Research
Working Papers
The Prevalence and Correlates of Residential School Denialism in Canada
(R&R; with Edana Beauvais)
In 2021, news that hundreds of suspected unmarked graves had been identified at former residential schools for Indigenous children sparked an outpouring of collective grief in Canada. However, since then, misinformation denying the harmful legacies of residential schools has begun circulating. What is the extent of residential school denialism among the Canadian public? Can education help counter denialist misinformation? In this study, we develop and test a novel scale measuring residential school denialism. We find that nearly one in five non-Indigenous Canadians are willing to endorse denialist claims, while an equal share state that they do not know enough to offer an opinion. Denialist beliefs are more common among men, conservatives, those with anti-Indigenous attitudes and White Canadians who strongly identify with their racial in-group. Using an experimental intervention, we also show that providing educational information about residential schools increases the likelihood a respondent rejects denialist claims and reduces non-opinions.
Covid-19 and Preferences for Progressive Taxation: Evidence from a 2020 U.S. Ballot Proposal
(R&R)
A large political economy literature argues that periods of economic hardship can make redistribution more popular with voters. Based on these claims, recent research has investigated whether the Covid-19 pandemic shocked voters? policy preferences. The results in these studies are inconsistent and based on hypothetical policy proposals. By contrast, in this note, I investigate the relationship between the pandemic and support for progressive taxation using a real world case of revealed voter preferences: a 2020 Illinois ballot proposal to move from a flat to a graduated income tax system. Combining zip code-level health and economic data with local results from the referendum, I find that various indicators of pandemic-related economic burdens are not meaningfully associated with a higher vote share in favour of the progressive tax proposal. Supplementary analyses using a national panel of voters in 2016 and 2020 similarly reveals no association between personal hardships early in the pandemic and support for progressive taxation.
Historical Injustices and Outgroup Attitudes
How do revelations of historical injustices affect dominant group members’ attitudes toward an outgroup? Canonical theories of attitudinal updating make varied predictions about whether such information can change outgroup attitudes, and if so, whether those changes will persist over time. Yet by relying almost entirely on single-wave survey experiments, the existing evidence is not well-suited to adjudicating between these theoretical expectations. By contrast, this study documents changes in public opinion in a real world case: the unexpected announcements of hundreds of suspected unmarked graves at former state-funded ``residential schools” for Indigenous children in Canada in 2021. I find that intense media coverage of this historical injustice strengthened beliefs in systemic racism among non-Indigenous Canadians surveyed just after versus just before the news first broke. Yet attitudes returned to baseline as coverage of this story declined over the following months. When the salience of this injustice increased again several months later, there is no observable attitudinal change. I argue that these patterns are consistent with cognitive dissonance theory and show that the reversion in attitudes was most pronounced among White Canadians, a group that was especially threatened by the discourse around the injustices.
Personal Responsibility and Attitudes toward Intergroup Reconciliation
While many proposed solutions to systemic racism require government-led structural reforms, popular discourse regularly emphasizes actions that citizens can take in their own day-to-day lives on this issue. This article investigates how these appeals to personal responsibility affect support for improving intergroup relations. A common worry is this approach may induce a backlash if individuals feel personally blamed for injustices that are beyond their control. Yet highlighting the need for individual action can also prime considerations about self-image, efficacy, duty and social norms. I investigate these competing accounts using an online survey experiment that manipulates whether Canadians feel personally responsible for addressing past injustices against Indigenous peoples. I find that appealing to a sense of personal responsibility increases support for intergroup reconciliation and encourages a more expansive view of what is required to redress past wrongdoing. There is little evidence of backlash or feeling blamed. In fact, the treatment is most effective among conservatives, who report greater feelings of blame and less personal responsibility at baseline.
Can Changes to Historical Symbols Mobilize Support for Racial Justice Reforms? Evidence from Confederate Monument Removals
(with Roxanne Rahnama)
Recent debates over how to address racial injustice in the United States often center on two types of policies: redistributive measures that redress material inequities between groups and symbolic reforms that challenge dominant racial narratives. How do citizens evaluate these differing approaches to advancing racial justice? How do recent removals of Confederate symbols shape support for each of these policy types? In a survey of American adults, we find that support for redistributive and symbolic policies is positively correlated across partisan, racial, and regional lines. However, when pressed, respondents express a stronger preference for redistributive measures, often viewing symbolic reforms as insufficient or distracting. In an experimental framework, we find that informing respondents about recent Confederate statue removals does not significantly alter support for either policy type. Looking at qualitative reactions to the treatment, we identify a plausible explanation for this null finding: most respondents see the removals as a fight over history and less directly relevant a broader racial justice policy agenda.
Selected Works in Progress
Same As It Ever Was: Can Facts about the Persistence of Racial Wealth Inequality Shift Support for Reparations in America?
(with Anil Menon)
Advocates of reparations for historical injustices against African Americans often cite the general public’s lack of knowledge as a fundamental cause of America’s inaction on racial inequality. Many Americans are unaware of the scale of contemporary racial inequality and the lack of progress over recent decades. In this study, we test whether providing information about the racial wealth gap can change Americans’ opinions on a range of reparations policies. Our intervention is motivated by a large literature on how information about general levels of inequality can shift support for redistribution. Building on these findings, we expect that informing Americans about the scale and persistence of racial wealth inequality will increase the perceived importance of addressing this issue and boost support for reparations. We also examine if our intervention influences whether respondents believe this inequality is driven by structural barriers or individual failings. In a pilot study, we find evidence in support of these hypotheses. At a moment when several levels of government have begun exploring whether and how to enact reparations, this study provides guidance on how to arguments in favour of these policies and how to best educate Americans about the nature of racial inequality.
Election Outcomes and Social Trust
(with Amber Lee, Daniel Rubenson, Iva Srbinovska, David Sumantry, Jonah Davids, Annika Maulucci, Kristina Kisin)
Extensive research has shown that after an election, people who supported the winning party express greater trust in political institutions and the democratic process than those who supported losing parties. In the existing literature on this “sore loser” effect, social trust – a general trust in other members of society – has received little attention. We argue this is an oversight: election outcomes are often perceived by voters as signals about the competency and values of their fellow citizens. Using Canadian Election Study data from 2004 to 2021, we show that voters who supported the losing party express lower levels of social trust after the election. This gap between winners and losers is most apparent after national, rather than district-level contests, and among losers who expected to win before the election. Political polarization also moderates this relationship: the difference in social trust after elections is notably larger for voters who hold negative attitudes toward rival partisans, a pattern which is driven more by affective dislike rather than ideological considerations. Taken together, these results highlight the consequences of political competition for non-political attitudes and raise concerns about how partisan antipathy affects the health of democracy.
Pre-PhD Publications
On the beaten path: Violence against civilians and simulated conflict along road networks
(with Jessica Draper and Andrea Salvi. In Deutschmann, E., Lorenz, J., Wilhelm, A., Natalini, D. & Nardin, L.G. (eds.) (2020), Computational Conflict Research, Springer International Publishing)
More continuity than change? Re-evaluating the contemporary socio-economic and housing characteristics of suburbs
(with Markus Moos, Pablo Mendez, Liam McGuire, Elvin Wyly, Anna Kramer and Robert Walter-Joseph (2015). Canadian Journal of Urban Research 24 (2), 64-90. (link)