Political Behavior

Political Behavior

@polbehavior.bsky.social

An interdisciplinary journal associated with the EPOVB section of @APSA.bsky.social. Edited by Chris Karpowitz & Jessica Preece, @BYU https://www.springer.com/journal/11109

1.8K followers74 following143 posts

What explains opposition to teaching about racism in higher education? Using survey experiments, Thal examines the factors shaping White Republicans' views, finding that concerns about the value of college explain only part of the opposition. Read more: link.springer.com/article/10.1...

link.springer.comThe Causes of Opposition to Teaching About Racism - Political BehaviorThere is an ongoing effort to prevent professors from teaching about racism. Such restrictions are sometimes justified by pointing to concerns that are seemingly not about race, including the need to ...

📈 Excited to share that Political Behavior’s Impact Factor climbed to 3.5 in 2025 (up from 3.3), keeping us a Q1 journal in Political Science. Thank you to our incredible community of authors and reviewers! 🎉 #PoliSci #AcademicTwitter

How powerful are nationalist symbols? Work by O’Brochta & Cunha Silva shows that subtle language cues matter in political context. In Serbia, politicians use Cyrillic to signal nationalism, and these cues make politicians seem more nationalist. Read more: link.springer.com/article/10.1...

link.springer.comLanguage Cues and Perceptions of Nationalism - Political BehaviorHow do people respond to symbols related to nationalism, and does having political context matter? We argue that nationalist symbols influence perceptions when in a political context. Leveraging that ...

Can seeing the “other side” differently heal division? Myers & Hvidsten find that meeting counter-stereotypical partisans reduces bias and improves feelings toward the out-party. #PoliticalBehavior #AffectivePolarization Read more: link.springer.com/article/10.1...

link.springer.comDo Fans Make Poor Referees? Exploring Citizens’ Reactions to Partisan Gamesmanship - Political BehaviorPolitical (as opposed to professional) election oversight is one area in which the U.S. scores extremely low in measures of election integrity. Meanwhile, rancorous political battles to determine acceptable election procedures and judge when tactics cross the line have become common events. Our work contributes to recent scholarship investigating whether voters prioritize democratic principles or strategically favor electoral procedures that provide partisan advantage. In two survey experiments, we confirm that Americans’ attitudes about antidemocratic election tactics reveal more about which team they are cheering for than they do about whether the tactics are fraudulent. The tendency to engage in partisan motivated reasoning occurs among all partisans, but there are subtle differences as to when citizens will engage in it. Partisan motivated reasoning is more common when actions cause harm and by the partisans that are harmed. Finally, Independents are more impartial, but less likely to call out improper tactics in the aggregate because they often fail to condemn actions by either party.

Do fans make poor referees? ⚖️ Claassen, Ensley & Ryan find that when judging election tactics, partisans care more about who benefits than what’s fair. Independents? More neutral—but quieter critics. #PoliticalBehavior #ElectionIntegrity Read more: link.springer.com/article/10.1...

link.springer.comDo Fans Make Poor Referees? Exploring Citizens’ Reactions to Partisan Gamesmanship - Political BehaviorPolitical (as opposed to professional) election oversight is one area in which the U.S. scores extremely low in measures of election integrity. Meanwhile, rancorous political battles to determine acceptable election procedures and judge when tactics cross the line have become common events. Our work contributes to recent scholarship investigating whether voters prioritize democratic principles or strategically favor electoral procedures that provide partisan advantage. In two survey experiments, we confirm that Americans’ attitudes about antidemocratic election tactics reveal more about which team they are cheering for than they do about whether the tactics are fraudulent. The tendency to engage in partisan motivated reasoning occurs among all partisans, but there are subtle differences as to when citizens will engage in it. Partisan motivated reasoning is more common when actions cause harm and by the partisans that are harmed. Finally, Independents are more impartial, but less likely to call out improper tactics in the aggregate because they often fail to condemn actions by either party.

