Dissertation
My dissertation explores why people participate in politics in the ways that they do, with a particular focus on how perceptions of political power shape their engagement. I build on the contentious politics framework by incorporating infrapolitics and using a broad definition of contention to capture how marginalized communities contests their domination. For those who believe they or others have too little political power, I argue that the motivations for and the shape that their participation takes prioritizes the perceived power imbalance. Before engaging in “traditional” or “conventional” politics, an individual must first feel that they are able to access and use such forms of politics.
In order to fully understand political behavior and test this mechanism, it is first necessary to rethink what we mean by "politics", "participation", and how we measure perceptions of power. My semi-structured interviews uncover how the subjects of our research understand and think about these foundational concepts in political science. I focus on the LGBTQ community to highlight what we miss when not including the experiences of marginalized communities in our conceptualizations and analyses. My interviews highlight how typical people use an expansive definition of politics, primarily participate in politics though “little acts of rebellion” in their day-to-day lives, and have nuanced ideas about the power of themselves and others. Traditional definitions of politics and participation do not capture how those we study think about their own participation. Consequently, conclusions about participation (or lack thereof) may be a consequence of our survey instruments and not lived realities.
As a step towards improving our survey instruments and incorporating a more diverse range of experiences, I identify different forms of participation and develop a new measure of perceptions of power. I then validate this new measure in a large-N setting. With this new measure and approach to studying participation based on my interviews, it is then possible to empirically test the relationship between perceptions of power and participation.
In order to fully understand political behavior and test this mechanism, it is first necessary to rethink what we mean by "politics", "participation", and how we measure perceptions of power. My semi-structured interviews uncover how the subjects of our research understand and think about these foundational concepts in political science. I focus on the LGBTQ community to highlight what we miss when not including the experiences of marginalized communities in our conceptualizations and analyses. My interviews highlight how typical people use an expansive definition of politics, primarily participate in politics though “little acts of rebellion” in their day-to-day lives, and have nuanced ideas about the power of themselves and others. Traditional definitions of politics and participation do not capture how those we study think about their own participation. Consequently, conclusions about participation (or lack thereof) may be a consequence of our survey instruments and not lived realities.
As a step towards improving our survey instruments and incorporating a more diverse range of experiences, I identify different forms of participation and develop a new measure of perceptions of power. I then validate this new measure in a large-N setting. With this new measure and approach to studying participation based on my interviews, it is then possible to empirically test the relationship between perceptions of power and participation.
Journal Articles
Replication materials are provided here.
Bell, Ryan. Terms and conditions apply: symbolic prejudice at the intersections of race, gender, and sexuality. Politics, Groups, and Identities. Forthcoming. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2022.2026793
Abstract: Measures of prejudice like racial resentment and modern sexism neglect how systems of power intersect and shape individuals' attitudes towards others. If these measures depend on which racial, gender, or sexuality subgroup of Black people or women are asked about, prejudice towards these overarching groups cannot be quantified and understood without analyzing the connections between (hetero)sexism and racism. I use a question wording experiment to test whether changing the subject of these batteries affects respondents' answers. Reported prejudice varies by the subgroups asked about and respondents' own ascribed identities. Racial attitudes are relatively fixed; reported sexism towards white and Black women changes by respondent race; heterosexism is pervasive; and the strength of the association between resentment and sexism varies based on the mentioned (sub)groups. These measures should be updated by applying the insights from the work on intersectionality to account for how individuals constitute groups to capture this variation in attitudes.
Bell, Ryan and Gabriel Borelli. Gendering Racialization. Politics, Groups, and Identities. Forthcoming. DOI: 10.1080/21565503.2021.1955216
Abstract: We extend Michael Tesler’s work on racialization using an intersectional framework to investigate the relationship between racial and gendered systems of power. We demonstrate that gender marginalization can increase scrutiny of women candidates from voters high in racial resentment. We utilize an original survey experiment fielded in December 2019 that leverages President Obama’s close ties to (then) Vice President Biden and Secretary of State Clinton in order to demonstrate that Clinton is penalized more by racially resentment individuals than Biden when both are associated with Obama. This effect exists even when controlling for respondents’ levels of sexism. This suggests that racialization is a gendered process and that views on race and gender are more intricately linked than non-intersectional analyses would predict. Our findings raise questions for what precisely measures pertaining to racial resentment, sexism, and other social attitudes are tapping into when surveying the public.
