Gabor Simonovits’s research while affiliated with Central European University and other places

A startling feature of the countless recent sex scandals involving politicians has been the almost complete lack of public apologies. This note explores the electoral incentives politicians face when crafting communication strategies in the aftermath of sex scandals. We focus on two communication strategies – denials and apologies – and assess their impact on incumbent support across a wide range of scandals that vary in terms of the seriousness of the charges as well as the availability of evidence. Using data from a series of survey experiments, including over 10,000 respondents we find that citizens punish incumbents who apologize, even in the case of accusations that appear the least serious in the eyes of voters. Moreover, apologies fail to generate political support compared to denials, even in cases when voters are exposed to evidence. This suggests that in most cases apologies are simply not politically viable communication strategies.

There is a growing worry about the health of American democracy, and political scientists and pundits alike are looking for possible explanations. Surveys conducted during the Trump presidency showed considerable citizen support for liberal democratic norm erosions, especially among Republicans. However, recent experimental research also shows that voters of both parties are more tolerant of norm erosion committed by politicians of the party they prefer. In this note, we aim to reconcile these contradictory findings by analyzing surveys spanning from 2006 to 2021 on the public’s tolerance of executive concentration of power. We also collect original data under both the Trump and Biden administrations gauging support for a broad array of liberal democratic norm erosions. Support for such erosions, in fact, has been relatively similar across Democrats and Republicans once we account for the party of the president. Support for executive aggrandizement has been prevalent among supporters of the president’s party at least since the second term of the Bush administration. Increased checks and balances on the executive, through divided government, amplifies this effect further. Taken together, these findings suggest that universal support for the liberal democratic status quo has been weaker among those who support the president’s party, well before and since the Trump presidency.

There is a growing worry about the health of American democracy and politicalscientists and pundits alike are looking for possible explanations. Surveys conducted during the Trump presidency showed considerable citizen support for liberal democratic norm erosions, especially among Republicans. However, recent experimental research also shows that voters of both parties are more tolerant of norm erosion committed by politicians of the party they prefer. In this note, we aim to reconcile these contradictory findings by analyzing surveys spanning from 2006 to 2021 on the public’s tolerance of executive concentration of power. We also collect original data under both the Trump and Biden administrations gauging support for a broad array of liberal democratic norm erosions. Support for such erosions, in fact, have been relatively similar across Democrats and Republicans once we account for the party of the president. Support for executive aggrandizement has been prevalent among supporters of the president's party at least since the second term of the Bush administration. Increased checks and balances on the executive, through divided government, amplifies this effect further. Taken together, thesefindings suggest that universal support for the liberal democratic status quo has been weaker among those who support the president’s party well before, and since the Trump presidency.

Recent studies have documented large discrepancies between mass preferences and policies in U.S. states consistent with theories that highlight the oversized influence of affluent Americans on policymaking. In this note, we replicate and extend a recent such study (Simonovits, Guess, and Nagler, 2019) to assess how policy bias evolves in time. Specifically, relying on novel data and methods, we construct measures of minimum wage preferences and compare them to observed policies in each state for the years of 2014, 2016, 2019, and 2021. We demonstrate that, averaged across states, policy change closely tracked a pronounced increase in preferences for higher minimum wages, but the size of policy bias remained relatively stable. However, this national pattern hides an increasingly polarized policy landscape: in many states, insufficient responsiveness led to an increasing deviation between preferences and policies, while in other states policy changes—larger than preference changes—closed initial policy bias.

