Download CV hi

Publications

Goodman, Sherryl H., Hannah Simon, Luke McCarthy, Jeffrey Ziegler, & Alex Ceballos. ”Testing Models of Associations between Depression and Parenting Self-Efficacy in Mothers: A Meta-Analytic Review”. Accepted at Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review.

hi Link hi Download


Abstract

Numerous cross-sectional studies confirm the long-theorized association between mothers’ depression and lower parenting self-efficacy (PSE) beliefs. However, cross-sectional studies leave unanswered the direction of this association: Does depression predict PSE? Does PSE predict depression? Are both true? Does the strength of the association between depression and PSE, regardless of the direction, generalize across participant characteristics and study design features? How stable is PSE over time? And how effective are interventions at enhancing PSE? To answer these questions, we conducted a meta-analytic review of longitudinal studies. With 35 eligible studies (22,698 participants), we found support for both models: there was a significant pooled effect of both depression on PSE and of PSE on depression, with nearly identical effect sizes (d = −0.21 and −0.22, respectively). The association was stronger in samples with mothers’ younger average age and studies that measured PSE among mothers relative to during pregnancy. We found a medium degree of stability in the index of PSE, d = 0.60. Finally, the estimated pooled effect size between being in an intervention group versus control group and PSE was 0.505. Overall, we found support for (1) bidirectional associations between depression and PSE in mothers, (2) the stability of PSE over time, and (3) the strength of the relationship between PSE and depression with intervention. These results suggest the importance of continuing to develop, test, and disseminate interventions to enhance PSE. We interpret these findings in the context of both depression and low PSE having serious consequences for child outcomes and maladaptive parenting.



Ziegler, Jeffrey (2022). ”A Text-As-Data Approach for Using Open-Ended Responses as Manipulation Checks”. Political Analysis 30(2), 289-297.

hi Link hi Download hi Supplementary Materials and Replication Data


Abstract

Participants that complete online surveys and experiments may be inattentive, which can hinder researchers’ ability to draw substantive or causal inferences. As such, many practitioners include multiple factual or instructional closed-ended manipulation checks to identify low-attention respondents. However, closed-ended manipulation checks are either correct or incorrect, which allows participants to more easily guess and it reduces the potential variation in attention between respondents. In response to these shortcomings, I develop an automatic and standardized methodology to measure attention that relies on the text that respondents provide in an open-ended manipulation check. There are multiple benefits to this approach. First, it provides a continuous measure of attention, which allows for greater variation between respondents. Second, it reduces the reliance on subjective, paid humans to analyze open-ended responses. Last, I outline how to diagnose the impact of inattentive workers on the overall results, including how to assess the average treatment effect of those respondents that likely received the treatment. I provide easy-to-use software in R to implement these suggestions for open-ended manipulation checks.


Citation


@article{ziegler2022,
  title={A Text-As-Data Approach for Using Open-Ended Responses as Manipulation Checks},
  author={Ziegler, Jeffrey},
  journal={Political Analysis},
  volume={30},
  number={2},
  pages={289--297},
  year={2022},
  publisher={Cambridge University Press}
}



Carlson, David & Ziegler, Jeffrey (2021). ”The Role of Democratic Governance and Indirect Expropriation in International Investment Treaty Violations”. Uluslararası İlişkiler - International Relations 18(72), 37-49.

hi Link hi Download hi Supplementary Materials and Replication Data


Abstract

Democracies are thought to violate treaties less frequently than non-democracies, yet democracies violate bilateral investment treaties (BITs) more often. Though democratic governments may intend to meet their international obligations, and though democratic institutions provide greater political constraints to encourage compliance, investment agreements may conflict with the goal of maintaining domestic public support. Specifically, we argue that credible elections create strong incentives for governments to side with domestic voters over foreign business interests, and to pass legislation that violates investment agreements. We use a data set of BIT violation complaints that better captures potential indirect expropriation to confirm prior findings that show a difference in violations by regime type. Importantly, however, governments are only more likely to violate BITs as credible elections approach. The results suggest that the ability of voters to sanction leaders is an important mechanism that incentivizes governments to potentially violate investment treaties through indirect expropriation.


