Research Agenda

Articles in Refereed Journals

↓ The Big Lie: Expressive Responding and Misperceptions in the United States
Fahey, J.J. (2022). Journal of Experimental Political Science

Abstract: Misinformation about events surrounding the 2020 election and the COVID-19 pandemic pose an existential threat to American democracy and public health. Public opinion surveys reveal that high percentages of Republicans indicate that they endorse some aspects of mistaken beliefs surrounding election fraud in the 2020 election. Still, understanding how to measure the endorsement of misperceptions is critical for understanding the threat at hand. Are high levels of mistaken beliefs genuinely held, or are they partially a function of expressive responding? I address this question through a set of survey experiments encouraging accuracy oriented processing among the general public. Using well-powered surveys of Republicans and Independents, I find that treatments designed to encourage more accurate responses are ineffective in reducing endorsement of partisan electoral and public health misperceptions and can in some cases even backfire. These findings suggest that support for these misperceptions are genuinely held.

↓ When Populists Win: How Populist Success affects Democratic Attitudes in Germany and the UK
Fahey, J.J., Alarian, H.M., & Allen, T.J. (2022). Electoral Studies.

Abstract: Right-wing populists have emerged and endured in a wide range of democracies, threatening democracy through their attacks on liberal institutions. Yet beyond these proximate threats, relatively little attention is paid to the effect of populism’s success on individual attitudes—in particular, the attitudes of the non-populist electorate. This article addresses this gap, exploring populism’s role in shaping democratic satisfaction in two recent electoral populist wins: the 2016 Brexit referendum in the UK and the 2017 election of the far-right, populist Alternative für Deutschland in Germany. Leveraging high quality panel data surrounding each event, we reveal the mainstream electorate experiences a decline in democratic satisfaction after a populist win. Moreover, we reveal this democratic decline is not an artefact of losing an election but a direct effect of a rightwing populist electoral victory. These findings reveal right-wing populism can threaten democratic support type even among their erstwhile opponents.

↓ Principled or Partisan? The Effect of Cancel Culture Framings on Support for Free Speech
Fahey, J.J., Roberts, D.C. , & Utych, S. (2022). American Politics Research.

Abstract: Political scientists and social movement scholars have long been interested in the effects that media framings have on support for controversial speech. Recently, the concept of cancel culture has complicated our understanding of free speech. In particular, the modern RepublicanParty under Donald Trump has made “fighting cancel culture” a cornerstone of its electoral strategy. We use a nationally representative survey experiment to assess whether individuals’ opposition to cancel culture is principled or contingent on the ideological identity of the speaker. We show that framing speech restrictions as the consequence of cancel culture does not increase support for free speech among Republicans. Further, when leftwing groups utilize cancel culture framings, Republicans become even less supportive of those groups’ free speech rights. These findings cast doubt on the sincerity of Republicans’ commitment to the term cancel culture.

↓ Building Populist Discourse: An Examination of Populist Communication in American Presidential Elections, 1896-2016
Fahey, J.J. (2021). Social Science Quarterly.

Abstract: This paper examined the history of the use of populist frames in American presidential campaign discourse in order to answer a set of interrelated questions about how populist discourse is constructed and employed. Using a novel database of presidential campaign speeches (n=189) from 63 major candidates from 1896-2016, I coded these speeches for presence or absence of a set of eleven populist frames. Mokken scale analysis was conducted to determine if populist discourse is “built” in a logical way by political candidates. Regression analysis was conducted to measure if outsider candidates were more likely to employ populist framing. Eight of the eleven frames comprise a stable Mokken scale that measures populist discourse. Results show that anti-bureaucratic and nativist frames do not load onto the same factor as other populist frames, suggesting that they may be measuring a separate concept. Candidates are more likely to use generic, less-threatening aspects of the populist frame than they are to use illiberal, “risky” frames. Less-experienced and third-party candidates are also more likely to use populist discourse. Populism is therefore best understood as a flexible but coherent set of discursive frames present across modern campaign history, and are most commonly utilized by outsider candidates.

↓ Emotional Voting, Racial Animus and Economic Anxiety in the 2016 Presidential Election
Fahey, J.J., Scicchitano, M.J, Goodman, J.R, Johns, T.L, Morris, J.D. (2020). American Review of Politics.

Abstract: In the wake of Donald Trump’s presidential election victory, several competing theories were offered purporting to explain Trump’s appeal to American voters. These included arguments that Trump voters were mostly “white working class” voters who felt left behind in an increasingly globalized economy; that Trump voters were those who simply felt negatively about the direction of the economy; or that Trump voters were attracted to the candidates use of overtly racialized language against minority groups such as immigrants and Blacks. This paper utilizes data from AdSAM, an emotional response survey system, to measure the emotive responses of likely voters toward candidates in the 2016 election. The survey also measured emotional responses towards issues including immigration, the economy, and the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement. The results suggest that the strongest predictors for voting for Trump were negative feelings towards the economy and negative responses to the BLM movement, and emphasizes emotional, rather than cognitive responses as explaining support for Trump.

Selected ongoing Research

Admissions-as-corrections reduce support for partisan media misperceptions and intended partisan media consumption. Fahey, J.J. (2024) Conditionally accepted, The Journal of Politics.

The “Right” migrants: how populist radical right Parties strategically discuss immigration. Fahey, J.J. & Alarian, H.M. Under review.

Registered report: re-examining the effectiveness of perspective-taking interventions in increasing inclusionary attitudes and behavior towards immigrants. Fahey, J.J. & Marsh, W.Z.C. Under review.

The new p-hacking: the perverse incentives of pre-registration and selective hypothesis reporting. Fahey, J.J.

“I was wrong!” Assessing the effectiveness of personal admission narratives on reducing belief in misperceptions. Fahey, J.J. & Anson, I.G., & Molokach, B.