My research focuses primarily on how democracies can better represent historically marginalized groups. Building on interests first developed studying abroad in Ecuador during college, much of my work studies democratic institutions, attitudes, and political behavior in Latin America. I also look at how democracy works for under-represented groups in American politics and have published studies on immigrant, racial, ethnic, and gender politics in the US. My research has been supported by grants from a variety of sources, including the Ford Foundation, the Social Science Research Council, the American Council for Learned Societies, the US Department of Education, and the Boren Fellowship Program.
Sam Whitt, Alixandra B. Yanus, Brian McDonald, John Graeber, Mark Setzler, Gordon Ballinger, Martin J. Kifer. 2023. “Explaining Partisan Gaps in Satisfaction with Democracy after Contentious Elections: Evidence from a US 2020 Election Panel Survey.“ PS: Political Science & Politics: 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096523000458. Abstract: What effects do contentious elections have on partisan appraisals of democracy? We consider the case of the November 2020 US election, a highly polarized partisan contest but also an objectively free and fair election by credible accounting. We conducted a panel study embedded within two nationally representative surveys before and after the election. Results indicate a familiar but under-examined partisan gap, in which satisfaction with democracy decreases among Republicans and increases among Democrats relative to nonpartisans. We find that the gap is fully mediated by partisan shifts in satisfaction with elections and the news media that cover them. Our results underscore how eroding institutional confidence can undermine democratic legitimacy in hitherto consolidated democracies. To overcome partisan divisions following contentious elections, we highlight the need to bolster confidence in democratic institutions to reduce partisan fears and uncertainties—both rational and irrational—that electoral losses may trigger.
John Graeber and Mark Setzler. 2022. “Gender, American Identity, and Sexism.“ Political Science Quarterly 137(4): 715-740. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/polq.13418. Abstract: This study explores the extent to which men and women differ in their views of American national identity and how these views of “Americanness“ influence a person’s sexist beliefs. Although extensive research shows that gender strongly influences political behavior and attitudes across a wide range of domains, we find surprisingly few differences between men and women regarding what it means to truly belong to the nation. Turning to the question of how these different beliefs about national identity may influence sexism, we find only mixed evidence that individuals who the most value ascriptive, exclusive components of America’s national identity are more sexist than persons who prioritize its more civic and inclusive elements. Finally, we examine how gender moderates the relationship between varying conceptualizations of national identity and sexism. Our empirical results reveal that this relationship is unexpectedly no stronger for men than it is for women.
John Graeber and Mark Setzler. “Race, Racial Negativity, and Competing Conceptions of American National Identity.“ American Politics Research (49/2): 171–185. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X20973995. Abstract: This study explores differences among African Americans, Latinos, and whites regarding which attributes a person thinks are most important to being truly American and how these competing conceptions of national identity relate to an individual’s racial animus toward African Americans. Using nationally representative survey data, we first find that Americans of different races vary across six different components of national identity and do so in ways consistent with theorizing on symbolic racism and inter-group conflict. Specifically, Americans place more importance on those components possessed by individuals who share their racial background. We then analyze how differing beliefs about national identity influence racial animus. Here, we find robust evidence that individuals who prioritize the ascriptive, exclusive elements of national identity are more racist, while individuals who embrace its most inclusive element are less so. Finally, we reveal that the relationship between conceptions of national identity and racism is moderated substantially by race, but the relationship for whites and Latinos is virtually identical.
Sam Whitt, Alixandra B. Yanus, Brian McDonald, John Graeber, Mark Setzler, Gordon Ballinger, Martin J. Kifer. 2021. “Tribalism in America: Behavioral Experiments on Affective Polarization in the Trump Era.“ Journal of Experimental Political Science 8(3), 247-259. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/XPS.2020.29 . Abstract: Our research speaks to the ongoing debate over the extent and severity of partisan political divisions in American society. We employ behavioral experiments to probe for affective polarization using dictator, trust, and public goods games with party identification treatments. We find that subjects who identify politically with the Democratic or Republican Party and ideologically as liberals and conservatives display stronger affective biases than politically unaffiliated and ideological moderates. Partisan subjects are less altruistic, less trusting, and less likely to contribute to a mutually beneficial public good when paired with members of the opposing party. Compared to other behavioral studies, our research suggests increasing levels of affective polarization in the way Americans relate to one another politically, bordering on the entrenched divisions one commonly sees in conflict or post-conflict societies. To overcome affective polarization, our research points to inter-group contact as a mechanism for increasing trust and bridging political divides.
