政治行为

PMR — pp. 1-25 2026-08-12 Original Should we stay or should we go? Implications of trust in the municipality for second-generation migrants’ behavioural intentions towards the municipality

PAR — 2026-08-10 Original Public Service Delegation and the Mechanisms of Blame Attribution: Evidence From a Survey Experiment on Public Service Failure Oscar Nowlan

PNAS 123/33 pp. e2617191123-e2617191123 2026-08-10 Original Americans favor predistributive over redistributive economic policies David Broska, Jonne Kamphorst, Robb Willer Abstract Redistributive policies designed to reduce economic inequality through taxes and transfers (e.g., safety-net benefits funded by progressive taxation) receive less support in the United States than in many Western democracies. Recent work suggests Americans may be more receptive to "predistributive" policies, which seek to reduce economic inequality before taxes and transfers (e.g., minimum-wage increases). Yet existing evidence leaves open whether this support gap characterizes contemporary Americans overall, and whether it persists when the same policy proposals are described in predistributive vs. redistributive terms, with their core provisions held constant. Across 31 national U.S. survey waves from 2015 to 2024 (total [Formula: see text]), we find greater support for policies classified as predistributive than redistributive. We then fielded a preregistered experiment with a national U.S. sample ([Formula: see text]), randomly varying whether otherwise identical policy proposals were described as increasing earnings for people lower in the income distribution, shifting resources from higher- to lower-income individuals, or presented only with the policy description given in all conditions. Support was higher under predistributive than redistributive descriptions. Comparison with the control condition clarifies this difference: Predistributive descriptions received support comparable to control, whereas redistributive descriptions received lower support. Exploratory analyses suggest perceived respect for hard work and beneficiary deservingness were associated with the support gap. Together, these results suggest Americans prefer policies that reduce inequality by influencing earnings more than through taxes and transfers.

PSJ 54/3 2026-08-09 Original Power Through Visibility: How Policy Narratives Matter in Climate Change Debate on X Simon Bulian, Anne‐Marie Parth, Maria Becker, Lars Tapken

PMR — pp. 1-29 2026-08-07 Original Reference points, negativity bias and citizens’ performance evaluations: a replication and extension

PSJ 54/3 2026-08-06 Original Transparency and Responsibility Attribution: A Field Experiment in Western Uganda Bill Schultz, Eric A. Coleman, Rani Parker, Jacob Manyindo, Emmanuel Mukuru

JPART — 2026-08-05 Original Large language models and conversational counter-arguments to antipublic sector bias John D Marvel, Sheeling Neo, Rachel Cho, Sangwon Ju Abstract Abstract Can a good argument change an individual’s mind? In three preregistered experiments, we explore this question in the domain of public sector organizational performance. We observe human subjects as they engage in conversations with a generative artificial intelligence programmed to argue in one of seven distinct “styles,” including a confrontational challenger style, a didactic style, and a sycophantic style. We develop a theory of effective argumentation predicting that conversational styles which are pleasant and engaging will be more persuasive than styles which are unpleasant or unstimulating. Contrary to this prediction, we find that conversational styles which challenge subjects’ negative views of government agencies produce significant positive attitude change, while sycophantic styles that indulge those views do not. Troublingly, subjects find the sycophantic styles more enjoyable, less frustrating, and more credible than the challenger styles. This dissociation between user experience and persuasive outcome—what we call “grudging persuasion”—suggests that attitude change does not require a pleasant conversational experience, and that the styles subjects enjoy most may be precisely the ones least likely to move them. Our findings point to a potentially dark side of large language model-based persuasion: sycophantic styles that users find most appealing are the least effective at correcting misinformed views.

PSJ 54/3 2026-08-04 Original The Effects of Policy Success Versus Failure Narratives Sarah Pralle, Emily Thorson Abstract ABSTRACT While public policies usually have mixed effects, succeeding at some aspects and failing at others, this nuance is often lost in public discourse when political actors like advocacy groups and politicians strategically emphasize either the successes or failures of particular policies. For example, advocacy groups often emphasize the failures of existing policy with the goal of galvanizing public attention and concern. However, little empirical evidence exists assessing the actual causal impact of these different approaches on public attitudes. This paper presents the results of a pre‐registered experiment in which participants watch a TikTok‐style short news video about either the success or failure of one of three different public policies and then are asked about their trust in government to handle the issue, their perceptions of the issue's importance, and their feelings of collective efficacy. While success and failure narratives are both effective at raising an issue's salience, focusing on a policy's failure has the downstream effect of increasing cynicism about the government's ability to address the issue.

JOP — 2026-08-03 Original Attacking Women or their Policies? Understanding Violence against Women in Politics Gianmarco Daniele, Gemma Dipoppa, Massimo Pulejo Abstract We present the first causal evidence that female politicians are more likely to face political violence. Using fourteen years of data on attacks against Italian politicians, we show that marginally elected female mayors—similar to men and elected in comparable towns—are three times as likely to be attacked. We find no gender differences in policy platforms, policymaking, performance, or corruption. Instead, violence emerges independently on women's choices, consistently with discrimination - rather than political influence - driving the gap in violence. Female mayors are less likely to seek re-election after attacks, highlighting violence’s role in perpetuating the gender gap.

APSR — pp. 1-21 2026-07-29 Original Contested Governance and Civilian Prosocial Behavior: Evidence from Lab-in-the-Field Experiments in India BRANDON BOLTE, VINEETA YADAV, BUMBA MUKHERJEE Abstract How does contested governance by states and competing armed actors affect the behavior of the governed? During civil conflicts, rebel organizations frequently provide public goods, judicial arbitration, and security, but these forms of governance often operate alongside local state institutions. Beyond avoiding violence, therefore, noncombatants must navigate the daily uncertainty of local governance by states and armed groups vying for territorial control. This, we argue, shapes their quotidian interactions with one another. Using a series of lab-in-the-field experiments and surveys from Naxal-affected Bihar, India, we find that individuals living under such contested governance exhibit greater interpersonal trust and trustworthiness and less opportunistic behavior. We propose two mechanisms to explain these patterns—fearing intra-community retaliation or substituting for the state with interpersonal reliance. Most evidence is only consistent with the latter. By connecting governance, rebellion, and social capital, this work makes important contributions toward understanding the micro-politics of local order during longstanding armed conflicts.