Interdisciplinary Workshops on Politics and Policy

2018-2019 Series

September October November December January
February March April May Past

November

Interdisciplinary Workshop on Politics and Policy

November 28, 2018
Stuart Soroka (Univ. Of Michigan)

December

Interdisciplinary Workshop on Politics and Policy

December 5, 2018
Hans Hassell (Cornell College)
Note location for this talk: 1430 ISR

January

Interdisciplinary Workshop on Politics and Policy

January 10, 2019
Amanda Robinson (Ohio State University)

February

Interdisciplinary Workshop on Politics and Policy

February 13, 2019
Sergio Garcia-Rios (Cornell University)

April

Miller Converse Lecture

April 11, 2019, 4:00 pm to 5:30 pm
Diana Mutz (Stanford Univ.)
1430 ISR

Interdisciplinary Workshop on Politics and Policy

April 17, 2019
Christina Wolbrecht (University of Notre Dame)

Interdisciplinary Workshop on Politics and Policy

April 25, 2019
Chris Dawes (New York Univ.)

 

 

Past Events in this series

September

From Pews to Politics in Africa and Beyond

September 26, 2018
Rachel Beatty Riedl (Northwestern University)

Abstract  
There is a popular view that religious teachings motivate political participation, but much political science scholarship hesitates to attribute causal influence to religious teachings. The dissonance between these two perspectives presents a puzzle. Do religious teachings influence political engagement? To what extent, and to what end? Examining contemporary Christian sermons in sub-Saharan Africa, we argue that exposure to religious teachings can shape political engagement, even when those teachings are not explicitly political. In the context we examine, religious teachings provide metaphysical instruction about the causal logics of the spiritual and physical worlds and about the possibilities for change. We find that exposure to such teachings can influence both whether people engage in politics and also how they do so: for instance, whether they seek political change through individual transformation or through structural reform. We also argue that links between religious world views and political behavior, rather than necessarily being deep-seated and immovable, can be short-term (even detectable in the lab) and exploited for those short-term effects or reactivated through frequent exposure. The project leverages experimental results, survey data, focus groups, and case studies from across sub-Saharan Africa. The findings challenge us to pay greater attention to the episodic, content-dependent influence of religious teachings on political behavior, and to religious teachings as part of a larger class of metaphysical messages that can shape citizens’ approaches to politics.

October

Risk or Retribution: How Citizens Respond to Terrorism

October 3, 2018
Carly Wayne (Univ. of Michigan)

Abstract  
Despite the widespread assumption regarding terrorism’s “terrifying” effect, there has been little systematic testing of the factors that make terrorism so emotionally and politically powerful. This hinders our understanding of the strategic considerations undergirding militants’ use of this tactic and our ability to address public health in the wake of terrorist violence. In this paper, I employ three survey experiments to examine the psychological mechanisms motivating the public’s political responses to terrorism. I find that the predominant emotional response to terrorism is anger rather than fear, and this drives support for retributive violence. Indeed, increased support for military retaliation in the wake of terror attacks is driven by those citizens who feel the least personally threatened by terrorist violence but the most morally outraged. These results belie the predominant narrative of the public’s terror and overestimation of personal risk in the wake of terrorist violence and suggest that vengeance may be a more powerful driver of citizens’ responses to this type of militant violence. This work thus provides insight into a major puzzle in the terrorism literature — why terrorists rarely receive concessions from states, but often provoke strong military responses — and has important implications for undermining the efficacy of terrorism as a tool of political violence.

Political Tolerance and the 2017 Charlottesville, VA Protests: the Asymmetrical Role of Racial Resentment

October 10, 2018
Monika McDermott (Fordham Univ.)

Abstract  
Existing studies of political tolerance -- defined as allowing public airing of views from those with whom one disagrees -- pay little attention to the realities of group tolerance in America, most frequently focusing on hypothetical situations. In addition, little attention is given to racial effects despite a frequent focus on the Ku Klux Klan as a tolerance target. My research addresses these gaps through an experimental survey measuring tolerance for the Black Lives Matter movement and white nationalist movements involved in the violent Charlottesville, VA protests in 2017, and the role of racial resentment in individuals' willingness to tolerate these two groups.

The Local Dead in U.S. Civil War & Post-war Elections

October 17, 2018
Nathan Kalmoe (Louisiana State Univ.)

