Using preregistered survey experiments, this article introduces and tests a novel form of misperception correction—“admissions-as-corrections,” in which elites who previously spread misinformation later acknowledge the claim was false. The findings show that such admissions significantly reduce partisan misperceptions, decrease trust in misinformation sources, and reduce intended consumption of partisan media.

Links: Paper | Dataverse | Preregistration

Using a survey experiment fielded during the 2025 German federal election, this article tests whether accommodating or excluding the far-right AfD affects voter attitudes. The results show that neither breaching nor maintaining the “Brandmauer” meaningfully influences party approval, democratic satisfaction, vote choice, or immigration attitudes.

Links: Paper | Preregistration

Using survey experiments encouraging accuracy-oriented processing, this article examines whether support for 2020 election and COVID-19 misinformation reflects expressive responding or sincerely held beliefs. The results show that accuracy prompts fail to meaningfully reduce these misperceptions, suggesting that support for them is often genuine.

Links: Paper | Dataverse | Preregistration

Using panel data from the 2016 Brexit referendum and the 2017 German federal election, this article examines how right-wing populist electoral success affects democratic satisfaction among the broader electorate. We find these victories significantly decrease democratic satisfaction among the non-populist electorate.

Link: Paper

Using a nationally representative survey experiment, this article examines whether opposition to “cancel culture” reflects a principled defense of free speech or a partisan response to the identity of the speaker. We find that Republicans' opposition to speech is conditional on ideological content, suggesting opposition to free speech is not principled but partisan.

Links: Paper | Preregistration

This book project develops a theory of how “surprising corrections” can reduce partisan misperceptions and downstream democratic harms. Building on prior work showing that admissions of falsehoods can reduce misinformation beliefs, the project examines corrections originating from unexpected sources such as co-partisans, influencers, or nontraditional media actors. Across a series of survey and laboratory experiments, the book evaluates whether such corrections can durably reduce partisan misperceptions, affective polarization, and support for political violence in the United States.

This project reassesses the effectiveness of commonly used “light-touch” interventions designed to reduce anti-immigrant prejudice. Using a combination of experimental and meta-analytic evidence, the paper evaluates whether brief informational or framing interventions meaningfully change attitudes or behavioral intentions toward immigrants. The findings suggest that many widely used prejudice-reduction strategies have smaller and less durable effects than previously believed.

OSF: Link

This project examines whether preregistration meaningfully reduces questionable research practices in political science. Drawing on a corpus of preregistered studies published in leading journals between 2020 and 2025, the paper identifies several practices—collectively termed “pre-hacking”—that undermine preregistration’s intended benefits. The findings suggest that selective hypothesis reporting and analytical ambiguity remain widespread, raising concerns about the ability of preregistration alone to resolve credibility challenges in the discipline.

This project examines how populist radical right parties strategically frame immigration in their rhetoric and how these strategies shape voter behavior. Using a new dataset of party manifestos across Western Europe, the paper shows that far-right parties often differentiate among immigrant groups rather than opposing immigration uniformly. Combining manifesto analysis with survey and experimental evidence, the study investigates whether these rhetorical strategies can increase support for the far right, including among some immigrant-background voters.

OSF: Link

This project introduces and tests a novel corrective strategy termed “fault-admission narratives.” In these narratives, a sympathetic individual recounts holding a false belief, experiencing negative consequences, and ultimately revising their views. A preregistered survey experiment evaluates whether these narratives can reduce belief in partisan misperceptions and increase intellectual humility more effectively than traditional fact-checks.

OSF: Link