Below, I’ve listed some of my ongoing research papers. If you’d like to access the latest versions of any of these papers or have any questions or comments, please don’t hesitate to reach out to me.
False Consensus Beliefs and Populist Attitudes
Nils D. Steiner, Claudia Landwehr & Philipp Harms
Abstract: A well-established finding from social psychology is that people tend to hold “false consensus beliefs”, that is, they regularly overestimate how many others agree with their own opinions. The consequences of such beliefs for how citizens assess democratic legitimacy have been left largely unexplored, however. We reason that false consensus beliefs may give citizens the erroneous impression that their political preferences are shared by most fellow citizens while political elites fail to follow this apparent will of the majority. False consensus beliefs might therefore play an important role in the development of populist attitudes to politics. Using original survey data from Germany, we document a robust observational relationship between false consensus beliefs and populist attitudes. This association applies to all subdimensions of populist attitudes, holds for individuals with different self-placements on the left-right scale, and extends to related measures of political support (external efficacy and political trust). Our findings suggest a novel cause of populist attitudes, rooted in humans’ tendency to project their own views onto others—a tendency that could be exacerbated by today’s high-choice media environments. [LINK]
Group-Based Congruence and Political Support
Lucca Hoffeller & Nils D. Steiner
Abstract: One important driver of citizens’ political support is congruence, i.e., the extent to which citizens’ political preferences are in line with those of their representatives. Previous research on this relation has focused on either egocentric (congruence with a citizen’s own position) or sociotropic congruence (congruence with the electorate overall). Departing from research on group-based representation deficits, we propose another possibility that has been overlooked so far: When evaluating the political system, citizens consider how well their social group is substantively represented. In this contribution, we study the effect of such group-based congruence with regard to social classes in Europe. We hypothesize that the more distant the government is from the preferences of one’s social class, the lower an individual’s support. Our analysis combines individual-level data from the European Social Survey (ESS) with elite-level data from the Chapel Hill Expert Survey (CHES) and ParlGov. Measuring congruence in four policy domains, we consistently find that the larger the average distance between the members of one’s class and the government, the lower one’s support. By demonstrating that class-based congruence matters above and beyond egocentric congruence, we add a new perspective to research on congruence and political support and illuminate the attitudinal consequences of unequal congruence found in many Western democracies.
The 2024 European Parliament Election: Another Second-Order National Election?
Nils D. Steiner
Abstract: One of the most influential theories of voting in European Parliament (EP) elections holds that voters perceive them to be “second-order” to and less consequential than “first-order” national elections. Consequently, many voters would use EP elections to voice dissatisfaction with the national government and signal their sincere preferences by supporting smaller, fringe parties. This letter assesses whether the party-level results in the 2024 EP election are (still) in line with the second-order patterns established by previous research. In accordance with those, larger parties and parties in national government, especially prime ministerial parties later in the electoral cycle, lost votes on average in 2024 compared to the preceding national election. When accounting for these regularities, there is barely any evidence of party families systematically gaining or losing.
Voting for the Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht (BSW) from a Policy-Space Perspective
Nils D. Steiner & Sven Hillen
Abstract: This contribution studies voting for the Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht (BSW) through a three-dimensional policy-space model (economic, transnational and morality dimension). What makes the new German party special is its unusual bundling of economically left-leaning with right-leaning positions on the transnational dimension, most prominently on immigration. We investigate how this policy mix is reflected among their voters. In a first study, we use cross-sectional survey data from March 2024 (GLES Tracking T57) to show that voting intentions for the BSW are associated with more left-wing economic positions and with more nationalist positions, but unrelated to positions on the morality dimension. In a second follow-up study, we use panel survey data (GLES Panel) to establish that positions on the economic and transnational dimensions shape switching to the BSW (in June 2024) in conjunction with individuals’ prior party preferences. In line with the spatial perspective, nationalist positions predict switching to the BSW among previous supporters of left-leaning parties, whereas it is economically left-wing positions that predict switching to the BSW among previous supporters of right-leaning parties. Our results support a policy-space-based explanation of the early success of the BSW, suggesting that new parties may succeed by offering new bundles of policy positions. [LINK, previous version of the paper without study II]
Income Inequality and Populist Attitudes: Evidence from the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems V
Nils D. Steiner
Abstract: Economic inequality is one of the factors discussed as potential drivers of the success of populist parties. One plausible underlying mechanism is that economic inequality increases populist sentiment among voters, which in turn leads to higher support for populist parties. Yet, we lack evidence on whether populist attitudes are more widespread where economic inequality is higher. In this study, I use data on 40 elections from the 5th Module of the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (CSES)—the first large cross-national survey dataset containing a measure of populist attitudes—to contribute such evidence. The analysis uncovers a substantively strong and robust positive cross-country correlation between income inequality and populist attitudes. Yet contrary to expectations, economic inequality does not make a larger difference for populist attitudes among those with lower socio-economic status. These findings add to evidence pointing to a connection between inequality and populism, but suggest that higher inequality contexts provide conditions conducive to populist sentiment among broad segments of the population.