@article{munzert_ramirez-ruiz_2020,
title={Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Voting Advice Applications},
publisher={Political Communication},
author={Munzert, Simon and Ramirez-Ruiz, Sebastian},
year={2021}, volume={0}, number={0}, pages={1-16}, doi={10.1080/10584609.2020.1843572}
}


The unexpected results of the Peace Referendum changed conflict termination preferences in Colombia.

Abstract

In October 2016, the Colombian electorate narrowly rejected in a plebiscite the final agreement to end the conflict with the longest-running armed insurgency in the Western Hemisphere, the FARC. The plebiscite's result provides a unique opportunity to assess dynamics in civil conflict termination preferences. I exploit the unexpected victory of the No vote, observed during the AmericasBarometer fieldwork, to estimate the effect of the uncertainty about the trajectory of the conflict generated by the outcome of the plebiscite. The unexpected defeat of the peace plebiscite did not measurably change the expressed support for the recently rejected agreement. However, it increased the public support for a negotiated rather than military settlement to the conflict, as well as respondents' willingness to give concessions to FARC members. These findings inform the broader literature on civilian preferences towards civil conflict termination and compromise.

Cheating in Online Assessments of Political Knowledge: Evidence from Survey and Digital Trace Data

Abstract

Survey measures of individuals' political knowledge feature frequently in social science research. As self-administered online surveys grow in popularity, the validity of these measures has been called into question. In this note, we provide first-hand evidence of cheating in online assessments of political knowledge. We combine survey responses with web tracking data of a German (N = 685) and a US (N = 409) online panel to assess whether people turn to external sources for answers. The observed item-level prevalence rates of cheating vary depending on question type and difficulty from 0 to 12%. We find that 23% of the respondents from the German panel engage in cheating at least once across waves. On the contrary, less than 1% of the US respondents, who were discouraged from looking up external information with a commitment pledge, could be caught red-handed. We find robust respondent- and item-level characteristics associated with cheating. However, instances of cheating are rare events, as such, they are difficult to classify in the absence of tracking data. Even so, our analyses comparing naive and cheating-corrected measures of political knowledge provide little evidence that cheating distorts empirical models.

Prioritization preferences for COVID-19 vaccination are consistent across five countries

Abstract

Vaccination against COVID-19 is making progress globally, but vaccine doses remain a rare commodity in many parts of the world. Policymakers have defined criteria to regulate who gets priority access to the vaccination, such as age, health complications, or those who hold system-relevant jobs. We explore public preferences about vaccine allocation using a survey that was fielded in five countries from September to December 2020 (Brazil, Germany, Italy, Poland, and the United States). We measure preferences using ranking and forced-choice tasks. We find that the public agrees with expert guidelines in giving priority to healthcare workers and people with medical preconditions. However, they also consider those signing up early for vaccination and citizens of the country to be more deserving of priority access to vaccination than latercomers and non-citizens. These results hold across measures, countries, and sociodemographic subgroups.