Trauma & Politics

Marsh, Wayde Z. C. Forthcoming. “No One Mourns the Wicked: Partisan Hatred Persisting through Tragedy” Journal of Experimental Political Science.

Abstract: Who do we blame when bad things happen? Has division in American society made us less sympathetic to victims of tragedies? In previous trying times (e.g. 9/11 and Columbine), Americans rallied together to support victims and seek government solutions. In a highly polarized era, however, we have witnessed further division rather than unity. In this paper, I leverage original, pre-registered survey experiments to examine how much Americans blame and sympathize with someone who has tragically died from COVID-19. The studies find consistent evidence that partisans blame victims who held an anti-vaccine perspective, regardless of partisanship. Less consistent evidence suggests that Democrats also blame victims who were Republican, but less than they do victims who held anti-vaccination views. Further, partisans are less sympathetic when the victim was anti-vaccine, but Democrats and Republicans are also less sympathetic when the person who died was an outpartisan. These results indicate that animosity towards outpartisans persists even through tragedy, but demonstrates limits to affective partisan polarization paired with evidence of rational blame and sympathy responses.
Replication: Available soon.

Marsh, Wayde Z. C. 2023. “Trauma & Turnout: The Political Consequences of Traumatic Events.” American Political Science Review 117(3): 1036-1052. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055422001010

Abstract: How do traumatic experiences shape individuals’ political behavior? Political scientists have investigated the behavioral changes caused by natural disasters and terrorist attacks, but no work to date has investigated the political consequences of such events using the framework of psychological trauma. In this study, I develop a theory of posttraumatic political response that explains how traumatic events influence voter turnout. To test this theory, I identify the effects of three different types of traumatic events: Black church arson attacks, mass shootings, and natural disasters. I find that a traumatic event decreases turnout in the next presidential election by 0.5–3.7 percentage points, but Black social identity conditions this effect—church arsons and Hurricane Katrina mobilize Black voters. Finally, I find that closer temporal proximity to an election increases the likelihood of a mobilizing effect.
Replication: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/MXKMSE

“Trust after Tragedy: How Traumatic Events Structure Post-Traumatic Trust in Government” (revise & resubmit at Political Behavior)

Abstract: Social psychological studies find that traumatic events can have significant impacts on individuals’ trust in others, but do these effects extend to trust in political institutions? Further, are these relationships the same across different groups of Americans? Previous research finds that posttraumatic stress responses lead to a decrease in interpersonal trust, while posttraumatic growth may lead to increased trust in some individuals or groups. In an era in which traumatic events are increasingly politicized and polarized, do these patterns of trust and distrust extend to trust in levels of government? Using original survey data, I find that the psychological effects of trauma exposure manifest in divergent levels of trust in local, state, and federal governments. I use novel, validated abbreviated short-form scales of posttraumatic stress and growth to measure these dynamics. PTS responses are associated with more trust in the federal government, less trust in other people, and lower likelihood of voting while PTG is associated with more trust in the state and local governments as well as in other people and higher likelihood of voting.
Replication: Available soon.

“Acts of God and Acts of Man: The Mainstreaming and Polarizing Effects of Executive Rhetoric after Natural and Anthropogenic Disasters.” (in preparation)

Abstract: In the wake of mass tragedies, Americans expect a governmental response from executives (presidents, governors, and mayors). These political elites are best situated to organize and implement a response to help communities recover and rebuild after a response, but they are also uniquely positioned to hold important press conferences. Mass tragedies historically cause a rally ’round the flag effect that boosts approval of such executives, but an increasingly polarized political environment may be reshaping such effects. Further, constraints imposed on executives by party activists may cause executives to use such events as opportunities to make electoral rather than policy gains by polarizing and blaming. Using a series of original survey experiments, I find that while symbolic and unifying rhetorical strategies do not depolarize the electorate, they are the expected norm with voters of a governor’s own and opposing parties prepared to punish a governor for using a mass tragedy to polarize and shift blame. Effects are different for natural tragedies (an earthquake) and anthropogenic tragedies (a mass shooting), with punishment for polarizing more severe in response to a natural disaster. This has important implications for understanding how executives should best respond for their own electoral best interests in a highly polarized environment with constraints pressuring them to polarize.
Replication: Available soon.

“Trauma and Resilience: Political Behavior Among Survivors of the 2013 Boston Marathon Bombing” with Bernard Fraga (in preparation)

Abstract: What are the effects of mass tragedies on individual political behavior? Previous research on experiencing terrorist attacks, natural disasters, and mass shootings provides inconclusive answers about these events’ influence on behavior. One such terrorist attack that is likely to have impacted political behavior is the 2013 Boston Marathon Bombing. In particular, a Special Senate election just weeks after the attack as well as later general and special elections allow us to test the long- and short-term influence of attacks on political behavior among survivors. We investigate the effect of the 2013 Boston Marathon Bombing on turnout among runners and non-runners, combining Massachusetts voter history files and Boston Marathon race results from 2010-2019. We then find that running in the 2013 Marathon predicts increased turnout in the 2013 Special Senate election when controlling for past turnout, but in later elections there is no unique impact of running in 2013 versus Marathons prior to the bombing. These findings demonstrate that despite the demobilizing effects of traumatic events on voters, survivors of this terrorist attack are more likely to turn out to vote immediately after traumatic events. 
Replication: Available soon.

