Vigilante violence, often targeting religious and sectarian minorities and preceded by unsubstantiated rumors, has taken the lives of many citizens in India and Pakistan in recent years. Despite its horrific nature, such vigilantism receives popular support. Can reducing the credibility of rumors via corrections decrease support for vigilantism? To answer this question, we field simultaneous, in-person experiments in Punjab, Pakistan, and Uttar Pradesh, India, regions where anti-minority vigilantism has been preceded by misinformation. We find that correcting rumors reduces support for vigilantism and increases the desire to hold vigilantes accountable. This effect is not attenuated by prior distrust toward out-groups. By contrast, information about state and elite behavior does not always shape attitudes toward vigilantism. These findings provide evidence that support for vigilantism can be reduced through the dissemination of credible information, even in polarized settings.

American voters consume an astounding amount of entertainment media, yet its political consequences are often neglected. We argue that this ostensibly apolitical content can create unique opportunities for politicians to build parasocial ties with voters. We study this question in the context of Donald Trump’s unconventional political trajectory and investigate the electoral consequences of The Apprentice. Using an array of data—content analysis, surveys, Twitter data, open-ended answers—we investigate how this TV program helped Trump brand himself as a competent leader and foster viewers’ trust in him. Exploiting the geographic variation in NBC channel inertia, we find that exposure to The Apprentice increased Donald Trump’s electoral performance in the 2016 Republican primary. We discuss the implications of these findings in light of the rise of nonconventional politicians in this golden age of entertainment.

Although commentators often point to the political value of legislators’ geographic ties, less is known about the influence of such connections once in office. Given recent scholarship underscoring the importance of geography as a dimension of identity, we argue that local legislators should behave as descriptive representatives. We collect the hometowns of all members of Congress with known birth locations from 1789 to 2020 to analyze how being born near one’s district impacts legislator behavior. We connect these data to information on a series of behaviors, finding that local legislators emphasize constituency work over policymaking and party-building. Moreover, while local legislators do not demonstrate substantively less partisan unity in roll-call voting, they attract a higher percentage of out-party cosponsors to their bills. Together, our results point to important representational implications regarding the geographic roots of legislators and the role of local connections in the contemporary Congress.

Political leaders increasingly use social media to speak directly to voters, but the extent to which elite cues shape offline political behavior remains unclear. In this article, we study the effects of elite cues on noncompliant behavior, focusing on a series of controversial tweets sent by US President Donald Trump calling for the “liberation” of Minnesota, Virginia, and Michigan from state and local government COVID-19 restrictions. Leveraging the fact that Trump’s messages exclusively referred to three specific US states, we adopt a generalized difference-in-differences design relying on spatial variation to identify the causal effects of the targeted cues. Our analysis shows that the President’s messages led to an increase in movement, a decrease in adherence to stay-at-home restrictions, and an increase in arrests of white Americans for crimes related to civil disobedience and rebellion. These findings demonstrate the consequences of elite cues in polarized environments.

Pottery vessels played a central role in the processing, storage and transport of animal and plant products by prehistoric and historic peoples with their chemical residues surviving for thousands of years. Accurate radiocarbon dating of archaeological pottery vessels by isolating reliable sources of carbon relating to the use of pots has long been a major challenge, but is now possible using compound-specific radiocarbon analysis of absorbed organic residues preserved in the ceramic fabric of the vessel wall. This method involves the radiocarbon dating of single fatty acids most commonly derived from degraded animal fats. These compounds are extracted from the ceramic matrix and isolated from potentially interfering compounds using preparative capillary gas chromatography. When coupled with lipid biomarker and compound-specific stable carbon isotope analyses, this method enables the palaeodietary and chronological information contained in archaeological lipids preserved in ceramic vessels to be interpreted together. From a practical perspective the methodology is challenging and for successful application must adhere to rigorous protocols. We present here guidelines which include (i) consideration of pottery selection, (ii) technical parameters for the isolation of fatty acids then their 14C dating and calibration, and (iii) case studies selected to illustrate the best use of this method.

We investigate the hyperuniformity of marked Gibbs point processes that have weak dependencies among distant points whilst the interactions of close points are kept arbitrary. Various stability and range assumptions are imposed on the Papangelou intensity in order to prove that the resulting point process is not hyperuniform. The scope of our results covers many frequently used models, including Gibbs point processes with a superstable, lower-regular, integrable pair potential, as well as the Widom–Rowlinson model with random radii and Gibbs point processes with interactions based on Voronoi tessellations and nearest-neighbour graphs.

Are federal lawsuits resolved differently based on the race or gender of the judges assigned to hear them? Recent empirical research posits that women and judges of color decide cases more liberally, at least in some identity-salient areas of law. However, these studies analyze small numbers of cases and judges, and use research designs that limit their causal interpretations. Using an original dataset of all civil rights cases filed in 20 federal district courts over multiple decades and a strong causal identification strategy, we find that assignment of cases to judges of color or women has no statistically significant effect on case outcomes among Democratic appointees. However, it causes more conservative outcomes among Republican appointees. We explain these results with a theory of bargaining over judicial appointments in which Republican presidents take advantage of Democrats’ preference for diversity on the bench to appoint more conservative judges.

Many theorists believe ideals of deliberation realize democratic equality by ensuring each speaker’s influence is commensurate with the strength of the reasons they give. This article argues that view is incomplete. When the frames, interpretations, and concepts speakers bring into debate disproportionately reflect the perspectives of socially advantaged groups, they contribute to hermeneutic injustices that impede marginalized citizens’ voice even under the most favorable deliberative rules. In response, I describe the role institutions of mass communication play in shaping the epistemic resources available to deliberators and show how structural biases toward advantaged groups within those institutions generate shared understandings that undermine deliberation’s egalitarian potential. Pursuing democratic equality, then, requires not only the fair exchange of reasons but also proactive efforts to identify and correct institutional mechanisms of hermeneutic injustice.

How does the extent of policy benefits—not simply their presence—affect political engagement? While fundamental to understanding the electoral implications of economic policymaking, addressing this question is challenging due to the difficulty of measuring individual voters’ policy outcomes. We examine a natural experiment embedded in President Trump’s Market Facilitation Program (MFP), which aided a core Republican constituency: farmers harmed by his 2018 trade war. Due to idiosyncrasies of program design, the MFP undercompensated some farmers for their trade war losses—and significantly overcompensated others—based solely on their 2018 crop portfolios. Analyzing over 165,000 affected voters, we show that improved compensation outcomes had negligible impacts on Republican farmers’ midterm turnout and campaign contributions, even though such variation in benefits significantly affected farmers’ propensity to view the intervention as helpful. This null result is important—our estimates suggest that even highly salient variation in policy outcomes may have limited mobilizing capacity.

As a prominent figure in the contemporary Iranian theatre scene, Chista Yasrebi uses her plays to call for female liberation in the country while navigating the existing political constraints, including censorship. Her 1996 play Rahil, for example, acts as a political allegory through its narrative of the titular woman’s desire for transcendence within the patriarchal realm of Persian mysticism. In its close analysis of the play, this article identifies the historical significance of mystic women in Iran and examines Yasrebi’s use of mysticism to comment on the complexities of gender politics, the oppression faced by Iranian women, and the need for social resistance. Further, it draws on key concepts from Alain Badiou’s political philosophy to demonstrate how Rahil’s journey into mysticism can be seen as an act of transgression. It argues that Yasrebi’s work enriches the ongoing discourse on the role of women in Iranian society and the broader struggle for political transformation.