David Doherty Assistant Professor of Political Science
I am an assistant professor of political science at Loyola University Chicago where I teach courses on American politics and political behavior.
My research addresses a variety of issues related to political attitudes and behavior. I am particularly interested in:
public perceptions and evaluations of political processes--how people want political actors to make decisions, what procedures they view as fair and unfair, and how they make inferences about what drives representatives and other political elites;
lab, survey, and field experimental research methods;
the relationships between core personality traits (the Big Five) and political attitudes and behavior;
how campaign communications affect voters' attitudes and behavior;
innovative approaches to teaching political concepts and methods to undergraduate and graduate students.
My work has appeared in journals including The American Political Science Review, American Journal of Political Science, The Journal of Politics, Public Opinion Quarterly, Political Behavior, American Politics Research, Social Science Quarterly, Political Research Quarterly, and Journal of Political Science Education. See below for a full list of my publications and working papers, including links to papers.
Assistant Professor, Loyola University Chicago, 2011-present.
PhD, Political Science: University of Colorado, 2008 Fields of Specialization: American Politics, Political Methodology
Dissertation: "Perceived Motivations in the Political Arena".
Committee: Jennifer Wolak (advisor), Ken Bickers, Vanessa Baird, John McIver, and Chick Judd
B.A., Political Science: New College, Sarasota, FL, 1999
I report findings from survey experiments that examine the conditions under which people reward a Senator who prioritizes her state over the national public. I find that people evaluate a Senator who advocates for her state's preferences more favorably than one who responds to the national public, even when this advocacy plays a key role in defeating nationally supported legislation. I also find that, although people evaluate a Senator who helps to defeat a bill by filibustering less favorably than one who accomplishes the same ends through majoritarian means, this aversion to the filibuster does not depend on whether it is used to block legislation opposed by the Senator's home state or by the national public. Finally, I find that some of these effects are conditioned by how people feel about the policy outcome the Senator's behavior produces.
What do people in the Arab world have in mind when they voice support for "democracy" and what shapes these conceptions of democracy? The answer to this question is likely to have important implications for the prospects of establishing lasting democratic institutions in this region. The evidence we report here demonstrates that while some in this region prioritize rules and procedures like elections and free speech in their conceptions of democracy, many see the substantive outcomes democracy might produce as more essential. We find that individual-level characteristics associated with the likelihood that a person is exposed to procedural conceptions of democracy, as well as factors that may lead individuals to see reduction in poverty and inequality as particularly desirable explain variation in how people in this region think about democracy. These findings offer insight into the policies that may encourage citizen appreciation of and commitment to democratic institutions.
A growing body of research finds that people care about more than policy outcomes--they also care about how and why those outcomes are achieved. However, little work has examined how people explain representatives' behavior. I report findings from national surveys and two survey experiments that shed light on these dynamics. I find that people attribute motives to representatives along three distinct dimensions and that both party cues and policy preferences can affect which motives people see as the most important explanations for a representative's behavior. I also find suggestive evidence that people are not strictly averse to representatives who appear to be motivated by political self-interest. Instead they appear to be more concerned with the extent to which they are motivated by their genuinely held preferences and a desire to serve the public.
We report findings from a unique survey conducted in six governorships in Tunisia following the Tunisian Revolution. We examine patterns of participation with a particular eye toward comparing the individual and contextual characteristics that were associated with two different forms of participation--participation in the anti-government protests and voting in the elections that followed. Our findings demonstrate that both individual-level and contextual factors affected the likelihood of an individual participating in each of these acts. We also find that some factors--most notably being directly encouraged to participate--were substantially stronger predictors of protest participation than of voting participation. Finally, our evidence suggests that political attitudes--including policy preferences and democratic values--were almost entirely unrelated to either form of participation. This finding is consistent with the claim that factors other than concerns regarding instrumental outcomes are the primary drivers of a wide range of forms of political participation.
We use variation produced by the Electoral College—the creation of battleground and non battleground states—to examine explanations for why people vote. We employ a longer time series (1980-2008) than previous research to gauge the effect of battleground status on state-level turnout. Our model includes (1) midterm elections, allowing us to directly compare the effect of battleground status with the broader increase in turnout associated with presidential elections, and (2) state fixed effects, which capture persistent state-level factors related to turnout. We find that the turnout boost from a presidential election is eight times the effect of being a battleground state. This suggests turnout is primarily linked to factors affecting the entire electorate, such as the social importance of presidential elections, rather than factors that influence just a portion of the country, such as intensive campaigning and mobilization efforts or a greater chance of casting a decisive vote.
The legitimacy of democratic election results rests on the perceived fairness of the rules and procedures for voting. New democracies, for example, go to great length to install democratic institutions, while one of the hallmarks of long-standing democracies is strong institutions protecting the electoral process. In this paper, we argue that beliefs about these democratic institutions, and not just their existence, are of central importance to legitimate elections. We show that even in the United States doubts about democratic institutions are surprisingly prevalent: We find that 36 percent of respondents to a nationally representative survey hold doubts that the choices they make on their ballots remain anonymous. We also present evidence that polling place voters experience a variety of situations that might violate the privacy of their voting process. Concerns about the anonymity of the ballot are greater among those who have not previously voted and for those voting with electronic machines and by mail. These findings suggest an important divergence between public perceptions about the secret ballot and the institutional status of the secret ballot in the United States, a divergence that may have important consequences. More broadly, this evidence suggests that individual beliefs should not be ignored when considering the effects and operation of political institutions.
Awards and Fellowships
LUC Summer Research Stipend: "Public Responses to Negative Political Information."
LUC Summer Research Stipend: "Public Preferences about the Representation Relationship."
National Science Foundation Grant: "Social and Psychological Dimensions of Ballot Secrecy" (PIs: Alan Gerber and Gregory A. Huber)
Time-sharing Experiments for the Social Sciences (TESS) grant: "Who Do People Think Representatives Should Respond To: Their Constituents or the Country?"
Center to Advance Research and Teaching in the Social Sciences (CARTSS) Scholars grant: "Deciding What is Fair" (Co-PI: Jennifer Wolak)
Alumni Teaching Fellowship, New College (Sarasota, FL)