Polarization

Voelkel, Jan G., Michael N. Stagnaro, James Chu,…Wayde Z. C. Marsh,…James Druckman, David Rand, Robb Willer. 2024. “Megastudy testing 25 treatments to reduce anti-democratic attitudes and partisan animosity.” Science 386 (6719). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adh4764

Abstract: Scholars and the public have raised concerns about the recent erosion of US democratic values, which has been exacerbated by hostility between rival political groups (partisan animosity) and acceptance of violent or nondemocratic styles of political engagement (antidemocratic attitudes). Voelkel et al. conducted large-scale field experiments with 25 interventions designed to decrease American partisan animosity and antidemocratic attitudes (see the Policy Forum by Nyhan and Titiunik). Most interventions reduced partisan animosity when they established common ground among partisans. However, reducing partisan animosity did not necessarily decrease support for political violence or nondemocratic practices. Therefore, partisan animosity may be more conceptually distinct than previously thought.

Marsh, Wayde Z. C. and Jordan Carr Peterson. Forthcoming. “Public Perceptions of Corporate Position-Taking on Abortion and Transgender Rights.” The Journal of Politics.

Abstract: Corporations regularly express their preferences on questions of public policy. This can occur through a range of means that include costly actions like lobbying public officials to support one policy or another, contributing money to candidates for elected office whose preferences seem congruent with the firm’s, and engaging in litigation to challenge policies already enacted. One less costly way of expressing policy preferences for corporations is issuing statements of support for or in opposition to a given law, policy, or government practice. In this article, we examine public perceptions of corporate position-taking to determine the partisan dimensions of how the mass public evaluates corporate expressions of policy preferences on divisive “Culture War” issues. Specifically, we use three original survey experiments to examine how partisanship influences individuals’ preferences regarding corporate position taking on abortion and transgender rights. We find that while corporate position-taking on abortion rights and transgender sports legislation shifts mass opinion on the role of corporations in politics, such expressions of corporate preferences do not change individual attitudes on the underlying policy questions themselves. In an age during which large firms play an increasingly influential role in the construction of public policy, this article sheds light on how corporate messages of support for certain policies related to polarizing social issues are consumed in the mass public.
Replication: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/DCENGS

Marsh, Wayde Z. C. 2023. “The Devil You Know? Decreasing Negative Outparty Affect Through Asymmetric Partisan Thinking.” Public Opinion Quarterly 87 (1): 170-186. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfad009

Abstract: Political scientists, party elites, and journalists agree that affective polarization and negative partisanship are serious problems in American politics, but is it possible to reverse this trend and decrease negative outparty affect? Using two original survey experiments that manipulate partisans to think of the Republican and Democratic parties in either expressive or instrumental terms, I find that providing policy information about the parties decreases Republicans’ negative affect toward Democrats, while providing party coalition information decreases Democrats’ negative affect toward Republicans. Neither type of information, however, causes a significant change in inparty affect. This paper provides evidence, therefore, that an asymmetric informational intervention can decrease negative outparty affect, with important implications for an affectively polarized America.

Religion & Politics

Campbell, David E., Geoffrey C. Layman, and Wayde Z.C. Marsh. 2024. “Will Americans Vote for an Atheist?” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. https://doi.org/10.1111/jssr.12940 

Abstract: Conventional wisdom holds and previous research confirms that for a political candidate, atheism is anathema. But the United States is becoming a more secular nation. Does secularization mean that atheists are acceptable to some Americans, specifically Democrats and voters with low religiosity? Can concerns about atheists be assuaged by appealing to the superordinate identity of “patriotic American”? Drawing on four survey experiments, we find that Democrats are more supportive of an atheist, Republicans less—producing a null effect overall. Furthermore, voters’ reactions to an atheist are not driven by the office, but are shaped by both their partisanship and religiosity. Voters’ negative attitudes are partially assuaged by framing an atheist as a patriotic war hero. As the secular population grows in the United States, it seems likely that atheists will emerge as candidates for elected office. Our data suggest that, contrary to conventional wisdom, atheist candidates are potentially electable.