The aim of our study is to assess the drivers of discriminatory behaviors of real-estate agents and private landlords toward prospective Roma tenants, relying on qualitative data from Hungary. Though there is a broad literature on the forms and frequency of discrimination, we know much less about the question of why people discriminate . Previous research suggests that discrimination on the basis of ethnicity is widespread in Hungary. To understand the drivers of discrimination, we analyzed: (a) the sources and justifications of discrimination of Roma people on the rental housing market among real-estate agents and private landlords, the actors making decisions about tenants (b) mapped the social embeddedness of discrimination, and (c) assessed the resilience of discriminatory intentions by analyzing the reactions to a 3-min advocacy video showing discrimination of Roma people on the rental housing market. We conducted and analyzed five online group discussions with 18 real estate agents and landlords advertising properties for rent in different regions of the country. Our qualitative study revealed that discrimination of Roma people is understood to be a widespread and socially acceptable practice driven by the need to avoid risks attributed to Roma tenants based on widely held stereotypes about them. We identified certain specificities in the justification and argumentation strategies of real-estate agents in comparison to private landlords. By providing counter-information presenting the perspective of Roma tenants, negative views could be challenged on the emotional level and also by shifting the group dynamics, strengthening the viewpoint of those without prejudice. We discuss our findings with regards to the possibilities of interventions against discrimination in societies in which neither social norms nor state institutions expect the equal treatment of the members of ethnic minority groups.

This multimethod project investigates discrimination against members of two populous minority groups in the European Union: the Roma (numbering 6 million) and the disabled (numbering 100 million) on a leading Hungarian carpooling platform. In a field experiment, 1005 ride requests were sent to drivers, with passenger group membership (control, disabled, Roma) manipulated between participants. Widespread discrimination against both groups was apparent in significantly lower approval rates for disabled (56%) and Roma passengers (52%) relative to control (70%). Mechanisms driving anti-disabled and anti-Roma discrimination were probed using an experimental manipulation, natural language processing analysis of driver–passenger interactions, and an online survey (N = 398). Individuating information in the form of reviews did not mitigate unequal treatment, thus providing evidence against statistical (stereotype-based) discrimination. Militating against taste-based (attitudinal) discrimination, respondents reported negative attitudes toward Roma passengers but positive attitudes toward disabled passengers. Moreover, despite equivalent approval rates, disabled passengers were more likely to receive a response from drivers and received more polite responses than Roma passengers did. Overall, the observed patterns are most readily explained by intergroup emotions: Contempt toward Roma passengers likely engenders both passive and active harm, whereas pity toward disabled passengers likely engenders passive harm and active facilitation.

In this note we introduce a new approach to measure media alignment derived from the story-sharing behavior of journalists. We use a large corpus of online news stories from two leading Hungarian news sites and estimate alignment scores for a large number of outlets that they cite. To the extent that journalists are more likely to cite ideologically proximate sources, our measure can be used to compare a large number of media outlets on a political — in our case government vs. independent — space. We demonstrate the use of this approach with two empirical applications. First, we show that our alignment scores successfully capture known ideological variation across outlets at a single point in time. Second, we demonstrate that quarterly estimates of alignment for a captured outlet change dramatically following an abrupt change in ownership.

Due to its underregulated nature, the rapidly growing sharing economy can be a breeding ground for group-based disparities. Here we investigate discrimination on a leading Hungarian carpooling app against members of the two largest minority groups in the European Union: the Roma (numbering 6 million) and the disabled (numbering 100 million). In a field experiment, 1,005 requests for rides were sent to drivers, with passenger group membership (control, disabled, Roma) manipulated between participants. Widespread discrimination against both stigmatized groups was apparent in significantly lower approval rates for disabled (56%) and Roma (52%) relative to control passengers (70%). Potential mechanisms driving anti-disabled and anti-Roma discrimination were probed using a manipulation embedded in the field experiment, natural language processing (NLP) analysis of driver–passenger interactions, and an online survey (n = 398). Additional information about the passengers in the form of reviews did not mitigate unequal treatment, thus providing evidence against statistical (stereotype-based) discrimination. Militating against taste-based (attitudinal) discrimination, survey respondents reported highly negative attitudes toward Roma passengers but highly positive attitudes toward disabled passengers. Moreover, despite equivalent approval rates, disabled passengers were more likely to receive a response from drivers (even if a rejection) and received more polite responses than Roma passengers did. As such, the observed discriminatory patterns are most readily explained by intergroup emotions: Contempt toward Roma passengers likely engenders both passive and active harm, whereas pity toward disabled passengers likely engenders a combination of passive harm and active facilitation.