Why are women and people of color underrepresented in U.S. politics? This article introduces strategic discrimination—when voters hesitate to support candidates due to fear of others objecting to their identity. Through three experiments, the author demonstrates that this phenomenon exists and significantly impacts real-world elections.
Jamil S. Scott, Elizabeth A. Lane, and Jessica A. Schoenherr examine whether the personal identities of litigants — especially those who are counter‑stereotypical relative to the expected beneficiaries of a ruling — can shift public support for Supreme Court decisions. The paper probes a practical question for rights advocates and litigators: can changing who stands in court change how the public views a controversial judicial outcome?
Do US congressmembers vote according to their constituents' policy preferences? Previous research suggests incongruent voting occurs on about one-third of roll calls. This article explores why, particularly for Republicans who vote against district majorities more often but aren't punished at the polls.
This article investigates how trait optimism influences voter behavior across multiple countries.
Does your ethnic identity change because of politics? New research suggests identities are not fixed but can be reshaped by partisan alignment. Using a 4-year panel dataset, this study finds that political partisans actively shift their self-perceptions to align with group stereotypes as the nation's two coalitions become increasingly distinct along demographic lines. Key findings reveal ethnicity and religion switching tied directly to past partisan identification. This challenges long-held assumptions about identity stability and shows how politics can reshape fundamental aspects of social self-categorization.
Does identity politics change how people view the rule of law and courts? This paper uses original survey experiments to examine whether Americans’ support for the rule of law and the institutional legitimacy of the Supreme Court depends on which groups benefit from judicial rulings. The study tests whether group identities condition acceptance of decisions, connecting contemporary polarization and tribalization to public views about legal institutions.
For years, debates over welfare restrictions focused heavily on racialized rhetoric targeting immigrants.