Citation


@article{carlsonZiegler2021,
  title={The Role of Democratic Governance and Indirect Expropriation in International Investment Treaty Violations},
  author={Carlson, David and Ziegler, Jeffrey},
  journal={Uluslararas{\i} {\.I}li{\c{s}}kiler Dergisi},
  volume={18},
  number={72},
  pages={37--49},
  year={2021}
}



Gibson, James L., Miguel M. Pereira, & Jeffrey Ziegler (2017). ”Updating Supreme Court Legitimacy: Testing the ’Rule, Learn, Update’ Model of Political Communication”. American Politics Research 45(6), 980-1002.

hi Link hi Download hi Supplementary Materials


Abstract


One of the more important innovations in the study of how citizens assess the U.S. Supreme Court is the ideological updating model, which assumes that citizens grant legitimacy to the institution according to the perceived distance between themselves and the Court on a unidimensional ideological (liberal–conservative) continuum. Under this model, citizens are also said to update this calculation with every new salient Supreme Court decision. The model’s requirements, however, do not seem to square with the long-established view that Americans are largely innocent of ideology. Here, we conduct an audit of the model’s mechanisms using a series of empirical tests applied to a nationally representative sample. Our general conclusion is that the ideological updating model, especially when supplemented with the requirement that citizens must become aware of Court decisions, simply does not square with the realities of American politics. Students of Supreme Court legitimacy may therefore want to search for other theories of legitimacy updating.

Citation


@article{gibsonPereiraZiegler2017,
  title={Updating Supreme Court Legitimacy: Testing the “Rule, Learn, Update” Model of Political Communication},
  author={Gibson, James L. and Pereira, Miguel M. and Ziegler, Jeffrey},
  journal={American Politics Research},
  volume={45},
  number={6},
  pages={980--1002},
  year={2017},
}



Software

openEnded

hi GitHub Page for Source Code


Description

Accompanying R package for "A Text-As-Data Approach for Using Open-Ended Responses as Manipulation Checks" to help researchers analyze manipulation checks that employ open-ended responses.



Working Papers

Ziegler, Jeffrey. ”Responsiveness and Unelected Leaders: Lessons from the Catholic Church”.

hi Download


Abstract

Are leaders responsive to their followers’ political preferences over time even when formal accountability mechanisms, such as elections, are weak or absent? I argue that unelected leaders have incentives to be responsive because they rely on dedicated members for legitimacy and support. I test this theory by examining the Catholic Church and its unelected leader, the pope. First, I analyze over 10,000 papal statements to confirm that the papacy is responsive to Catholics’ concerns. Second, I conduct survey experiments using nationally representative samples of Catholics in Brazil and Mexico to investigate how Catholics react to responsiveness. Catholics increase their organizational trust and participation when they receive papal messages that reflect their concerns, conditional on their existing commitment to the Church and their agreement with the Church on political issues. The evidence suggests that even in organizations without elections, leaders reaffirm members’ political interests because followers support organizations that are responsive.



Carrubba, Clifford J., Matthew Gabel, Gretchen Helmke, Andrew D. Martin, Jeffrey K. Staton, Dalston Ward, & Jeffrey Ziegler. ”CompLaw: A Database for the Comparative Study of Judicial Review”.