Mark Setzler. 2021. “Did Brazilians Vote for Jair Bolsonaro Because They Share His Most Controversial Views?“ Brazilian Political Science Review 15(1): 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-3821202100010006 . Abstract: The similarity of Jair Bolsonaro’s and Donald Trump’s divisive views on a variety of controversial issues has led many critics to argue that Brazilians elected a “Tropical Trump“ in 2018. Research on Trump’s election has shown that nearly universal support among highly authoritarian, racist, and sexist voters was essential to his narrow victory; however, it is an open question whether Trump’s pathway to power is the norm for right-wing nationalists in democracies. Specifically, even though politicians espousing controversial ideas about democracy and prejudice sometimes can win elections, it is not clear how much of their support is due to voters who share their views on these issues. This study confirms that many Brazilian voters shared Bolsonaro’s ambivalence about democracy as well as his attitudes denigrating women and sexual minorities; however, the degree of congruence between his supporters’ and his own views on these topics played a minor role at most in shaping voter choice in the 2018 presidential election. As in previous elections, ideology and partisanship – specifically, attitudes about Brazil’s Workers’ Party – largely explain whether a voter supported Bolsonaro. This finding largely holds across gender and racial boundaries, although white Brazilians appear to have been modestly more inclined than Afro-Brazilians to vote for him if they shared his divisive views.
Mark Setzler and Alixandra Yanus. 2021. “Gender and Support for Democracy in the United States and Canada.“ Political Science Quarterly 136(3): 521-546. https://doi.org/10.1002/polq.13236. Abstract: Mass support for democracy is a recurring topic of interest for political scientists, and many scholars are expressing concern about declining popular support for liberal governance in the advanced industrial democracies. Yet, we know very little about variations in men’s and women’s attitudes about democracy and its core liberties in long-established democracies. This oversight is problematic given these societies' persistent gender gaps in civic capital, economic resources, and governmental responsiveness, each of which is closely related to how individuals experience liberal democracy. In this study, we use data from the 2010–2018 AmericasBarometer surveys to examine attitudes toward democracy and political liberties among American and Canadian women and men. We provide evidence of a modest gender gap and explore its causes. Generally speaking, the same factors explain attitudes toward democracy among men and women, suggesting that gender disparities in baseline levels of civic capital largely account for the gender gap in democratic support.
John Graeber, Nick McRee, and Mark Setzler. 2019. “Leader Preference and the Influence of Nationalism and Patriotism on Views of Immigration.“ Sociation 18(1): 1-19. https://sociation.ncsociologyassoc.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/poloarizedelitemessages_182_1_19-1.pdf. Abstract: This study examines the influence of nationalism and patriotism on contemporary attitudes toward immigration. Prior research finds that these two, distinct types of love for one's country have disparate but uniform effects on a person's attitudes toward immigration. Specifically, displaying higher levels of nationalism predicts anti-immigrant sentiments, while being more patriotic corresponds to ambivalence or even positive attitudes toward immigrants. We ask how well these general findings hold for periods when political leaders and their followers are deeply divided over national identity, as was the case during the 2016 US presidential election. Our findings indicate the consequences of persons' love of country depend on the degree to which individuals’ nationalism and patriotism correspond with the views espoused by their preferred political leaders.
Mark Setzler. 2019. “Adversity, Gender Stereotyping, and Appraisals of Female Political Leadership: Evidence from Latin America.“ The Latin Americanist 63(2): 189-219. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/726705 . Abstract: Analyzing survey data from 17 Latin American countries, this study investigates the extent to which citizens’ preferences for leaders of a specific gender vary in response to economic hardship, corruption, and crime. Previous research, mostly undertaken in the advanced democracies, provides three conflicting theories about the causal relationship between exposure to adversity and favoring either male or female political leaders. Despite their different assumptions, each theory advances the view that citizens who are facing serious hardship will be more likely to favor leaders of a specific gender. My results, however, indicate that neither personal nor society-level hardships are influencing what citizens think about female political leadership in Latin America. Moreover, experiencing adversity has only minimal and inconsistent effects on perceptions of gendered issue ownership. These findings hold across different types of hardship and for societies where women leaders have presided over well-received or highly unpopular presidential administrations.
