Peer Reviewed Publications

Campaign Principal-Agent Problems: Volunteers as Faithful and Representative Agents (with Jon Green, Hans J.G. Hassell, and Matthew R. Miles). Political Behavior. 2022. Link.

Political campaigns in the United States supplement media with volunteer-based direct voter contact. Prior research argues that campaigns should want moderate volunteers to minimize principal-agent problems that hinder effective communication with persuadable voters. We find that campaigns do not uniformly prefer moderate volunteers. Using interviews with campaign practitioners, a conjoint experiment, and a correspondence experiment, we show instead that campaigns have weak preferences for volunteers whose ideology is proximate to the candidate’s ideology. Campaigns are concerned about maximizing volunteer effort and work-hours and view volunteer ideological proximity as a signal of enthusiasm and dedication. However, such preferences for ideological proximity fade with stronger indicators of commitment, and do not manifest in real-world volunteer recruitment decisions. Rather than being concerned with principal-agent problems associated with faithfully communicating the candidate’s message to persuadable voters, campaigns are primarily concerned with the more pressing principal-agent problem of volunteer shirking.

Presented at APSA 2021

​

Conditional Cash Transfer Programs and Child Labor (with Gabriel Cepaluni, Amanda Driscoll and Marco Antonio Faganello) World Development. 2022. Link

Child labor is a pernicious problem throughout the developing world, but conditional cash transfer programs (CCTs) could reduce the number of working children. We evaluate the effectiveness of CCTs at attenuating child labor based on our analysis of a massive administrative dataset on Brazil’s applicants to social programs between 2001 and 2015. We use Multiples (twins, triplets, etc.) as an instrument for receiving the Bolsa Família stipend. Receiving the stipend does not offset the cost of an exogenous increase in family size, does not reduce child laborers’ participation in the workforce and does not improve educational outcomes for child laborers in households with Multiples births. Instead, contextual and familial factors appear to shape program efficacy in mitigating this troubling practice.

Presented at SPSA 2021

​

Under Review

We Only Care What You Do, Not Who You Are (with Weifang Xu and Qing Wang)

Abstract: Does the public apply a ``double standard'' for human rights abuses based on the identity of the perpetrator? Research shows that individuals are more supportive of military action against states that violate human rights. However, other studies claim that condemnations of violations are often contingent upon the strategic relationship with the perpetrators. In this paper, we bridge these different strands of literature by examining whether the effect of foreign states’ human rights practices on public support for war depends on the alliance status of the violator. To investigate this interaction, we conducted two pre-registered experiments which independently randomized the state's human rights practices and U.S. alliance status. Both experiments reveal that the alliance status of the human rights violator has a negligible effect on support for war. Consequently, our findings challenge the prevailing notion that the public applies a double standard for human rights violations.

Presented at ISA 2024.

​

​

Working Papers

Value Clash in Preferences for U.S. Alliance Partners. 

Abstract: Scholars show that the U.S. public prioritizes shared values (e.g., human rights)
at the expense of security advantages. I challenge this finding by arguing that both shared values and concerns about maintaining U.S. power are relevant determinants
of foreign policy preferences. To test my theory, I utilize a conjoint experiment wherein subjects choose between paired profiles of potential allies whose attributes differ in their alignment with U.S. values and ability to enhance U.S. security. The conjoint experiment provides robust evidence in support of my expectations: while respondents do desire to follow liberal ideals when evaluating possible allies, geopolitical advantages are salient in their decision-making. This blending of liberal concerns while still emphasizing practicalities about geopolitics underlines the ideational pragmatism respondents use to evaluate U.S. alliance policy. Click here for a draft.

Received Best Practicum Award

Presented at SPSA 2023, MPSA 2023

​

Cyber Threats and Audience Costs.

Abstract: When issuing threats, leaders often use audience costs to signal their threat's credibility. Audience costs rely on the public's ability to verify whether the leader carried out the threat. While public verification is easy for some actions like military deployment, it is difficult for covert action like cyber attacks. Leaders may issue threats that imply a retaliatory cyber attack is likely, but avoid taking responsibility for a cyber attack (e.g., President Obama after the Sony Pictures cyber attack). Extant scholarship on audience costs focuses solely on threats that can be verified by the public, but we do not know if threats are costly signals when the public cannot verify that the leader followed through. I explore this question using a survey experiment on a nationally representative sample of the U.S. public (N=1200). While I do not find evidence of traditional audience costs, I do find that individuals show a strong preference for consistent foreign policy. As evidence that the president carried out a threat for covert action increases, so does presidential approval-even if the president outright denies responsibility. The implication that leaders can more easily get away with empty threats under the guise of maintaining plausible deniability is concerning given the increasing salience of cyberwarfare.