Cheruvu, Sivaram, & Jeffrey Ziegler. ”How Much Influence Do Opinion-Writers Have on Per Curiam Courts? Uncovering Author Drift in Written Decisions”.

hi Download


Abstract

Research assessing judges' political preferences typically focuses on courts that publish individual votes and opinions, yet many courts issue per curiam judgments that do not permit public dissent. To overcome this limitation, we use convolutional neural networks (CNNs) to model the variation in judges' expressed preferences from language in aggregated judgments. Specifically, we apply CNNs to analyze the written judgments of judges-rapporteur and opinions of advocates-general from the Court of Justice of the European Union. Along a pro/anti-EU dimension, we estimate how judgments differ within (1) each case to the advocate-general's opinion, providing a baseline for the case's legal merits, and (2) each judge-rapporteur, which measures how judges alter their writing across cases. Our results provide novel empirical support for theoretic models of European judicial decision-making: more pro-EU opinions driven by the Court, not the advocates-general or judge-rapporteur, are associated with larger chambers and stronger external signals of compliance.



Jacquart, Jolene, Sophie Wardle Pinkston, Jeffrey Ziegler, David A. Sbarra, & Mary-Frances O’Connor. “Improving Culturally Responsive Clinical Training: Exploring the Acceptability of an Exposure-Therapy Based Strategy”.

Abstract

Introduction: In the context of clinical care, discussions concerning culture are important for providing inclusive and culturally responsive evidence-based treatments. The present study contributes to training and educating anti-racist psychologists by exploring a teaching strategy aimed at actively changing behaviors that may hinder rapport and therapeutic efficacy for clients of underrepresented and marginalized backgrounds. Drawing upon an extensively researched clinical intervention for the treatment of anxiety and fear—exposure therapy—the study explored the feasibility and acceptability of an exposure-based teaching strategy that intervenes on anxiety and avoidance behavior around multicultural discussions with clients.

Methods: A 2-arm randomized controlled pilot study was conducted with graduate trainees in clinical psychology or counseling to compare an interactive exposure-based workshop (IEB; n = 19) involving repeated simulated client interactions focused on cultural factors to a training-as-usual workshop (TAU; n = 16) involving an instructional video on the topic. Pre- and post-intervention simulated client interactions focusing on multicultural dialogue were used to assess the specific variables of interest. Trainee feedback was obtained post-intervention.

Results: IEB workshop attendees rated the workshop as more useful and reported they were more likely to recommend the workshop to a peer as compared TAU workshop attendees. Trainee feedback highlights the utility and desire for practice opportunities with client actors and opportunities for constructive feedback.

Conclusions: Findings provide initial support for the acceptability and feasibility of an exposure-based clinical training to challenge avoidance behaviors and increase engagement in discussions around cultural factors with clients.



Miller, David R. & Jeffrey Ziegler. ”Preferential Abstention in Conjoint Experiments”.

Abstract

Conjoint experiments are used to mimic common political choices that ordinary people face, such as voting for public officials or selecting news stories. Conjoint designs, however, do not always mirror the real-world decisions that individuals make because respondents are forced to select only one of the available options and cannot abstain. First, we illustrate theoretically how including an abstention option can produce different average marginal component effects (AMCEs) relative to a forced-choice outcome. This difference depends on the (1) relationship between respondents’ unwillingness to select profiles which do not include their preferred attribute-levels, and (2) how many participants would abstain if possible. Second, we replicate two conjoint experiments and demonstrate empirically how omitting a realistic abstention option may lead to different estimates of the AMCEs. We conclude with advice to help practitioners understand how forcing respondents to express a preference when none exists may affect conclusions drawn from conjoint experiments.



Grants and Awards

  • TRiSS Academic Research Fellowship, Trinity College Dublin (2022)

  • Arts and Social Sciences Benefactions Fund, Trinity College Dublin (2022)

  • Graduate Research Seed Grant, Washington University in St. Louis, Department of Political Science (2018)

  • Dissertation Support, Danforth Center on Religion and Politics (2018)

  • Lois Roth Endowment, Fulbright Project Support (2014)

  • Fulbright Research Grant, Umeå University (2013-2014; Adviser: Torbjörn Bergman)

  • Gudrun Gytel Fund Scholarship (2011)

  • Larsen Family Scholarship (2011)

  • ScanDesign Scholarship (2011)