Search for: All records

Elected officials have privileged roles in public communication. In contrast to national politicians, whose posting content is more likely to be closely scrutinized by a robust ecosystem of nationally focused media outlets, sub-national politicians are more likely to openly disseminate harmful content with limited media scrutiny. In this paper, we analyze the factors that explain the online visibility of over 6.5K unique state legislators in the US and how their visibility might be impacted by posting low-credibility or uncivil content. We conducted a study of posting on Twitter and Facebook (FB) during 2020-21 to analyze how legislators engage with users on these platforms. The results indicate that distributing content with low-credibility information attracts greater attention from users on FB and Twitter for Republicans. Conversely, posting content that is considered uncivil on Twitter receives less attention. A noticeable scarcity of posts containing uncivil content was observed on FB, which may be attributed to the different communication patterns of legislators on these platforms. In most cases, the effect is more pronounced among the most ideologically extreme legislators. Our research explores the influence exerted by state legislators on online political conversations, with Twitter and FB serving as case studies. Furthermore, it sheds light on the differences in the conduct of political actors on these platforms. This study contributes to a better understanding of the role that political figures play in shaping online political discourse. 

Abstract Many types of civil unrest, including protest, violent conflict, and rebellion, have been found to be subject to both inter- and intra-state contagion. These spillover effects are conventionally tested through the application of parametric structural models that are estimated using observational data. Drawing on research in methods for network analysis, we note important challenges in conducting causal inference on contagion effects in observational data. We review a recently developed non-parametric test—the “split-halves test”—that is robust to confounding and apply the test to replication data from several recent studies in which researchers tested for contagion in civil unrest. We find that about half the time findings in the published literature fail to replicate with the split-halves test. Across ten total replications, we do not see strong patterns in terms of which results do and do not replicate. We do, however, find evidence for general contagion in six of the replications, indicating that contagion is a prevalent phenomenon in civil unrest. As such, we recommend that researchers (1) use the split-halves test as a general-purpose robustness check for parametric models of contagion in the study of civil unrest, and (2) consider modeling contagion in research on civil unrest. 

Abstract SPRC19 is a new database that seeks to capture a wide range of state policy actions in response to COVID-19 in the United States. Since March 2020 we have monitored state governments’ and multi-state associations’ websites for executive orders, agency rules, new legislation, and court decisions. We categorize each policy action into one of 206 distinct policies, then document the branch of government, source document, announcement date, implementation date, and expiration date (if applicable). We also record whether the action represents the introduction of a new policy or the expansion or contraction of an existing policy. The current release of SPRC19, v3.0, captures over 13,000 distinct policy actions through April 2020, which constitutes thousands more actions than similar resources over the same time period. 

Abstract The significance and influence of U.S. Supreme Court majority opinions derive in large part from opinions’ roles as precedents for future opinions. A growing body of literature seeks to understand what drives the use of opinions as precedents through the study of Supreme Court case citation patterns. We raise two limitations of existing work on Supreme Court citations. First, dyadic citations are typically aggregated to the case level before they are analyzed. Second, citations are treated as if they arise independently. We present a methodology for studying citations between Supreme Court opinions at the dyadic level, as a network, that overcomes these limitations. This methodology—the citation exponential random graph model, for which we provide user-friendly software—enables researchers to account for the effects of case characteristics and complex forms of network dependence in citation formation. We then analyze a network that includes all Supreme Court cases decided between 1950 and 2015. We find evidence for dependence processes, including reciprocity, transitivity, and popularity. The dependence effects are as substantively and statistically significant as the effects of exogenous covariates, indicating that models of Supreme Court citations should incorporate both the effects of case characteristics and the structure of past citations.