Thomas J. Leeper's research while affiliated with The London School of Economics and Political Science and other places

... A second limitation is that the 10% response rate for the online brochure is slightly lower than the range of response rates from mail surveys of expected responses to hurricanes-24.6% from the Texas coastal evacuation expectations survey (Lindell et al. 2001) and 23.3% from the Valley Study Area coastal evacuation expectations mail survey ). However, this response rate is consistent with the response rates from mail surveys (Leeper 2019) and some other hazards surveys (e.g., 8% in Jiang et al. 2021), but higher than the response rates for web-based hurricane surveys-2% for Martín et al. (2020) and 1% for Lindell et al. (2020). The similarly low response rates for the Internet surveys suggest that people may be reluctant to log in to unfamiliar websites for fear of having malware surreptitiously downloaded onto their devices. ...

... Therefore, a tight referendum result can appear illegitimate to those on the losing side in a way that a close election defeat (supposing that the relevant rules were known and adhered to) is not viewed as illegitimate by the losers. Hobolt et al., (2022) and Matsusaka (2020, Chap. 12) study the issue of the Brexit referendum and political legitimacy. ...

... While such designs have certain advantages such as straightforward causal identification, they ignore a crucial aspect of our media environment: people's discretion over their individual media diet and the information they decide to access. There are notable examples of research in related areas that directly address selective exposure as part of their experimental designs-such as recent work on media hostility (Arceneaux et al., 2012), persuasion (De Benedictis-Kessner et al., 2019), and political knowledge (Leeper, 2020). To our knowledge, however, no experimental study on misinformation corrections to date takes similar steps to account for endogenous media choice. ...

... 4.2. Dependent variable: Affective polarization at the regional level Affective polarization has been measured in various ways, using feeling thermometer ratings (Iyengar et al., 2019;Wagner, 2020), traits ratings (Iyengar et al., 2012;Levendusky, 2018), trust (Westwood et al., 2018), opinion-based groups (Hobolt et al., 2021) or social distance measures; albeit the latter has been characterized as less consistent (Druckman & Levendusky, 2019). Thermometer ratings, using survey data asking respondents to evaluate parties or partisans on a 0-100 scale, are the most common tools used in the literature. ...

... Future research, however, should examine a broader range of issues that bring different ideologies to the fore and appeal to different populations. Fourth, since we presented respondents with multiple cases, we did not ask credibility questions about each post to avoid priming respondents about the intentional misleading/false character of the message (Klar et al., 2020). However, we acknowledge that belief in misinformation is a valid factor for researching the willingness behind the dissemination of misinformation online. ...

... In the purposive sampling technique, the experts were selected deliberately and not randomly. Furthermore, in the purposive sampling technique, only the experts who are readily approachable and interested to participate in the study were selected (Klar and Leeper, 2019). These experts were selected based on the following qualifications: 1) must have at least 5 years of working experience in the industry; 2) must have a minimum bachelor's degree; 3) must be at the supervisor position level. ...

... The current study adopted a populationbased discrete choice experiment with a randomized conjoint design, that is, conjoint experiment. Conjoint analysis was initially developed in marketing research (Cattin and Wittink, 1982;Green et al., 2001;Green and Rao, 1971;Green and Srinivasan, 1990), but later expanded as a causal inference method with randomized designs in political science (Clayton et al., 2021;Cuesta et al., 2021;Leeper et al., 2020). Among the conjoint analysis studies, an experiment on public preferences to admit immigration to the US (Hainmueller and Hopkins, 2015) inspired this study to analyze public attitudes about inbound travelers' entry into the host country. ...

... This also implies that we do not follow the standard approach in conjoint experiments and do not estimate Average Marginal Component Effects (AMCE; Hainmueller et al., 2014) or Marginal Means (MMs; Leeper et al., 2020). Instead, we estimate logistic regressions in which the dependent variable is 1 if a respondent selected the illiberal politician and 0 otherwise. ...

... [107], and the interaction between the small number of items may reduce the capitalization of chance. However, the optimal results need to be evaluated for safe generalization [108,109]. ...

... And, while there is some correspondence between their choices and what they explicitly mention using, it is by no means perfect. These results largely mirror findings in other literatures regarding the introspective power of individual voters, notably those finding an extremely limited role of subjective "issue importance" in the impact of particular issue positions on vote choice (Leeper & Robison, 2020). Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. ...