Marsh, Wayde Z. C. 2021. “Putting US First: How Outgroup Hostilities and Defense of the Status Quo Motivate White Evangelical Affect Toward Candidates in U.S. Elections 2004-2016.” American Politics Research 49(5): 534-547. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1532673X211021852 

Abstract: How do voters construct feelings toward inparty elites? More specifically, how do they do so when they lack a shared policy agenda or shared salient social identity with candidates beyond partisan identification? In this paper, I investigate this puzzle by developing a theory of Putting America First to explain white evangelical affect toward Republican presidential candidates from 2004 to 2016. Using ANES surveys from 2004 to 2016, I test the effectiveness of this model of candidate affect. I find that shared outgroup hostility, what I call Putting Us First, motivates positive affect for presidential candidates among white evangelicals, regardless of shared policy objectives and descriptive representation. Overtime, white evangelicals’ affect is driven by outgroup hostilities rather than Culture Wars values. Overall, this informs our understanding of voter affect toward candidates and the increasingly important role of social outgroup hostility in defense of the status quo.

Race, Ethnicity, & Immigration Politics

Marsh, Wayde Z. C. and Ricardo Ramírez. 2019. “Unlinking Fate? Discrimination, Group-consciousness, and Political Participation among Latinos and Whites.” Politics, Groups, and Identities 7(3): 625-641. https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2019.16387

Abstract: Twenty-five years after its publication, Michael Dawson’s Behind the Mule remains a monograph of great theoretical and empirical value. In the wake of the election of the first nonwhite president of the United States in 2008 and primed racial-ethnic threat throughout the 2016 election and Trump presidency, however, Dawson’s theory requires deeper reflection and reconsideration. In this paper, we investigate the political relevance of racial-ethnic group-consciousness among Latinos and Whites. We demonstrate the dynamic nature of solidaridad among Latinos and linked anxiety among Whites as well as the complex connections each has to both personal experiences of and perceptions of racial-ethnic group discrimination and to political participation. We find that solidaridad and linked anxiety are differently rooted in experiences and perceptions of discrimination, but that connections between solidaridad and linked anxiety and participation are weaker.

“Re-Examining the Effectiveness of Perspective-Taking Interventions in Increasing Inclusionary Attitudes and Behavior towards Immigrants” with James Fahey

Abstract: Widespread anti-immigrant attitudes pose a threat to liberal democracy.
Existing work finds that light-touch perspective-taking techniques are effective at reducing such attitudes. This registered report proposes a critique, replication, and extension of two such high-profile pieces, making three primary contributions. First, we show that an in-depth examination of the studies reveals findings more accurately described as mixed to null rather than universally positive and significant. We hypothesize that this pattern is due to selective hypothesis reporting, where significant results are prioritized over null findings in published manuscripts. We find substantial evidence of this pattern. Second, we propose directly replicating both studies in a high-powered experiment. We extend these findings through a more comprehensive battery of variables measuring respondents’ attitudes and behaviors toward immigrants. Finally, we employ a causal random forest to identify possible heterogeneous treatment effects, thus maximizing the benefits of confirmatory and exploratory analyses.
Replication: Available soon.

“Language-of-Interviewer and Item Non-Response in Latino Public Opinion” with Ricardo Ramírez (work in progress)

Abstract: Coming soon…

Representation & Local Political Economy

“Elections and Representations in American Municipal Administration” with Michael P. Olson, Andrew Reeves, and Jordan Duffin Wong (revise & resubmit at Political Research Quarterly)

Abstract: Does electing or appointing public officials affect how they represent their constituents? Municipal clerks in the New England states provide an ideal setting to explore these questions, as they are essential government actors, serve in full-service local governments with few overlapping jurisdictions, and vary selection methods. We conduct an original online and mail survey of municipal clerks in five New England states. Our findings suggest elected clerks are more public service-oriented and attentive to constituent concerns, but there is little difference in substantive ideological, partisan, or policy representation between selection methods. Our analysis provides clear evidence of the relationship between the extensive margin of elections and representation, providing a model for future exploration of additional offices and dimensions of representation.
Replication: Available soon.

“Circumscribed Representation and Political Legitimacy in the U.S. Territories” with David Brooks Ebner and Jordan Carr Peterson (in preparation)

Abstract:This project seeks to expand our collective understanding of political incorporation in the non-state territories of the United States. While there is a capacious amount of research examining political attitudes, political behavior, and political incorporation among the fifty states, far fewer scholarly resources have been devoted to exploring these topics in the United States territories. Interrogating the operation of democratic processes in non-state territories is important because we currently lack a full understanding of both (a) how residents in the territories feel about federal governing institutions and (b) how individuals in the mainland United States, Alaska, and Hawaiʻi feel about the territories, their residents, and their station in the polity. Thus, we propose measuring the dynamics of political inequality in the U.S. territories that stems from the differentiated citizenship of territorial residents. In particular, we seek to analyze the relationship between this unequal status and attitudes among territorial residents toward the federal governing regime on the mainland, as well as attitudes among U.S. citizens and others in the states toward the territories and their residents.