Abstract  
The Civil War slaughtered Americans on a scale unmatched by any conflict before or since, fundamentally transforming the nation and its politics. As the extent of death grew several times greater than other U.S. wars, how did voters respond when offered the choice to sustain or extinguish the war at the ballot box—and in elections over the decades that followed? Leveraging records from over one million individual Union soldiers in 15 loyal states linked to election results in their home counties, I find local casualties hurt vote shares for Lincoln and his fellow Republicans in pre-war Democratic areas but not in Republican strongholds. The scale of these local dead ensured electoral effects that endured through Reconstruction and into the 20th century, leaving a lasting mark on local political culture. This work challenges previous scholarship on wartime opinion and Civil War history with new evidence from America’s most consequential and costly conflict. It fits within a book project on partisan persistence & polarization that illuminates the tangled relationship between partisanship and violence in the Civil War era, with broader implications for partisan conflict at other times and in other places.

Split Feelings: Understanding how Political Message Influence Implicit and Explicit Attitudes

October 31, 2018
Timothy Ryan (Univ. of North Carolina – Chapel Hill)

Abstract  
Existing literature on campaign advertising has long suggested that people respond not only to the substantive content of an advertisement, but also its emotional content. Cues such as music, images and colors, research suggests, are important because they can alter an individual’s affective response to the ad and these affective changes may, in turn, influence their stated feelings about a candidate. This line of argument rests on the idea that ads not only change individuals’ explicit attitudes about a candidate but also their implicit attitudes. In this paper, we use psychological theories as a foundation to consider the conditions under which campaign stimuli differentially affect implicit and explicit attitudes. We do so through two pre-registered studies which track how shifts in the emotional content of ads affect both, explicit and implicit attitudes. Our work suggests that while there are means of differentiating between stimuli that affect implicit attitudes and those that move explicit attitudes, previous psychological models that differentiate between these attitude types may not be easily translatable to political contexts.

November

Election 2018: A Round Table Discussion

November 1, 2018, 4:00 pm to 5:30 pm
Ashley Jardina (Duke University)
Stuart Soroka (University of Michigan)
Brendan Nyhan, (University of Michigan)
6050 ISR
Click here to read about the round table and view the recording. Election Round Table

What Policymakers Want From Us Revisited: Preliminary Results From a Follow-up Survey

November 7, 2018
Michael Desch (Univ. of Notre Dame)

Abstract  

In 2014, Avey and Desch reported the results of a unique survey of current and former policymakers intended to gauge when and how they use academic social science to inform national security decision making. They found that policymakers do regularly follow academic social science research and scholarship on national security affairs, hoping to draw upon its substantive expertise. But their results also called into question the direct relevance to policymakers of the most scientific approaches to international relations. Their piece has subsequently generated much discussion and in an effort to further explore what policymakers want from academic social science Avey and Desch teamed up with the TRIP project at the College of William and Mary to survey a broader spectrum of U.S. foreign policy policymakers and endeavored to deepen the pool of respondents to include a younger and otherwise more diverse set of views on what policymakers want from academics. This talk will report some initial top-line results from this follow-up survey.

Election 2018: What Happened?

November 13, 2018, 4:00 pm to 5:30 pm
Ken Goldstein (University of San Francisco)
Walter Mebane (University of Michigan)
Vince Hutchings (University of Michigan)
1430 ISR
Click here to view the recording. Election Round Table

Unorthodox Lawmaking and Legislator Productivity

November 14, 2018
Jessica Preece (Brigham Young University)

Abstract  

Legislators can create law via three mechanisms: (1) traditional bill sponsorship, (2) bill amendments, and (3) unorthodox lawmaking--such as incorporating language into omnibus legislation or in conference committee. We measure a legislator's lawmaking success in each of these areas by creating a productivity metric at both the chamber and congressional level for members of the 103-114th Congresses. In addition to including commonly used data on bill sponsorship/passage, we incorporate data on amendment sponsorship/passage and a measure of unorthodox bill influence that builds on Wilkerson et al. (2015)’s bill text reuse method. We combine achievements from each of the three lawmaking mechanisms to create our Lawmaking Productivity Metric (LawProM). We find that a significant portion of lawmaking happens through amendments and unorthodox bill influence--and is therefore ignored by traditional measures of legislative effectiveness. Members of the minority party are especially likely to legislate through amendments and unorthodox bill influence.

 

Resources

All workshops take place on Wednesdays from noon-1:30pm in 6080 ISR-Thompson*

Unless otherwise noted all presentations are brown bag lunch.

*please note room change from previous years.

Past Series

2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008