Abstract: Misinformation significantly impacts public discourse, particularly for non-English speakers such as Spanish-speaking Latinxs, who may encounter higher rates of misleading content. This study examines whether the language of message delivery influences perceptions of information reliability among bilingual Latinxs. Employing a a survey experiment, this research aims to determine if messages in a person's dominant language are perceived as more reliable than those received in their secondary language. Findings will contribute to developing targeted strategies to combat misinformation effectively.

Abstract: Our understanding of how Latines in the United States fit into the political landscape typically misses the nuanced relationship Latines have with their own racialization in society, and its consequences for American democracy. In this project, we seek to clarify how anti-blackness among Latines influences policy preferences and political attitudes. We theorize that Latines are likely to show inherent biases against Blackness–despite their political identification with more liberal policies, or their identification with the Democratic party. In other words, we expect that anti-blackness is not just a marker of Latines who prefer conservative policies, or the Republican party. Instead, anti-blackness among Latines also represents a deep desire to escape the treatment Black people experience in the United States by transcending “race” as a factor that shapes their assimilation. Using a survey experiment, we propose testing how increasing the salience of skin-tone and its role in shaping opportunities in the U.S. affects how Latines express political priorities, discuss social stratification, and support or oppose reparations.

Abstract: Donald Trump’s growing share of the Latino vote in 2024 challenges long-standing assumptions about Latino political behavior. Using longitudinal panel data from the 2016–2024 American National Election Studies (ANES), this paper tracks within-individual changes in attitudes and vote choice across three election cycles. We test whether the Latino rightward shift reflects sexism, material self-interest, or perceptions of immigrant criminality. Results show that sexism and anti-trans attitudes became increasingly predictive of Trump support between 2020 and 2024, while traditional indicators of economic self-interest and education weakened in importance. Meanwhile, beliefs linking immigrants to crime, once salient in 2016, re-emerged as a key driver by 2024. Parallel analyses reveal that these dynamics are unique to Latinos, not mirrored among White or Black voters. By leveraging panel data, this study demonstrates that Latino conservatism is being shaped more by identity-linked psychological reasoning than by economic pragmatism.

Abstract: Political science has extensively examined who believes conspiracy theories, but has paid far less attention to a foundational prior question: who becomes the subject of conspiratorial rumor in the first place? This paper reframes conspiracy theories as social assignments of deviance rather than merely cognitive distortions. Drawing on frameworks of stigma and respectability politics, I argue that conspiratorial narratives disproportionately attach to individuals and groups already marked by racialized subjugation. Those positioned outside the bounds of dominant respectability (norms historically defined through whiteness) are more readily imagined as capable of hidden wrongdoing, making conspiratorial speculation “stick” to them even in the absence of evidence. Conversely, individuals insulated by racialized respectability enjoy epistemic protection: their alleged misconduct is less likely to circulate as collective rumor, even when the behaviors in question are comparable or more severe. Integrating this insight with emerging work on “enduring wounds” and adaptive suspicion, I show how structural stigma and historical state-inflicted harm jointly shape both the production and targeting of conspiratorial narratives. Across survey experiments, I demonstrate that racial identity and respectability cues strongly structure perceptions of who is a plausible conspiratorial protagonist. This framework reconceptualizes conspiracy theories as tools of social ordering that encode racial hierarchies of credibility and deviance, revealing why some individuals become perpetual protagonists of conspiracy discourse while others remain protected from the conspiratorial imagination.