Estimating the Persistence of Party Cue Influence in a Panel Survey Experiment

Tappin, Ben M; Hewitt, Luke

doi:10.1017/xps.2021.22

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…I fielded this experiment to U.S. citizens recruited via a participant recruitment, payment, and management crowdsourcing platform increasingly used for studies in political science, Prolific (e.g. Diamond, 2020;Tappin and Hewitt, 2021). Peer et al (2017) show that Prolific subjects are more diverse and provide higher quality answers than those of other platforms.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Audience Costs and the Credibility of Public versus Private Threats in International Crises

Takei

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The credibility of public versus private threats in international crisis bargaining has received scholarly attention. While public threats are often believed to be more credible than private ones because of audience costs, others contend that private threats should be equally credible or even more. To test these competing expectations, I conducted a conjoint survey experiment that examines how observers assess resolve to fight in an international crisis with a sample of U.S. citizens. Three major findings stand out. First, evidence suggests that both types of threats increase the perceived likelihood that a country will stand firm. Second, though their effect size is small, public threats are more effective than private ones. Lastly, I find support for the conditional effect of public threats, indicating that the underlying mechanism of the credibility of public threats is domestic audience costs.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Audience Costs and the Credibility of Public versus Private Threats in International Crises

Takei

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To investigate the robustness of their findings, we replicated Levy et al with a sample of U.S. adults recruited from July 31 to August 1, 2021, via Prolific, a participant recruitment, payment, and management crowdsourcing platform which has been increasingly utilized by studies in political science (e.g. Diamond, 2020;Tappin and Hewitt, 2021) because of its comparative advantage over other platforms such as Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) (Palan and Schitter, 2018 Tomz (2007). The first treatment is whether the U.S. leader issues a threat to use force or not.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Backing Out but Backing In Audience Costs? A Replication of Levy et al. (2015)

Takei

Paolino

2023

Foreign Policy Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Levy et al. (2015) propose that inconsistency audience costs are caused in two ways: backing out of military commitment or backing into foreign conflicts. We replicate their experiment in July–August, 2021. Like many other studies, we find evidence for audience costs caused by backing out. However, our findings indicate that, unlike Levy et al., citizens are no less supportive of a leader who backs into a military conflict despite an initial commitment to stay out than one who behaves consistently. This study has significant theoretical and methodological implications. Theoretically, the importance of inconsistency in audience cost literature may be overstated or inconsistency audience costs may be bounded by temporal domains or contexts. Methodologically, our study emphasizes the necessity of replications because major findings can become conventional wisdom without such additional analysis.

show abstract

“…Importantly, this enhanced generalizability would accrue not only to estimates of party elite cue effects themselves, but also to additional quantities that are of interest to a wide range of scholars of party elite influence. For example, scholars are interested in the extent to which elite influence diminishes in the presence of other types of information (Boudreau and MacKenzie 2014; Agadjanian 2020), whether elite influence is larger than that of policy information (Cohen 2003;Bullock 2011), the mechanisms through which elite cues exert their influence (Petersen et al 2013;Ehret, Van Boven, and Sherman 2018;Van Boven, Ehret, and Sherman 2018), how long their influence persists (Tappin and Hewitt 2021), which types of individuals are most susceptible (Bakker, Lelkes, and Malka 2020), and crosscultural comparisons of these and other related quantities (Brader and Tucker 2012). In many such cases, scholars would like to generalize their results beyond the specific policy issue(s) in their study.…”

Section: Improving Generalizabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimating the Between-Issue Variation in Party Elite Cue Effects

Tappin

2022

Public Opinion Quarterly

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Party elite cues are among the most well-established influences on citizens’ political opinions. Yet, there is substantial variation in effect sizes across studies, constraining the generalizability and theoretical development of party elite cues research. Understanding the causes of variation in party elite cue effects is thus a priority for advancing the field. In this paper, I estimate the variation in party elite cue effects that is caused simply by heterogeneity in the policy issues being examined, through a reanalysis of data from existing research combined with an original survey experiment comprising 34 contemporary American policy issues. My estimate of the between-issue variation in effects is substantively large, plausibly equal to somewhere between one-third and two-thirds the size of the between-study variation observed in the existing literature. This result has important implications for our understanding of party elite influence on public opinion and for the methodological practices of party elite cues research.

show abstract

Estimating the Persistence of Party Cue Influence in a Panel Survey Experiment

Cited by 7 publications

References 20 publications

Audience Costs and the Credibility of Public versus Private Threats in International Crises

Audience Costs and the Credibility of Public versus Private Threats in International Crises

Backing Out but Backing In Audience Costs? A Replication of Levy et al. (2015)

Estimating the Between-Issue Variation in Party Elite Cue Effects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About