Do ethnic minority interest parties grow through programs, or people? Schaaf, Otjes & Spierings show that DENK’s support in the Netherlands stems mainly from personal & religious networks, while online ties matter less. #ComparativePolitics Read more: link.springer.com/article/10.1...

link.springer.comThe Role of Networks in Mobilization for Ethnic Minority Interest Parties - Political BehaviorRecently, parties that are run by and for ethnic minority citizens with a migration background have become more prominent. They can be considered a manifestation of ethnic political segregation. A key example of such a party is DENK in the Netherlands. So far, the explanatory literature has focused on how programmatic considerations drives voting for these parties. Other factors, such as the role of social networks in mobilization, have received limited testing and limited exploration in more detail. Furthermore, the literature on social networks is mainly based on majority populations. To inform our understanding of the role of social networks in voting (in general but also particularly among ethnic minority communities and for ethnic minority interest parties) this paper analyzes the voting behavior for DENK focusing on the role of personal, online and religious networks. The paper uses both qualitative interviews (with bicultural youth in the third largest city of the Netherlands in 2022) and quantitative surveys (the 2021 Dutch Ethnic Minority Electoral Study). Our analysis points to the importance of religious and personal networks for voting for DENK, whereas online networks appear to be less relevant.

Is nostalgia for authoritarian rule just history, or political behavior? Kim-Leffingwell shows that in South Korea & Taiwan, authoritarian nostalgia fosters group sentiment & attachment to successors, shaping voter behavior. #ComparativePolitics Read more: link.springer.com/article/10.1...

link.springer.comAuthoritarian Nostalgia, Group Sentiment, and Voter Behavior: Evidence from East Asia - Political BehaviorLegacies of an authoritarian past have enduring effects on voters’ attitudes and behaviors. I argue that authoritarian nostalgia is an important source of group sentiment and voter behavior in post-authoritarian democracies. Voters with nostalgic sentiment construct strong group sentiment based on historical perception and express attachment towards authoritarian successors. I test this argument with a new measure of authoritarian nostalgia. With original data collected from South Korea and Taiwan, I provide evidence that nostalgic voters are likely to exhibit strong group sentiment observable through partisan attachment. Abstracting from the specific cases, I use a randomly assigned candidate comparison analysis to demonstrate that voters high in authoritarian nostalgia are more attracted to hypothetical candidates invoking nostalgia than those with high programmatic or ideological proximity. Overall, the results show how authoritarian nostalgia remains important as a source of group sentiment in maturing democracies.

Is support for “states’ rights” really about federalism, or partisanship? Doherty, Touchton & Lyons show views on devolving policy to states hinge on elite cues & which party controls the legislature. #AmericanPolitics Read more: link.springer.com/article/10.1...

link.springer.comPartisanship and Support for Devolving Concrete Policy Decisions to the States - Political BehaviorDo people think that some policies should be handled by the states, rather than the national government? In an era characterized by stark party polarization there is reason to suspect that attitudes regarding federalism are shaped by partisan considerations. Specifically, reported support for devolution may be driven by exposure to elite partisan cues and partisan reasoning tied to which political party devolution would empower. Using data from the 2022 Cooperative Election Study, we find that partisans tend to differ—often substantially—in their support for state-level decision-making regarding concrete policy proposals. However, these differences are largely driven by those who are most likely to be exposed to elite cues. We also find that, among both Democrats and Republicans, support for policy devolution is contingent on which party controls the state legislature in an individual’s state. The findings suggest that partisanship plays a central role in shaping what the public says when asked about which level of government should determine whether to implement specific policy proposals.

How do independents talk politics? Eveland & Gee show that while partisans & true independents have similar discussion frequency & network size, their networks differ in partisan composition, shaping democratic diversity. #PoliticalBehavior Read more: link.springer.com/article/10.1...

link.springer.comIndependent Political Networks: Comparing the Discussion Network Size and Composition of Partisans, Leaners, and Independents - Political BehaviorMost prior U.S. political discussion research has failed to pay close attention to the networks of political independents, and to the differences between true partisans, leaners, and true independents. This is in direct contrast to the (appropriately) growing research attention paid to the decades-long rise in the proportion of independents and the decline of true partisans. This study presents representative U.S. survey data that compares political discussion frequency, network size, and the partisan composition of the discussion networks of partisans, leaners, and independents. After applying controls for ideological strength and political interest, we find that the three groups do not differ in discussion frequency or network size. However, there are meaningful differences across the groups in three different network composition measures, including partisan bias. We interpret our findings in the context of both applied measurement considerations and normative democratic expectations of partisan diversity within discussion networks.