Research Agenda

My research agenda, broadly speaking, is centered around the areas of public opinion, political psychology, and political behavior. Much of my research is grounded in questions of how individuals’ various group identities influence how they form their views on (and beliefs about) politics. While I am interested in multiple aspects of identity, my research tends to focus on racial and partisan identities. I am especially interested in how individuals navigate the intersection of these two identity areas at a time of growing partisan animosity and racial sorting into parties. Methodologically, I am especially interested in survey and experimental methods which make up the bulk of my work. I also dabble a bit in some projects with computational social science techniques like sentiment analysis, topic modeling, and network analysis.

Dissertation

The Racial Undercurrents of Affective Partisan Polarization

My dissertation argues that group conflicts about race in American politics fuel what we often think of as a problem of partisans not getting along. This research argues that affective polarization, while often conceptually divorced from race, is driven and conditional on individual voters’ racial identities and views. I argue that partisan polarization is closely connected to individual-level perceptions of racial discrimination and threat towards one’s group. I theorize that an individual’s racial identity and whether they perceive a status threat to their racial group influences their degree of polarization, though this relationship is conditional on how an individual relates to their party’s messaging on racial grievances. Using survey and experimental data, I find evidence that increases in feelings of racial discrimination can exacerbate partisan extremity. I also use quantitative text analysis on open-ended survey data to uncover key distinctions in how white and Latino partisans conceptualize the parties as a way of demonstrating that some voters within these two groups of voters do perceive an active racial status threat from the opposing party. This data also helps with better explaining differences in macro-level partisan sentiment between white and Latino partisans. My research expands our understanding of partisan polarization by demonstrating that while partisan polarization might feel like a new problem, many aspects of it are intertwined with and fueled by the longer-standing racial conflicts that have long been a defining feature of American politics. While much of the current research focused on addressing partisan polarization is concerned with correcting partisan misperceptions, my dissertation suggests that another route for addressing polarization is through more directly addressing racial conflict and inequities in the U.S. However, doing so will require seriously considering differences in how the parties message on race and thinking about the varied motivations of who becomes emboldened in their partisan extremity in the political struggle for multiracial democracy.

Other Projects

Under Review

The Demobilizing Effect of Primary Electoral Institutions on Voters of Color (R&R at Political Research Quarterly)

Are electoral institutions – such as closed primaries – associated with reduced levels of participation by people of color? We theorize and find that primary electoral institutions that bar independent voters from participating in first-round elections mechanically reduce participation in primary elections; and also reduce turnout among registered independents in second-round general elections. Closed primaries have large demobilizing impacts on Asian American and Latinx voters, as these voters are registered as independents at higher rates than whites. We examine nationally representative and validated survey data from 2012 to 2018. Open and top-two primaries are associated with higher turnout from independent voters of color in both primary and general elections. Implications are that party registration status and formal institutions differentially demobilize voters of color and whites.

Elite Hostile Relations Change Out-Party Sentiment among Black but Not White Partisans: Two Experiments

What is the impact of hostile elite partisan relations on out-party attitudes among the mass public? Does the effect of hostile partisan relations on out-party sentiment differ by race? Extant research on affective polarization looks at the impact of hostile elite relations on predominately white samples and does not as directly connect group identities to affective polarization by focusing on how race influences partisan affect. I conduct two survey experimental studies: one study of white partisans and one study of Black partisans. I argue that hostile elite relations will have differing effects on Black and white partisans when the race of elites in conflict is varied. Like previous work, I find that hostile elite relations have more subdued effects on white partisans. However, hostile elite relations change Black attitudes toward the out-party. Surprisingly, when elite partisans argue with one another, Black respondents become warmer toward the out-party. Further, white partisans reduce support for the out-party when Black in-party elites argue with Black out-party elites. These results suggest researchers studying affective polarization should consider how identities such as race affect how voters appraise partisan conflict. (being prepared for journal resubmission)

In Development

When Party and Race Align: Perceived Racial Discrimination’s Relationship with Affective Polarization

How do perceptions of racial discrimination influence affective polarization? I argue that findings from extant research regarding race, partisanship, and racial discrimination suggest that perceived discrimination should also play a role in partisan affect. To evaluate the role of perceived racial discrimination as a mechanism for affective polarization, I use survey data from both 2012 – 2020 ANES data an original nationally representative sample to determine how perceived racial discrimination correlates with partisan affect. I find that disaggregating the sample into Black, Latino, and white groups reveals the role of party messaging on race in conditioning perceived racial discrimination’s effects on partisan sentiment. These findings indicate that affective polarization is at its strongest when a partisan perceives a sense of racial threat via racial discrimination and their party’s messaging on race validates this perceived discrimination. Results suggest that researchers should consider the influence of race and racial politics in furthering the mass affective polarization of the American public. Additionally worth considering is how party messaging on race might interact with non-partisan group identities to produce more extreme partisan responses.