Bell, Ryan. Terms and conditions apply: symbolic prejudice at the intersections of race, gender, and sexuality. Politics, Groups, and Identities. Forthcoming. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2022.2026793
Abstract: Measures of prejudice like racial resentment and modern sexism neglect how systems of power intersect and shape individuals' attitudes towards others. If these measures depend on which racial, gender, or sexuality subgroup of Black people or women are asked about, prejudice towards these overarching groups cannot be quantified and understood without analyzing the connections between (hetero)sexism and racism. I use a question wording experiment to test whether changing the subject of these batteries affects respondents' answers. Reported prejudice varies by the subgroups asked about and respondents' own ascribed identities. Racial attitudes are relatively fixed; reported sexism towards white and Black women changes by respondent race; heterosexism is pervasive; and the strength of the association between resentment and sexism varies based on the mentioned (sub)groups. These measures should be updated by applying the insights from the work on intersectionality to account for how individuals constitute groups to capture this variation in attitudes.
Bell, Ryan and Gabriel Borelli. Gendering Racialization. Politics, Groups, and Identities. Forthcoming. DOI: 10.1080/21565503.2021.1955216
Abstract: We extend Michael Tesler’s work on racialization using an intersectional framework to investigate the relationship between racial and gendered systems of power. We demonstrate that gender marginalization can increase scrutiny of women candidates from voters high in racial resentment. We utilize an original survey experiment fielded in December 2019 that leverages President Obama’s close ties to (then) Vice President Biden and Secretary of State Clinton in order to demonstrate that Clinton is penalized more by racially resentment individuals than Biden when both are associated with Obama. This effect exists even when controlling for respondents’ levels of sexism. This suggests that racialization is a gendered process and that views on race and gender are more intricately linked than non-intersectional analyses would predict. Our findings raise questions for what precisely measures pertaining to racial resentment, sexism, and other social attitudes are tapping into when surveying the public.
Articles in Edited Volumes
Adler, E. Scott, Stefani R. Langehennig, and Ryan W. Bell. 2020. “Congressional Capacity and Reauthorizations.” In Congress Overwhelmed: The Decline in Congressional Capacity and Prospects for Reform, ed. Tim LaPira, Lee Drutman, and Kevin Kosar. University of Chicago Press.
Working Papers
“Thinking Outside the Boxes: Blurring the Bounds of Group Membership” with Gabriel Borelli (Under Review)
We apply an intersectional framework to explore how connections to marginalized communities interact with candidate demographics to shape vote choice. In an original experiment manipulating candidates’ race, gender, sexuality, and endorsements, we show that endorsements by organizations advocating for marginalized communities shape voter evaluations to the same, if not greater, degree as candidates’ gender, race, and sexuality alone. Moreover, these effects are often conditional on one’s identity: evaluations of relatively privileged candidates like white men are affected less than intersectionally marginalized candidates when both have the same endorsement. Attitudes towards marginalized communities are mapped onto candidates with ties to them whether the candidate is a member or not, a process that we define as associational affect. Identity has a complex role in shaping vote choice and, absent a discussion of power and interlocking social hierarchies, it alone is insufficient to explain vote choice.
"Differently Divisive: Sexism, Racial Resentment, and Support for Candidates with Incongruent Views" with Gabriel Borelli, Rafaela, Dancygier, and Daniel Hopkins (Under Review)
We apply an intersectional framework to explore how connections to marginalized communities interact with candidate demographics to shape vote choice. In an original experiment manipulating candidates’ race, gender, sexuality, and endorsements, we show that endorsements by organizations advocating for marginalized communities shape voter evaluations to the same, if not greater, degree as candidates’ gender, race, and sexuality alone. Moreover, these effects are often conditional on one’s identity: evaluations of relatively privileged candidates like white men are affected less than intersectionally marginalized candidates when both have the same endorsement. Attitudes towards marginalized communities are mapped onto candidates with ties to them whether the candidate is a member or not, a process that we define as associational affect. Identity has a complex role in shaping vote choice and, absent a discussion of power and interlocking social hierarchies, it alone is insufficient to explain vote choice.
"Differently Divisive: Sexism, Racial Resentment, and Support for Candidates with Incongruent Views" with Gabriel Borelli, Rafaela, Dancygier, and Daniel Hopkins (Under Review)
