Research

Because we each have only a single vote to cast, we know that our behavior is unlikely to sway election outcomes.  But, if our actions have so little consequence, what motivates reasoning and behavior in politics?  My interest in this question has led me to conduct research in the three areas listed below.

Motivated Reasoning

Motivation in Politics

Political scientists tend to use the term “motivated reasoning” as a synonym for “biased reasoning,” but this need not be the case. Motivations depend on goals (both conscious and subconscious), and goals depend on context.  When politics feels like a debate, the implicit goal is to win, so people tend to fight for their side. But, when politics feels like deliberation, the implicit goal is to listen, learn, and seek consensus--not necessarily for instrumental reasons but to conform to the social norms of a deliberative context.  Thus, my research investigates the conditionality of motivations in politics.  When do people feel motivated to fight for their side?  When are they motivated to demonstrate their open-mindedness?  And when are they motivated to avoid politics altogether?

Partisan Motivation, Polarization, and Intraparty Tension

Although party identification is known to be among the most powerful predictors of voting behavior, major disagreements persist with regard to the nature and content of this famous variable.  Much of this disagreement hinges on the motivational assumptions underlying the field's dominant models.  My research relaxes these assumptions, allowing competing motives to shape party identification.  This framework makes it possible to 1) determine the conditions under which party identification facilitates versus when it undermines democratic accountability and 2) better understand the nature and implication of polarization and political tension, both between and within parties.  


Social Identity Norms

Norms and Ideology

What is ideology?  A belief system?  A predisposition?  A group identity?  Does ideological reasoning connote political sophistication or dogmatism?  As Converse (1964) famously remarked, the term has been "muddied by diverse uses."  My research seeks to clarify the nature and origins of ideology by distinguishing between individuals' belief systems and their knowledge of ideological norms.  This makes it possible to differentiate ideological "innocence" from pragmatism and to distinguish group conformity motivation from ideological reasoning.     

Norms and Racism

Scholars have been debating how best to conceptualize racism since the term was popularized.  Recently, this discussion has spread from academic journals into the public sphere, igniting a political firestorm and empowering ambitious politicians willing to take advantage of widespread confusion and anger. My research exposes deep divisions over what Americans believe ought, and ought not, count as racism.  Rather than possessing shared American norms, Republicans and Democrats appear to be coalescing around separate understandings of what racism means.  


Emotion

Theorists dating back to Aristotle have acknowledged that emotions shape public opinion and political behavior.  Yet, until quite recently, emotions have received very little empirical attention.  Associating emotion with irrationality, many models of political behavior view citizens as self-interested rational actors who act to maximize policy benefits.  However, such theories inevitably run up against the fact that citizens simply do not have much incentive to pursue their self-interest through politics.  By considering the role of emotions in addition to cognition, my research seeks to understand what truly drives preference formation and stimulates participation in politics.