Research 

My dissertation addresses the critical question: Do scandals still matter in U.S. congressional elections?

 I theorize that increasing affective polarization and negative partisanship in the United States lead to increased scandal tolerance. In recent years, while there is more information about congressional scandals, neither candidates nor voters seem to be affected by them, and the reason is voters prioritize partisanship, thus deprioritizing the qualities of the candidates.  My dissertation project examines U.S. congressional scandals from 1980 to 2016 and demonstrates that the negative electoral effect created by scandals is mitigated by polarization.

I have a working paper examining how the public evaluates public sector mismanagement, including bureaucratic incidents of fraud, waste, and abuse. 

I theorize that while the public assigns normative values to these incidents, their responses are shaped by the context and specific attributes of each case. The public tends to be more forgiving towards cases involving (1) career bureaucrats rather than appointees, (2) negligence rather than intentional wrongdoing, (3) revelations by government institutions rather than whistleblowers or external journalists, and (4) lower financial stakes. Conversely, cases with substantial financial value consistently elicit a more negative public reaction, highlighting the prominence of financial value as a key factor in public assessment. Preliminary findings from a conjoint experiment survey conducted via MTurk reveal a significant impact of monetary value on public response.