The 2025 CPAC will explore the politics of marginalized groups. The invited speakers are Aala Abdelgadir (University of Pittsburgh), Jangai Jap (University of Georgia), Marcus Johnson (University of Maryland), Gwyneth McClendon (NYU), Cecilia Mo (UC Berkeley), Martin Naunov (Northwestern), Alberto López Ortega (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam), and Natán Skigin (University of Georgia).
This event will be held in person, at the Knight Center.
The graduate student organizers for this year’s CPAC are Amaan Charaniya, Rex Weiye Deng, and Raduan Meira.
See below for details of the titles and abstracts.
Hate crimes and identity of young Muslims in Europe
Anti-Muslim hostility has proliferated in Western countries in recent years. We examine the impact of this development on the attitudes of young Muslims in the UK and Germany. We combine measures of hate crimes and Islamophobia in the media with a survey of children of immigrants to study how group targeting impacts national identification, expressions of religiosity and attitudes on the process of immigrant integration. We find that exposure to anti-Muslim hostility does not lead to disengagement from majority society but instead increases expressions of belonging and distancing from the religious ingroup. Our findings suggest that group targeting informs Muslims of their own likelihood of individual-level victimization. Heightened expressions of majority identity may then be a strategy for avoiding future discrimination by disassociating from the stigmatized group.
When Ethnic Identity Undermines National Identity: Insights from Myanmar
Constructivist theories of ethnic identity suggest that individuals hold multiple, socially constructed identities that may either reinforce or crosscut one another. How does ethnic identity relate to the state-based national identity? This question is particularly important in societies with a history of self-determination conflicts, where ethnic identity may be especially salient and compete with state-based national identity. While existing research indicates that ethnic identities can harden and interethnic relations may deteriorate in such contexts, the relationship between ethnic identity and state-based national identity remains understudied. This paper addresses this gap by elucidating and testing two competing expectations. On one hand, ethnic identity and state-based national identity may have an inverse relationship because ethnic identity inherently involves a self-determination claim and functions as an ethno-national identity. On the other hand, the salience of ethno-national identity may vary at the individual level, allowing ethnic identity to be compatible with state-based national identity. Using survey data from Myanmar—home to ethnic groups with varying legacies of self-determination conflicts—I find that pride in state-based national identity and pride in ethnic identity are positively correlated. This relationship holds even among ethnic minority groups engaged in direct conflict with the state and those exposed to conflict-related violence. However, when ethnic identity is explicitly measured in terms of self-determination claims, the correlation between the two identities becomes negative. These findings challenge a commonly held assumption that identification with subnational groupings necessarily comes at the expense of state-based national identity and have implications for how we measure state-based national identity.
The Racial Division of Electoral Labor (a chapter in the book manuscript: Racialized Democracy: the Electoral Politics of Race in Latin America)
In the absence of centralized political appeals to Black voters, why is political party membership racialized in Panama? The preceding chapters in this section show evidence of electoral discrimination. Black voters are more likely to be targeted for political patronage than mestizo and white voters, because of the electoral mobilization of racial structure and racial stereotypes. As a consequence, Black voters are equally partisan to non-Black voters, but their affective attachments to parties are disproportionately based in (the expectation of) patronage.
In this chapter, I examine the consequences of the racialization of clientelism and partisanship, what I refer to as the racial division of electoral labor. The chapter begins with a brief discussion of party membership in the Panamanian context and its importance to party survival. Next, I analyze focus groups with Panamanian voters, which show that voters recognize that party leaders are overwhelmingly white and wealthy (rabiblancos) and party members are overwhelmingly black and economically marginalized. Building on these conversations, the next section of the chapter uses a photo elicitation experiment to show that people’s expectations of who joins parties are shaped by racial stereotypes. I test the inference that racial stereotypes affect party recruitment using nationally representative survey data. Finally, I conclude the chapter with a discussion of the racial division of labor as a material consequence of electoral discrimination.
The Effects of Learning about New Electoral Rules: Field Experimental Evidence from Sierra Leone
How do switches in electoral rules influence voter behavior? A robust literature has provided theory and empirical evidence, but the focus has largely been on elite-led mechanisms of change. We contribute by examining whether voter learning about electoral rules can have direct effects on how voters participate in and think about elections. To do so, we implement a field experiment in the context of a real-world switch from single-member plurality rules to multi-member district, closed-list proportional rules in Sierra Leone, thus expanding the experimental study of voter reactions to electoral rules into the field and further into the Global South. We randomize information about the new electoral rules across individuals. We find that learning about MMD/PR increased women’s commitment to voting, decreased voter support for particularistic appeals, and increased trust in the elections. These effects appeared even though elites had not fully adjusted their campaigning to the new electoral rules.
