Public trust in the military and the civilian leaders who control it is central to democratic governance and national security. However, we know relatively little about how such trust is formed. This study examines how citizens update their trust in each actor following military-related events and whether information about the multilevel structure fundamental to democratic civil-military relations influences this process. Existing research has largely relied on performance theories, which assume a straightforward causal link between event outcomes and trust, and on observational data that complicate causal identification. Building on attribution theory, this study refines performance-based accounts by highlighting the multilevel structure. It conducted three survey experiments and a supplementary survey in Japan, a consolidated democracy with a considerable armed force and a population with a relatively strict view on civilian control. The results indicate that event outcomes influence evaluations of civilian and military actors to a similar degree, although underlying mechanisms are asymmetrical depending on the outcome’s direction. Moreover, differing from theoretical expectations, information about the multilevel structure does not substantially alter the effect of outcome information on trust in most cases, although it shapes attributional reasoning. These findings challenge conventional understandings of trust and accountability in democratic civil-military relations.
Gatekeeping is viewed as an essential element of committee power in the U.S. Congress, but its emergence is not well understood. The House of Representatives moved to a system of standing committees by 1825. We investigated whether that move gave committees gatekeeping power prior to the Civil War or layered committees atop the earlier Jeffersonian system centering consequential legislative action on the floor. Using original data from the House Journal, we find evidence of institutional layering, with elements of gatekeeping - jurisdictional clarity, positive agenda setting, and negative agenda setting - developing unevenly and largely through changes in the behavior of members rather than formal reform of the House to empower its committees.
Infelicitous political talk is now a routine feature of American politics, with scholars debating the extent to which it meaningfully shapes citizens’ democratic attitudes. We seek to contribute to this body of work by showing that the degree of inappropriateness of a criticism is continuous and subjective; that rhetorical denigration of democratic institutions is more likely to influence evaluations of the speaker than to erode broader commitments to democracy; and that criticisms that “cross the line” of appropriateness can create backlashes that actually wind up increasing support for democratic institutions and values. Using an experiment embedded in a national survey, we evaluate the effects of inappropriate attacks on the U.S. judiciary. Perceived rhetorical denigration does not weaken democratic values; instead, it produces a small but consistent backlash that slightly increases support for democratic institutions. Our various findings strongly challenge the assumption that rising infelicitous talk poses a serious threat to democratic stability in the U.S.
Religious violence erodes the moral and social fabric that binds communities, striking at the very heart of societal cohesion. As fear and intolerance spread, the foundations of institutional trust weaken, leaving nations vulnerable to deep-seated divisions and governance challenges. Present investigation analyzes the asymmetric impact of religious violence on institutional trust in 10 selected emerging countries (India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria, Egypt, Brazil, Turkey, South Africa, Mexico, and the Philippines). Departing from conventional analyses that rely on standard econometric techniques and often overlook regional heterogeneity, the present investigation uses the cutting-edge Quantile-on-Quantile method. This approach facilitates a nuanced examination of cross-country variation, enhances analytical precision, and reveals intricate, nation-specific behavioral dynamics. The results exhibit a strong negative association between religious violence and institutional trust in most sample countries. In contrast, South Africa and Mexico exhibit a mixed association. These findings underscore notable variations across quantiles, highlighting the asymmetric nature of the relationship between the variables. They emphasize that policymakers must undertake thorough assessments and formulate strategies tailored to each country’s specific social and regional contexts, ensuring that the multifaceted and sensitive link between religious violence and institutional trust is addressed effectively and in a locally responsive manner.
As evidenced by its prominence in the 2024 presidential election, and subsequent Trump administration policies, immigration remains a polarizing and controversial topic in U.S. politics. While Latinos have historically been perceived as largely supportive of liberal immigration policy, recent events and the shifting identities and demographics of the Latino population call this perception into question. Given changes among the Latino electorate, we investigate immigration attitudes within this increasingly diverse community. Using the largest public opinion dataset in the United States, we analyze attitudes toward restrictive immigration policy of over 30,000 Latinos. We evaluate the effects of identity through predictors such as nativity, immigration status, group perceptions, partisanship, and ideology to understand the correlates of Latino public opinion toward immigration. Our findings highlight the role of conservative ideology, which is increasingly becoming an important component of Latino identity, in driving support for restrictionist policies and the minimal influence of nativity or language use. We also find that other components related to identity, such as beliefs about discrimination, correlate strongly with immigration attitudes. Our results underscore the complexity of Latino public opinion and the countervailing factors that result from various identities among Latinos regarding immigration policy.