Nick McRee and Mark Setzler. 2019. “The Civic Orientation and Political Assimilation of Latino Immigrant Youth.“ Sociological Focus 52(3): 246-266. https://doi.org/10.1080/00380237.2019.1624231 . Abstract: In recent decades, the rapid and unprecedented expansion of the Latino immigrant population has dramatically reshaped the face of American society. Unfortunately, current scholarship on this topic largely overlooks a key cohort: adolescent and young adult Latino immigrants. Our lack of understanding regarding the political inclinations of this population is highly problematic if we wish to know where Latino politics is headed in the coming decades. Data from The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health are used to systematically explore and test the core assumptions of several competing assimilation theories applied to Latino immigrant youths. Bivariate analyses suggest that young Hispanic immigrants lag behind their non-Latino and Black and White peers in electoral participation and political partisanship, and minimal differences are noted in commitment to key civic orientations. However, regression analyses that include controls for SES and other contextual variables in most cases reveal no differences between young Latino immigrants and their peers in their commitment to political engagement and crucial civic values. On the whole, our findings largely confirm the expectations of mainline assimilation theory, indicating that young Latino immigrants are integrating into the national civic community.
Mark Setzler and Alixandra B. Yanus. 2018. “Why Did Women Vote for Donald Trump?“ PS: Political Science & Politics 51(3): 523-527. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096518000355 . Abstract: Popular accounts of the 2016 U.S. presidential election attribute Donald Trump’s victory to the mobilization of angry white men seeking to restore traditional values and social roles. And while a majority of Trump voters were male, over 40 percent of women who went to the polls on Election Day also supported him. Our analysis explores the motivations of these women, asking how partisanship, demographics, and beliefs motivated their vote choice. We find that, while party affiliation was an important predictor of both women’s and men’s vote choice, sexism and racial resentment had a greater influence on voters of both genders. Moreover, the influence of these biases was virtually identical for female and male voters.
Mark Setzler. 2019. “Measuring Bias Against Female Political Leadership.“ Politics & Gender 15(4): 695-721 . https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X18000430 . Abstract: Much research examining gender bias in politics analyzes responses to explicit survey questions asking individuals if they prefer male over female leaders or if they agree that male political leaders are superior. Drawing insights from the measurement of other types of prejudice, this article explores the methodological shortcomings of a widely used question of this type. Analyzing the results of two U.S. surveys—one national and one state-level—I compare response patterns to a standard, highly explicit question that is frequently administered by the Pew Foundation with those for a modestly altered item that employs multiple strategies to reduce social desirability bias. Compared to the alternative measure, the conventional item seriously under-reports prejudice against women leaders. Moreover, the under-reporting of bias is especially prevalent among individuals belonging to groups that are strong advocates of gender equality.
Mark Setzler and Alixandra B. Yanus. 2019. “Do Religious Voters Discriminate Against Women Gubernatorial Candidates?“ Politics, Groups, and Identities 7(2): 347-366. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2017.1358644 . Abstract: Scholars report that areas with higher concentrations of religious voters elect relatively few women to executive office in the United States. These studies, however, cannot explain whether the observed patterns are a direct result of religious individuals’ vote choices. Our study explores this question using Cooperative Congressional Election Studies data from all mixed-gender gubernatorial elections in the 2008 through 2016 general election cycles. We conclude that religious voters, regardless of denomination or gender, are not significant barriers to electing women to state executive office. More specifically, religious individuals are disproportionately supportive of Republican women and opposed to Democratic women, even when controlling for the ideological distance between the individual’s partisanship and that of the candidate.
Mark Setzler. 2015. “Does Religion Bias Individuals Against Female Political Leadership in Latin America?“ The Latin Americanist 59(4): 47-72. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/tla.12058 . Abstract: This study explores the relationship between several dimensions of religiosity and biases against female political leadership within 15 Latin America countries. The central finding is that religious characteristics are correlated with pro-male bias in many countries; however, the relationship varies in strength and even direction from one country to the next. Analyses of a subset of religiously diverse nations further demonstrate that individual-level gender biases against female leadership have no systematic connection to country-level differences in secularization or levels of religious pluralism.