Click here for a draft.

Presented at APSA 2023

​

The Cybersecurity Dilemma: Signaling Benign Intentions

Abstract: Under what conditions can a foreign state signal its benign intentions for investing in its cybersecurity? States face additional challenges when seeking to mitigate the cybersecurity dilemma because many traditional policy solutions (e.g., offense-defense differentiation) have limited applicability. While it is necessary for states to invest in their cybersecurity to increase their defensive capabilities, it can be particularly difficult for a state to signal that its intentions are defensive. This poses a problem, as misperceptions of intent could exacerbate the cybersecurity dilemma, leading to a cyber arms race. I investigate policies a state can adopt to signal its benign intention for making a cybersecurity investment: the uni(multi)lateral adoption of a no-civilian harm policy or a zero-days disclosure policy. Using a 2*2 factorial, pre-post survey experiment to be run in Fall 2023, I will analyze the U.S. public's threat perception of a state that invests in its cybersecurity before and after it adopts one of these policies to causally identify whether they are effective signals of benign intent.

​

Irrelevant Events, Mood, and the Good Citizen (with Brad T. Gomez) 

Abstract: Can voters effectively hold politicians accountable? A growing literature suggesting that irrelevant events may affect citizens’ political opinions and attributions of responsibility suggests not. We present a nationally-representative survey experiment that attempts to isolate the effects of irrelevant events on individuals’ mood and, in turn, political opinions. We broaden the conception of good citizenry by not only looking at whether irrelevant events affect individuals’ propensity to vote for an incumbent but also their political participation and attributions of responsibility. Using data from the 2018 CCES, we randomly assign subjects to a treatment condition where they are asked to identify their favorite college football team and their intensity of support. Half of the treatment group proceeds directly to our mood battery, allowing us to see whether mood is altered simply by referencing fandom. The other half of the treatment group is provided information about whether their favored team won or lost their most recent game. Subjects’ mood is then measured using a Brief Mood Introspection Scale before asking their plans to participate in politics, attributions for current economic conditions, and vote intentions. The structure of our experimental design provides us with 1) more valid measures of individuals’ football fandom and mood, 2) a broader look at political outcomes, and 3) a more direct examination of the mediating role of mood than previous studies.

Presented at MPSA 2022, EPOVB 2024

​

The Public, Protests and Support for the Rule of Law (with Amanda Driscoll and Martín Gandur, Jay N. Krehbiel, and Michael J. Nelson)
Abstract: We explore the depth of public support for the democratic norm of the rule of law in two least-likely cases for instrumental support, the United States and Germany. Using a survey experiment, we ask respondents to indicate their support for the government's decision to disband or allow an illegal protest. Although we find that respondents are more likely to support the government following its decision to uphold the rule of law, this is not the complete story. Support for disbanding the protest depends on individuals' personal costs, such as their alignment with the protest's goals. It appears that when making trade-offs between self-interest and abstract democratic values, even among the residents of highly consolidated democracies self-interest continues to play an important role. 

Presented at MPSA 2022

 

Public Perception and (In)Tolerance of Executive Interference with High Courts (with Amanda Driscoll and Martín Gandur, Jay N. Krehbiel, and Michael J. Nelson)
Abstract: We examine the public perception of executive interference with high courts. Incumbents often circumvent judicial checks on their power and undermine high courts' independence. Conventional wisdom suggests that sufficient stores of public support might safeguard against incumbents' transgressions, but this mechanism is limited by both the public's awareness and support for the incumbent. Using novel survey data fielded in four countries, our research asks whether citizens accurately perceive executive influence on judicial institutions. We find that the public's perception of executive interference is associated with individuals' awareness of the court, approval of the incumbent's job performance, and institutional commitment to the judiciary, yet these individual-level factors are highly contextually dependent. 

Presented at SPSA 2022

​

Non-Refereed Publications

Taylor Kinsley Chewning, Amanda Driscoll, Jay Krehbiel, and Michael Nelson. 08-02-2021. "IOP@FSU Field-Advancing Research: Americans United in Their Support for Local Government Management of the Pandemic." Wicked Problems, Wicked Solutions. [Blog]
 

Taylor Kinsley Chewning, Bailey Johnson, Amanda Driscoll, Jay N. Krehbiel, and Michael J. Nelson. 2020-08-14. "COVID-19, Crises, and Public Support for the Rule of Law Teaching Modules." Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]. [Modules] [In Press]

​

Taylor Kinsley Chewning, Amanda Driscoll, Jay N. Krehbiel, and Michael J. Nelson. 2020."Coronavirus fatigue is the biggest threat to Germany's success story in this pandemic." The Loop: ECPR's Political Science Blog. [Blog] [In Press]

​