Growing Awareness to Reduce Labor Abuse: An Experimental Test of a Migrant Domestic Workers’ Rights-Awareness Campaign
Migrant domestic workers (MDWs) are highly vulnerable to labor abuse. Using a survey and randomized controlled trial conducted in Hong Kong, this study investigates MDWs’ labor experiences and the potential of rights-awareness campaigns to mitigate labor abuse. The campaigns increased the public’s knowledge of MDWs’ rights and reduced the social acceptability of MDWs’ mistreatment. To the extent that improving knowledge about MDWs’ rights and decreasing acceptance of mistreatment affects the behaviors of employers and others who have leverage to support MDWs, rights-awareness campaigns can help reduce labor abuse. However, the campaigns had limited impact on MDWs themselves, who demonstrated high awareness of their rights, but often experienced concerning levels of abuse and regarded mistreatment as an unavoidable aspect of their employment. These differences highlight the constrained agency of MDWs to independently improve their labor conditions, and emphasize the value of rights awareness initiatives targeting employers of MDWs and the general public.
Sexuality-Based Stereotyping and Discrimination in Politics
This paper draws on three national survey experiments (N = 4,673) to examine the nature of sexuality-based discrimination in politics, by exploring how American voters stereotype gay and lesbian politicians. I find that electoral preferences for or against sexual minority candidates are driven less by stereotypes of competence or warmth and more by ideology stereotyping. Among Democrats, support for gay and lesbian candidates reflects statistical discrimination: in the absence of information about a candidate’s partisan or ideological identity, Democrats assume sexual minority candidates are more liberal, leading to greater electoral support. However, these biases disappear once a candidate’s partisan or ideological identity is clarified. Republicans, in contrast, persist in stereotyping gay and lesbian candidates as more liberal—and, thus, in discriminating against them—even when these candidates explicitly identify as Republican, describe themselves as “conservative,” or advocate staunchly conservative policies, such as opposing abortion or banning gender-affirming care. I argue that for many Republicans, gay or lesbian identity is not merely an imperfect heuristic for ideology but is seen as an ideology itself—one fundamentally incompatible with conservatism.
Uncovering Hidden History: How Past Anti-LGBTQ+ Repression Shapes Modern Attitudes in Spain
A vast literature has explored the consequences of historical narratives, particularly those surrounding violence and repression, in shaping political outcomes and attitudes. However, strikingly little attention has been paid to narratives of LGBTQ+ repression, which have been prominent across both democracies and non-democracies. How do individuals react to narratives of national repression against LGBTQ+ communities? Building on two theoretical frameworks—the Marley Hypothesis, which links racial prejudice to ignorance of history, and homonationalism, which seeks to reconcile the parallel trends of pro-LGBTQ+ attitudes and support for nationalist parties—this paper tests the effects of historical knowledge related to LGBTQ+ repression during the Spanish Civil War and under the Franco dictatorship. Using an original survey (N=5230), we examine the impact of these historical treatments on queerphobia, policy preferences, threat perceptions, and party affinities. Results from an embedded video-vignette experiment reveal three key findings: First, LGBTQ+ repression under Franco is not well known among both LGBTQ+ and non-LGBTQ+ communities. Second, exposure to this history decreases queerphobia and increases support for the inclusion of LGBTQ+ themes in education. Third, while exposure to such history can reduce prejudice, we do not find evidence that it significantly shifts attitudes toward downstream political issues such as group threat and political party preferences. These findings help refine our understanding of the promises and limitations of historical knowledge in shaping modern attitudes.
Dangerous Stereotypes: Correcting Misperceptions about Undocumented Immigrants to Promote Inclusionary Preferences
As the number of migrants globally has reached a new record high, partly driven by intra-regional migration in Latin America and the Caribbean, natives’ attitudes toward immigrants have become less welcoming, straining social cohesion and core democratic principles. This project responds to the pressing need to build citizen support for the implementation of inclusionary policies to which immigrants are often legally entitled but are frequently denied. Highlighting the central role of immigrants’ agency, we develop and empirically test a theoretical framework that emphasizes the effects of correcting misperceptions about undocumented immigrants through personal testimonies to increase citizen support for inclusionary policies and for the political candidates more likely to implement them. We test our argument using a mixed-method approach, drawing from fieldwork in Mexico as well as from quantitative data using an original three-wave nationwide panel survey. Counterintuitively, we find that immigrants who are culturally similar to natives are the ones who are most likely to be perceived as economic and security threats. Encouragingly, our experimental findings show that correcting misperceptions about immigrants through personal narratives results in more united societies where natives durably become more supportive of pro-immigrant policies and politicians. Beyond providing a novel theoretical framework and empirical data, our study offers valuable evidence-based lessons on how to design and implement education and media campaigns that can promote natives’ inclusionary preferences and facilitate immigrant integration.