Working Papers
Working Papers
Panic at the Courtroom: Can Legislative Action against Discrimination in Court Reduce Hate Crimes?
Job Market Paper, Draft available upon request
Abstract: Can legislative measures against discrimination in court reduce bias-motivated behavior? This study examines the impact of criminal code reforms that prohibit the LGBTQ+ “panic” defense, a legal strategy that attributes a defendant’s violent actions to a victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity, on the incidence of hate crimes. I argue that such reforms operate through two mechanisms: first, by increasing the material costs of engaging in bias-motivated violence through heightened legal sanctions, and second, by signaling institutional disapproval of violence as a means of enforcing heteronormative and masculinist norms. To assess the causal effect of these reforms, I exploit the staggered adoption of LGBTQ+ “panic” defense bans across US states and employ a difference-in-differences design. The findings indicate that states implementing bans experience a significant reduction in anti-LGBTQ+ hate crimes. This study advances scholarship on minority rights, policy feedback, and the criminal justice system by demonstrating how legal reforms shape social norms and constrain bias-driven violence. The results also have direct implications for policymakers and advocates seeking to mitigate hate crimes through judicial and legislative interventions.
The Electoral Effects of State-Sponsored Anti-LGBTQ Measures
– with Konstantin Bogatyrev, Tarik Abou-Chadi, Lukas Stoetzer, and Heike Klüver –
conditional accept at the Journal of Politics
Download Working Paper
Abstract: Do strategies of state-sponsored homophobia translate into electoral gains? While a growing body of literature documents the increasing politicization of LGBTQ- and gender-related issues by illiberal elites, little is known about the electoral effects of these strategies. We address this important question by studying whether anti-LGBTQ mobilization pays off electorally for government parties. Empirically, we study the adoption of anti-LGBTQ resolutions in many Polish municipalities prior to the 2019 parliamentary election. Using a synthetic difference-in-differences design, we find that these resolutions significantly depressed turnout in affected municipalities, with opposition parties showing less mobilization capacity. By contrast, turnout for the incumbent Law and Justice Party increased. Overall, this study’s findings are relevant for understanding the electoral consequences of both elite-led mobilization against stigmatized and discriminated groups and policies of subnational democratic backsliding.
The Police as Gatekeepers of Information: Immigration Salience and Selective Crime Reporting
– with Ashrakat Elshehawy, Arun Frey, Tobias Roemer, Sascha Riaz –
Abstract: What drives the supply of crime news? While prior research focuses on the news media, we study a crucial upstream gatekeeper of information: the police. We argue that the police act as strategic bureaucrats who increase the disclosure of out-group cues (ethnicity, nationality) when immigration is salient to signal competence and transparency to the public. To test this, we use LLMs to annotate a novel dataset of about one million press releases published by local police stations across Germany between 2014 and 2024. Using a regression discontinuity in time design, we demonstrate an increase in out-group cues in police communications (1) following a nationwide shock to immigration salience (the 2015/16 Cologne New Year’s Eve assaults), and (2) in the days before regional elections in which immigration is a salient campaign issue. Our findings demonstrate how bureaucratic discretion shapes the supply of politically charged information.
Beyond Persuasion: Protest’s Direct Behavioral Impact on Bystanders
– with Daniel Bischof, Ferdinand Geissler, Johannes Giesecke, Felix Hartmann, Macartan Humphreys, Heike Klüver, Lukas Stoetzer, and Tim Wappenhans –
Download Working Paper
Abstract: Despite decades of scholarship on protest effects, we know little about how bystanders, citizens who observe protests without participating, are affected by them. Understanding the impact of protest on bystanders is crucial as they constitute a growing audience whose latent support, normative beliefs, and concrete actions can make or break a movement’s broader societal impact. To credibly assess the effects of protests on observers, we design and implement a field experiment in Berlin in which we randomly route pedestrians past (treatment) or away from (control) three large-scale Fridays for Future (FFF) climate strikes. Using data gathered on protest days as well as through a one-month follow-up survey, we find evidence for a substantial increase in immediate donations to climate causes but no detectable impact on climate attitudes, vote intentions, or norm perceptions. Our findings challenge the prevailing assumption in both scholarship and public discourse that protest effects operate via impacts on public opinion and call for renewed theorizing that centers on observers’ immediate behavioral activation. % rather than just opinion change mechanisms.
Selected Work in Progress
How Good Ancestors Make Good Citizens: Norm Legacies and the Activation of Civic Virtue
– with Mirko Wegemann –
Electoral Responses to Local Cooperations with Radical-Right Parties
– with Phillip Heyna, Hanno Hilbig, Tim Wappenhans –