Suchergebnisse

In October 2016, the Colombian electorate narrowly rejected in a plebiscite the final agreement to end the conflict with the longest-running armed insurgency in the Western Hemisphere, the FARC. The plebiscite's result provides a unique opportunity to assess dynamics in civil conflict termination preferences. I exploit the unexpected victory of the No vote, observed during the AmericasBarometer fieldwork, to estimate the effect of the uncertainty about the trajectory of the conflict generated by the outcome of the plebiscite. The unexpected defeat of the peace plebiscite did not measurably change the expressed support for the recently rejected agreement. However, it increased the public support for a negotiated rather than military settlement to the conflict, as well as respondents' willingness to give concessions to FARC members. These findings inform the broader literature on civilian preferences toward civil conflict termination and compromise.

AbstractIn this note, we provide direct evidence of cheating in online assessments of political knowledge. We combine survey responses with web tracking data of a German and a US online panel to assess whether people turn to external sources for answers. We observe item-level prevalence rates of cheating that range from 0 to 12 percent depending on question type and difficulty, and find that 23 percent of respondents engage in cheating at least once across waves. In the US panel, which employed a commitment pledge, we observe cheating behavior among less than 1 percent of respondents. We find robust respondent- and item-level characteristics associated with cheating. However, item-level instances of cheating are rare events; as such, they are difficult to predict and correct for without tracking data. Even so, our analyses comparing naive and cheating-corrected measures of political knowledge provide evidence that cheating does not substantially distort inferences.