As many American states have considered policies consistent with democratic backsliding in recent years, political elites and scholars have speculated on the consequences of these policies for political behavior. We examine the effect of backsliding policies on Americans’ preferences over leisure travel destinations; because vacationing is transitory, this focus allows us to isolate the role of individuals’ democratic predispositions and values in preference formation from the implications of these policies on their self-interest that they would experience from living under those policies themselves. Through pre-registered conjoint and vignette survey experiments, we find that Americans, and especially Democrats, express less interest in vacationing in states that recently adopted backsliding policies. Our results spotlight an accountability mechanism by which Americans may sanction backsliding states, though the modest magnitude of these sanctions – less than 1% of backsliding states’ gross domestic products – may not deter backsliding behavior on their own.

Survey experiments often yield intention-to-treat effects that are either statistically and/or practically “non-significant.” There has been a commendable shift toward publishing such results, either to avoid the “file drawer problem” and/or to encourage studies that conclude in favor of the null hypothesis. But how can researchers more confidently adjudicate between true, versus erroneous, nonsignificant results? Guidance on this critically important question has yet to be synthesized into a single, comprehensive text. The present essay therefore highlights seven “alternative explanations” that can lead to (erroneous) nonsignificant findings. It details how researchers can more rigorously anticipate and investigate these alternative explanations in the design and analysis stages of their studies, and also offers recommendations for subsequent studies. Researchers are thus provided with a set of strategies for better designing their experiments, and more thoroughly investigating their survey-experimental data, before concluding that a given result is indicative of “no significant effect.”

What are the relative contributions of stereotypes about the race and deservingness of welfare recipients to Americans’ opinions on welfare? A recent study employing a conjoint-experimental method finds that Americans’ stereotypes of welfare recipients as undeserving drive negative attitudes toward welfare, while stereotypes of welfare recipients as Black have little effect. However, this finding may be produced by the measure of welfare attitudes that includes questions implicating deservingness. We implement a conceptual replication of that study using different measures of welfare policy opinions that directly ask respondents about spending, both on welfare generally and on specific welfare programs. We show that when support for welfare is measured using the spending questions, stereotypes about race are significantly associated with opposition to welfare. These results have important implications for the debate on Americans’ opposition to welfare programs, as well as for the measurement of policy opinions in surveys.