Do Impartial Inquiries Help Voters Hold the Government Accountable for Political Misconduct? (2026)
West European Politics (Forthcoming)
One major concern about democratic accountability is that partisanship constrains voters’ willingness to sanction incumbents for political misconduct. I examine whether impartial inquiries help voters across party lines hold governments accountable for misconduct. In many parliamentary democracies, these check-and-balance institutions can be appointed as a response to political scandals, yet we do not know whether the findings of non-partisan investigations foster democratic accountability in the mass public. I present a rare panel study of how voters responded when an independent inquiry commission published a report with incriminating information about a government scandal in Denmark. With panel surveys collected just before and after this event, I find that voters—especially government supporters—became more likely to perceptually acknowledge the misconduct and to sanction the incumbents. These findings suggest that impartial inquiries are valuable at persuading even in-party voters that officeholders are responsible for political misconduct.
Policy-Specific Information and Voter Competence in Direct Democracy: Panel Evidence From Danish EU Referendums (2026)
European Journal of Political Research (Forthcoming)
For many years, political scientists have debated over voter competence in direct democracy. At the core of the discussion is whether this central institution enlightens citizens about political facts. However, scholars have primarily examined if direct democracy fosters general political knowledge even though referendums and ballot initiatives are policy-specific in nature, as citizens vote on particular political proposals. By utilizing a range of unique panel survey data collected around four Danish European Union referendums, I show that voters’ knowledge of policy-specific information markedly increased during the campaigns. I also combine the survey data with an original media content analysis and find that the learning of issue-specific facts is related to the opportunities provided by the media information environment more so than individual ability or motivation. These results suggest that a broad group of voters acquire policy-specific facts that help them make informed choices when they are granted full control of political decision making.
Do Beliefs Echo? On the Persistent Effects of Misinformation After Effective Corrections (2026)
Political Communication (Online First), with Martin Vinæs Larsen
Does misinformation continue to influence political attitudes even after it has been effectively corrected? According to some influential studies, the answer is yes: while corrections may eliminate belief in false claims, they often fail to erase their attitudinal impact –a phenomenon known as “belief echoes.” To evaluate this claim, we conducted a preregistered, high-powered replication of two out of three experiments from a widely cited study which introduced the phenomenon, using the same treatment materials and a much larger, more representative sample. In the first experiment, the correction did not fully dispel belief in the misinformation, making it impossible to isolate a belief echo from the direct effects of continued belief. In the second, where the correction was demonstrably effective, we find no evidence of a lingering attitudinal effect.
Campaigns do Matter: The Impact of Campaigns in Reducing Framing Effects (2026)
European Journal of Political Research, 65(1), 198-219, with Derek Beach and Roman Senninger
This study examines the role of political campaigns in reducing voter susceptibility to framing effects, focusing on the 2022 EU defense opt-out referendum in Denmark. Unlike prior research, we directly engage with the influence of a real-world campaign by conducting framing experiments at the campaign's outset and its conclusion. The findings reveal a reduction in framing effects. At the start of the campaign, frames associated with losses moved voter opinions on the referendum, whereas this impact waned by the campaign's end. Our analysis suggests that the campaign provided voters with information and arguments that made them less susceptible to framing effects, and instead empowered voters to make informed decisions on the referendum based on their own attitudes towards the EU. In the conclusions we encourage further research on susceptibility to elite messages in real-world settings.
Danish Defense Opt-out Referendum, 1 June 2022 (2023)
Electoral Bulletins of the European Union, 3(1), 83-87, with Rasmus Bruun Pedersen, Derek Beach, and Roman Senninger
The Experiential Basis of Social Trust Towards Ethnic Outgroup Members (2021)
Social Indicators Research, 154(1), 191-209, with Jens Peter Frølund Thomsen and Nathalie Rüger Jepsen
This study contributes to social trust research by examining the extent to which cross-group interaction provokes exclusionary reactions among trusters. Specifically, we examine whether unpleasant contact with ethnic outgroup members constrains the relationship between social trust and ethnic exclusionism among majority members. The analysis shows that: (a) social trust relates negatively to ethnic exclusionism, (b) unpleasant contact experiences relate positively to ethnic exclusionism, and (c) social trust is almost unrelated to ethnic exclusionism when contact experiences have been unpleasant. Inconsistent with “moralistic” perspectives, social trusters’ views of ethnic outgroup members are remarkably experience-based. To understand the “experiential effect”, we develop a tentative interpretation emphasizing the joint capacity of negative emotions and group membership salience to enhance the implications of unpleasant encounters among contacted trusters. The analysis is based on the 2014-European Social Survey, including 27,796 individuals and 21 countries. The concluding section discusses how our affect-salience interpretation adds to the experiential understanding of social trust and interethnic relations in contemporary nations.
The Dynamics of Policy Information and Public Opinion During Real-World Political Debate
[Invited to revise and resubmit] at Journal of European Public Policy
Do citizens use substantive information about the implications of new policies when forming opinions on political proposals? While a wealth of research has paid attention to this fundamental question, we know surprisingly little about whether policy information matters to citizens’ issue opinions in the real world. I present a panel study of the three most recent European Union referendums in Denmark and the UK Brexit referendum where certain policy information became salient during the campaigns. By utilizing panel survey data collected at different stages of these campaigns, I show that voters who learned about the positive (negative) implications of adopting the referendum proposals became markedly more inclined to increase (decrease) their support for the proposals relative to voters who stayed uninformed. These findings advance the extant, largely experimental literature on the influence of policy information in public opinion formation.
How Episodic and Thematic Frames Influence Value Consistency in Public Opinion Formation
with Lene Aarøe
An enduring concern about representative democracy is whether citizens form policy opinions that align with their core political principles. However, little is known about the extent to which value consistency in public opinion formation is influenced by two of the most fundamental types of news media coverage: episodic and thematic frames. We propose that episodic framing—relative to its thematic counterpart—makes it easier to understand which deeper political values are at stake on a given issue and thus help citizens form policy opinions that are more consistent with their underlying principles. We test this argument across multiple experiments on salient political issues in Denmark and the United States. These results have implications for whether concrete case illustrations, compared to general facts, help citizens arrive at sensible, anchored opinions at least according to one key standard of voter competence.