Search

This is the pre-registration of a study on the effect of party-cues (party you favor the most vs. party you favor the least) and different types of democratic violations (nepotism/patronage and limiting the right to criticize the government) on two dependent variables: the legitimacy of a political actor and the importance attributed to checks and balances. We research the relationship between these variables in Suriname using a face-to-face survey experiment.

This is the pre-registration of the follow-up experiment to "Deliberative Norms and Intuitions."

This study tests whether manipulating the coalitional affiliation changes evaluations of reforms that alter checks and balances and affects motives assigned to the reformers (motivated reasoning vs. stability of democratic values). Moreover, the study tests whether motivated reasoning is activated irrespective of what the governments are doing or only when the actions can potentially endanger the coalition that an individual belongs to.

Agencification in the EU stretches the confines of the European regulatory state to the maximum by swelling to policy domains, such as security, that were formerly the exclusive terrain of national institutions. However, EU-level agencies face considerable obstacles to fully exercise their epistemic authority due to grave legitimacy issues. While the challenge to legitimize EU-level epistemic authority is widely acknowledged, rigorous empirical studies on the conditions under which EU-level epistemic authority prevails or fails is scarce. To fill this gap, we provide a rigorous empirical test to the well-established claims about the diverse legitimacy standards: non-majoritarian versus democratic. Empirically, we focus on the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and its mandate to authorize new vaccines. We draw on a survey experiment with Dutch local politicians. In a controlled setting, participants were randomly assigned to experimental treatments introducing diverse legitimacy standards. Perceived legitimacy of the EMA and its epistemic authority was measured to test which legitimacy standards prevail in health security.

This is the pre-registration of a survey experiment on deliberation. It tests to what degree citizens are inclined to deliberate when in conversation with another citizen that disagrees with them, varying whether the other citizen supports or opposes the political party the participant supports. It thereby seeks to verify to what extent group identification matters for people’s propensity to deliberate under the condition of disagreement.

This is the pre-registration of a pilot study on deliberative norms and intuitions. It has two main goals. First, it tests the reliability of new measurement instruments for deliberative norms and deliberation (in an experimental setting). Second, it tests the manipulations in an experiment on people’s propensity to deliberate in response to a hypothetical interaction with another citizen that either supports or opposes the party the respondent supports.

This project studies the impact of motivated reasoning on causal judgements about the actions of warring soldiers

This project studies the role of motivated reasoning on causal judgements in the context of partisanship in the US

This project studies public opinion towards the enforcement of rule of law and judicial independence in particular in the European Union. The project aims to understand the drivers of perceived legitimacy of enforcement actions in the eyes of the citizens of a country being 'punished' by the EU for violations of the rule of law. The study is based on a survey experiment conducted in Poland - a target of EU financial sanctions with respect to judicial independence.

An engrained issue for non-majoritarian institutions – e.g., public agencies – is gaining, maintaining, and enhancing legitimacy for their rulemaking decisions. Extant literature has argued, that differently from majoritarian institutions, government agencies draw on the expertise-sourced authority (ESA) to generate legitimacy. Recently, scholarship on bureaucratic reputation has put forward the hypotheses—or even assumptions—of a positive relationship between reputation-sourced authority (RSA) and legitimacy of public agencies. Legitimacy is regarded to be a product of successful agency reputation-management efforts. However, while those expectations have been communicated by a wide variety of public administration and political science literature, they have not been subjected to rigorous empirical scrutiny. We aim to examine the effects of scientific credibility and bureaucratic reputation on the legitimacy of rulemaking decisions made by government agencies. We draw on a survey experiment with a sample of Dutch citizens to study their legitimacy perceptions about the European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA) recent risk assessment on glyphosate. Our survey uses a 2 (scientific credibility) × 3 (reputation) between-group factorial experimental design. We randomly assign respondents to read one of six vignettes that contain all combinations of information about regulatory agency’s expertise (no scientific credibility information vs. scientific credibility information) and reputation (no reputation information, positive reputation information, and negative reputation information).

This projects studies responses to mass atrocities. It focuses on public support for humanitarian militry intervention to stop mass killings in a distant country. It asks 'What affects public support for humanitarian military interventions to stop mass atrocities?' and tests experimentally the effects of international legality and chance of success.

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-psw-10.1177_14789299221124735 for Does the Election Winner–Loser Gap Extend to Subjective Health and Well-Being? by Dimiter Toshkov and Honorata Mazepus in Political Studies Review

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-psw-10.1177_14789299221124735 for Does the Election Winner–Loser Gap Extend to Subjective Health and Well-Being? by Dimiter Toshkov and Honorata Mazepus in Political Studies Review

Supplemental Material, sj-pdf-1-cps-10.1177_00104140211060285 for Standing up for Democracy? Explaining Citizens��� Support for Democratic Checks and Balances by Honorata Mazepus and Dimiter Toshkov in Comparative Political Studies

Supplemental Material, sj-pdf-1-cps-10.1177_00104140211060285 for Standing up for Democracy? Explaining Citizens��� Support for Democratic Checks and Balances by Honorata Mazepus and Dimiter Toshkov in Comparative Political Studies

Supplemental material, Supplementary_material_When_Business_and_Politics_Mix_R1 for When Business and Politics Mix: Local Networks and Socio-political Transformations in Ukraine by Honorata Mazepus, Antoaneta Dimitrova, Matthew Frear, Dimiter Toshkov and Nina Onopriychuk in East European Politics & Societies and Cultures