psychological theories of political behavior suggest that commitments to perform a certain action can significantly increase the likelihood of such action, but this has rarely been tested in an experimental context. Does pledging to vote increase turnout? In cooperation with the Environmental Defense Fund during the 2016 election, we conduct the first randomized controlled trials testing whether young people who pledge to vote are more likely to turn out than those who are contacted using standard Get-Out-the-Vote materials. Overall, pledging to vote increased voter turnout by 3.7 points among all subjects and 5.6 points for people who had never voted before. These findings lend support for theories of commitment and have practical implications for mobilization efforts aimed at expanding the electorate.
"How Gender Conditions the way Citizens Evaluate and Engage with their Representatives." 2018. Political Research Quarterly 71(1): 46-58. (with Brian Schaffner)
Scholars argue that women's presence in politics enhances symbolic representation, such as positive evaluations of one's representative and increased political engagement. However, there is little empirical evidence of these symbolic benefits from descriptive representation. With data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study panel survey, we examine how a change in the gender of a representative affects individuals' perceptions of that representative and likelihood to contact them. In general, we find that women express more positive evaluations of female representatives than male representatives, yet they are also less likely to contact female representatives. By contrast, the effect of an elected official's gender does not significantly affect how men evaluate or engage with that official. However, we also show that partisanship conditions these effects, perhaps due to the fact that gender stereotypes operate differently for Democrats than Republicans. For example, women rate female Republican legislators more positively than they do male Republican legislators, but neither women nor men rate Democratic legislators differently based on their gender. The findings provide strong evidence that gender matters when it comes to representation, but contrary to some conventional wisdom, female elected officials may actually enjoy some advantages in terms of their standing among constituents.
"How Responsive are Political Elites? A Meta-Analysis of Experiments on Public Officials. " 2017. Journal of Experimental Political Science 4(3): 241-254.
In the past decade, the body of research using experimental approaches to investigate the responsiveness of elected officials has grown exponentially. Given this explosion of work, a systematic assessment of these studies is needed not only to take stock of what we have learned so far about democratic responsiveness, but also to inform the design of future studies. In this article, I conduct the first meta-analysis of all experiments that examine elite responsiveness to constituent communication. I find that racial/ethnic minorities and messages sent to elected officials (as opposed to non-elected) are significantly less likely to receive a response. A qualitative review of the literature further suggests that some of these inequalities in responsiveness are driven by personal biases of public officials, rather than strategic, electoral considerations. The findings of this study provide important qualifications and context to prominent individual studies in the field.
"Rethinking Representation from a Communal Perspective. "2017. Political Behavior 40(2): 301-320. (with Kaylee Johnson and Brian Schaffner)
Most foundational theories of congressional representation were developed during an era of less polarized and less partisan politics. These theories viewed the incumbency advantage as buttressed by the fact that some constituents were willing to support legislators from the opposite party because of their "home styles." But in an era of policy immoderation in Congress, this perspective leads to an assumption that citizens evaluate their members of Congress based on what those legislators do for them individually, rather than what they do for their districts more broadly. In this paper, we ask whether citizens take the interests of their fellow constituents into account when evaluating their members of Congress. Using both survey data and an experiment, we uncover support for the notion that citizens take a more communal view of representation as at least part of their evaluations of their representatives. This suggests individuals may have a more nuanced understanding of representation than purely self-interested approaches tend to assume.
"Science Use in Regulatory Impact Analysis: The Effect of Political Attention and Controversy. " 2016. Review of Policy Research 33(3): 251-269. (with Bruce Desmarais and John Hird)
Scholars, policy makers, and research sponsors have long sought to understand the conditions under which scientific research is used in the policy-making process. Recent research has identified a resource that can be used to trace the use of science across time and many policy domains. U.S. federal agencies are mandated by executive order to justify all economically significant regulations by regulatory impact analyses (RIAs), in which they present evidence of the scientific underpinnings and consequences of the proposed rule. To gain new insight into when and how regulators invoke science in their policy justifications, we ask: does the political attention and controversy surrounding a regulation affect the extent to which science is utilized in RIAs? We examine scientific citation activity in all 101 economically significant RIAs from 2008 to 2012 and evaluate the effects of attention—from the public, policy elites, and the media—on the degree of science use in RIAs. Our main finding is that regulators draw more heavily on scientific research when justifying rules subject to a high degree of attention from outside actors. These findings suggest that scientific research plays an important role in the justification of regulations, especially those that are highly salient to the public and other policy actors.