Three pre-registered experiments. One story. But now with page numbers. Non-heterosexual behaviour/identities among men is punished significantly more than the same among women.

Exogenous opportunity to have your political say at the polls makes you more certain about what you want to say in the polling booth. Snap elections accelerate the formation of vote intentions and depress voter uncertainty. doi.org/10.1016/j.el...

We show that the answer is yes with two pre-reg. experiments: i) A visual conjoint on popular heroes & villains, and ii) a false-recall experiment based on a vignette.

The paper's main argument is essentially to flip the partisan/motivated reasoning argument on its head and instead of assuming valence based on group status, ask if folks infer partisan group status based on valence too.

Like half of European political science, I too am heading to #EPSS2026. I'll be presenting on Saturday at 9:00 on gender and far-right acceptability You can also catch me on three other papers -- presented by exceptional co-authors Say Hi.

Today marks the beginning of Pride Month 🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ Here is a graph on why we still need pride.

Can confirm, not good. www.therainbowvote.com

Looking forward to being back in Mannheim next week. If you are keen to hear how political parties are rewarded and punished for taking non-ambiguous positions on trans rights, then you might find this paper I'll be presenting (w\ @bogatyrev.bsky.social) of interest!

What drives the effects? Is it an increase in folks dropping out (incumbents who don’t want to stand again) or is it because of failed recruitment (lower N of new recruits)? Results suggest this is driven by a shift in new recruits.

The result is a non-trivial decrease in the share of candidates with immigrant backgrounds and no change in the share of sexual minority candidates. Big differences emerge between parties on the left and right. The left increases the share of immigrant-background candidates and the right decreases

Using registry data with all candidates across all municipalities in Sweden, we use an RDD comparing those municipalities where Sweden Democrats gained or just missed out on representation.

The programme for @epssnet.bsky.social's inaugural conference in Belfast is now live. W\ @anacweeks.bsky.social, we were responsible for chairing the Gender & Sexuality Section. Our section will have 13 panels over 3 days. You can see the full programme here: lnkd.in/gQbba9ev

Keep in mind: Sweden already has ~87% voter turnout 🤯, and LGB Swedes vote at even HIGHER rates than counterfactual straight peers (~93% vs ~89% in 2022). So we're finding mobilization effects even at the ceiling. In lower-turnout countries, the effect could be much larger.

The result: a 1 percentage-point increase in LGB neighbors boosts LGB voter turnout by 1.56 pp MORE than it does for their straight neighbors. That's a causal effect — and it holds up across multiple robustness checks (different neighbourhood sizes, controls for income/education, etc.).

We used Swedish population registers covering nearly 8 MILLION people across 4 elections (1994–2022). Sweden tracks *validated* voter turnout at the individual level + precise geolocation data This let us build a "neighbourhood" around every single person & measure how many LGB neighbours they had

Some people like using our (w/ @markuswagner.bsky.social) heroes & villains paper to teach partisanship. We've made it easier (and fun?) for students with a new online playground 🦹 doi.org/10.1017/psrm... www.turnbulldugarte.com/heroes-playg...

I like this award-winning paper for many reasons. You should read it if you care about instrumental inclusion.

Two pre-registered experiments, same story. Respondents place in-group identities on heroes and out-group identities on villains. Respondents (falsely) recall someone's political identity if they are positively or negatively valanced

Yet to surpass the (professional) fun we had in writing this piece now out in latest issue of @psrm.bsky.social We know political identities share the valence we assign to others. Here we asked, do valence signals also shape the partisanship we assign to others? doi.org/10.1017/psrm...

A life in peer review. stuartjames1990.github.io/peer-review/

In a pre-reg visual conjoint set-up based on a fictitious public consultation, *both* nativists and nativists reject policy recommendations from muslim associations.

In this paper we ask: does the theory hold regardless of the policy type (femonationalism, homonationalism, econationalism) *and* the direction of the policy

Muy bueno Pablo! Una hipótesis alternativa: los hombres reprimen (más) su identidad bisexual porque anticipan penalización social mayor por no ser heterosexual 🤓 doi.org/10.1017/S147...

Friday brought good news and bad news. Today I am now allowed to share the good. Via the generous donation of the Wallenberg Foundation and the Swedish Royal Academy of Sciences, I now have a few million euros to help understand more about the selective inclusion of LGBTQ+ citizens

*After* we notified APSR ourselves regarding a corrigendum for a standard-error coding issue, we were told a Comment was forthcoming and given 60 days to submit a response

A few notes on process: When we were contacted by the replicator on Oct. 2nd 2024 we replied immediately on Oct.9th. We received no reply to our invitation to collaborate on a replication nor to discuss their concerns.

5. Across a large universe of specifications - testing sensitivity to researcher degrees of freedom around weight reference parameters, caps, and SE, our conclusions are substantively unchanged.

3. The Comment does not consider the full set of subgroup analyses in the paper. Those actively *not* reported in the Comment support our main claim.

2. Our primary results and conclusions do not hinge on the choice of weights. If anything, the estimates in the article are slightly smaller than the median.