Doctoral Dissertation Research in DRMS: The Psychology of Political Risk in Repressive Regimes

美国政府每年花费数十亿美元援助外国的民主和治理。然而，自1990年以来，非洲五分之一的选举受到严重暴力的影响，这阻碍了公民自由投票给他们喜欢的候选人。确定强制性暴力如何以及何时影响选民，对于有效减少其对选举质量的影响至关重要。本研究以津巴布韦为例，了解公民在面对暴力威胁时如何做出政治决策。更一般地说，它试图了解暴力威胁的情感影响如何影响对风险的看法和对民主集体行动的参与。这项研究的结果可以帮助改善监督选举的努力，并鼓励国家民主研究所、卡特中心和美国国际开发署等美国机构参与民主政治。具体地说，这意味着监测选举的努力不仅应该集中在最有可能发生胁迫的地方，而且也应该集中在最有可能影响行为的地方。其次，预防和减轻暴力的干预措施应考虑到选民的心理弹性。本研究结合了对津巴布韦暴力和投票模式之间关系的历史分析、测试情绪对政治风险感知的因果效应的现场实验室实验，以及测试情绪是否可以用来动员公民行动的现场实验。历史分析使用选区和个人层面的数据来测试暴力是否对那些在身体和心理上更容易受到恐吓的选民的行为产生更大的影响。这项实地实验室实验通过对津巴布韦反对派支持者的家庭调查进行，使用面部表情照片和回忆过去的情绪经历来诱导愤怒和恐惧。然后，它测量这些诱发的情绪如何影响参与者如何感知他们个人将面临镇压性暴力的可能性，以及他们参与一些政治行动的意愿。它使用基于政治和非政治回忆的刺激来诱导情绪，以评估情绪背景的影响程度。最后，实地试验利用了与非洲政党的独特伙伴关系，以测试在风险较大的政治环境中，消极的竞选信息是否更有效地动员行动。

The US government spends billions per year on democracy and governance assistance in foreign countries. Nevertheless, one in five elections in Africa since 1990 has been afflicted by significant levels of violence, which impedes citizens from freely voting for their preferred candidates. Identifying how and when coercive violence influences voters is critical to effectively reducing its impact on the quality of elections. This study uses the case of Zimbabwe to understand how citizens make decisions about politics when faced with the threat of violence. More generally, it seeks to understand how the emotional impact of the threat of violence affects perceptions of risks and participation in pro-democracy collective action. The results of this study can help improve efforts to monitor elections and encourage participation in democratic politics by US institutions such as the National Democratic Institute, Carter Center, and USAID. Specifically, it implies that efforts to monitor elections should be focused not only on where coercion is most likely to occur but also on where it is most likely to impact behavior. Second, interventions to prevent and mitigate violence should take into account the psychological resilience of voters.This study combines a historical analysis of the relationship between violence and voting patterns in Zimbabwe, lab-in-the-field experiments that test for the causal effect of emotions on perceptions of political risks, and a field experiment to test whether emotions can be used to mobilize citizen action. The historical analysis uses constituency and individual level data to test whether violence has a bigger impact on the behavior of voters who are more physically and psychologically vulnerable to intimidation. The lab-in-the-field experiment, conducted through a household survey of opposition supporters in Zimbabwe, uses photos of facial expressions and recalled past experiences of emotions to induce anger and fear. It then measures how these induced emotions affect how participants perceive the likelihood that they personally will face repressive violence as well as their willingness to engage in a number of political actions. It induces emotions using both political and apolitical recall-based stimuli to assess the extent to which the context of the emotions matters. Last, the field experiment leverages a unique partnership with an African political party to test whether negative campaign messages are more effective in mobilizing action in riskier political environments.