Mark Setzler and Alixandra B. Yanus. 2015. “The Impact of Religion on Voting For Female Congressional Candidates.“ Politics and Religion 8(4): 679-698. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1755048315000528 . Abstract: Research shows that areas of the United States with high levels of aggregate religiosity are less likely to elect female candidates to national, state, and local offices. These studies, however, do not determine the causal mechanisms underlying this relationship. In the present analysis, we seek to examine what role, if any, religious exposure and tradition play in determining individuals’ general election vote choices in mixed-gender contests. To explore this relationship, we use data from the 2010 and 2012 Cooperative Congressional Election Studies. We find some evidence of a relationship between religious beliefs and voting for female congressional candidates; when compared to secular voters, evangelical Protestants and Catholics are more likely to vote for Republican women and less likely to support Democratic women. Our results, however, also underscore partisan identities’ central role in shaping individual vote choice, regardless of a candidate’s gender.
Mark Setzler. 2016. “Religious Differences among Congressional Districts and the Success of Women Candidates.“ Politics & Gender 12(3): 518-548. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X15000616 . Abstract: Scholars exploring the female representation gap in the U.S. Congress have identified various aggregate-level differences that explain why some districts regularly field women candidates and elect congresswomen while others almost never do. This study asks whether also knowing about a Congressional district’s religious environment helps us to better predict the presence and success of women candidates in primary and general elections. The centerpiece of the study is an analysis of a district-level religiosity dataset (the 2018 version of the Congressional District Religiosity Dataset is available at http://tinyurl.com/brv3emw5 ). The analysis considers several religious variables created by remapping county-level data on congregational attachment rates into U.S. Congressional districts. My central finding is that religiosity, in general, as well as the strength of some denominations within a district are strong predictors for where women will run and how well they will compete.
Mark Setzler and Alixandra B. Yanus. 2017. “Evangelical Protestantism and Bias Against Female Political Leaders.“ Social Science Quarterly 98(2): 766-778. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/ssqu.12315 . Abstract: Objectives. Gender and politics scholars have paid little attention to religion as a source of individual-level biases against female politicians. We begin to address this gap by modeling the relationship between evangelical Protestantism, partisanship, and the beliefs that males are better issue advocates and political leaders than women. Methods. We employ logistic regression models with data from a 2008 survey of Americans administered by the Pew Social and Demographic Trends Project. Results. We find that evangelical Protestantism, but not religious attendance more generally, is a strong predictor of whether Americans will hold biases against female political leaders. The effect of evangelical Protestantism is especially pronounced within the Republican Party. Conclusions. These findings suggest a potential cause of the under-representation of women in the political world. They further underscore the need to control for religious denomination in future studies of gender stereotyping.
Mark Setzler. 2003 “Recursos socioeconômicos, capital sociocultural e conhecimento político como determinantes da formulação de políticas públicas locais no Brasil.“ Caderno CRH 39(2): 133-160. https://portalseer.ufba.br/index.php/crh/article/view/18640/12014.
Luis F.B. Plascencia, Gary P. Freeman, and Mark Setzler. 2003. “The Decline of Barriers to Immigrant Economic and Political Rights in the American States: 1977-2001.“ International Migration Review 37(1): 5-23. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7379.2003.tb00128.x
Rodolfo O. de la Garza, Scott Graves, and Mark Setzler. 1999. “Alive and Kicking: Municipal Affirmative Action Policy in Texas Cities.“ Policy Studies Journal 27(1): 45-63. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.1999.tb01952.x . This article received the 2000 Theodore J. Lowi Best Article Award from the Policy Studies Organization.
Louis DeSipio, Rodolfo O. de la Garza, and Mark Setzler. 1999. “Awash in the Mainstream: Latinos and the 1996 Elections.“ In Awash in the Mainstream: Latino Politics and the 1996 Elections , eds. Rodolfo O. de la Garza and Louis DeSipio. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 3-45.
Mark Setzler. 1997. “From Cortiços to Favelas: Housing Policy in São Paulo in the Twentieth Century.“ In Policymaking in a Redemocratized Brazil: Decentralization and Social Policy , ed. Robert H. Wilson. Austin: Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs. 319-356.
More information on my research and training is listed my
curriculum vitae .