Biography

I am a PhD candidate in political science at the University of Michigan, specializing in ​political behavior and political psychology. I am particularly interested in the development ​and behavioral implications of political identities, the psychological foundations of ​political cohesion and cooperation, and the role of stereotypes and social cognition in ​shaping political attitudes. The key substantive focus of my research is the politics of ​disability, but I am broadly interested in minority group politics in the United States and ​other advanced democracies. My research draws on a range of methodological techniques, ​including survey and experimental methods, text analysis, and comparative-historical ​analysis.

​

My dissertation and book project (Body Politic: Disability and Political Cohesion) examines ​the political psychology of disability in the United States. Using original national surveys ​and experiments, I develop and validate a new measure of disability as a subjective political ​identity, and demonstrate the far-reaching consequences of this identity for political ​behavior, policy attitudes, and intergroup relations.

At Michigan, I am affiliated with the Center for Political Studies at the Institute for Social ​Research (ISR). I am a recipient of the British Academy/Leverhulme Trust Small Grant, the ​Rapoport Family Foundation Doctoral Dissertation Grant, the Gerald R. Ford Fellowship, ​and the Converse-Miller Fellowship in American Political Behavior.

​

You can contact me at: jrthorp[at]umich[dot]edu

Dissertation

Dissertation & Book Project

Body Politic: Disability and Political Cohesion

[Job market paper available upon request]

• Project summary
  

To what extent does disability shape political identity? Disability impacts the lives of tens of millions of Americans and is a central feature of American political institutions, public policy, and social movements. Nevertheless, political scientists have only a superficial understanding of how disability shapes political behavior. In particular, whereas some work considers the impact of disability on political participation, almost no empirical work has examined the implications of disability for political psychology. My dissertation project addresses this gap.

In three national surveys of more than 2,000 American adults with disabilities - fielded by YouGov and Bovitz - I derive a new empirical measure of subjective identification with disability (“Disability ID”) and examine the implications of this identity for political attitudes and behavior. Consistent with expectations, I find Disability ID to be strongest among those with more severe, visible, and long-standing impairments; among African-Americans, and among those who report receiving disability welfare or accommodations. Disability ID has far-reaching political implications. Specifically, I find that while Disability ID unrelated to political partisanship, Disability ID is a powerful driver of support for a range of redistributive policies, including those not explicitly related to disability. Additionally, I find that the policy preferences of Republicans and conservatives converge with those of Democrats and liberals at high levels of Disability ID, suggesting disability is an important cross-cutting political cleavage. Finally, using experimental methods, I find that those higher in Disability ID are more reactive to group threats, show higher levels of political solidarity with other PWD, and are mobilized by appeals to PWD as a political group or community.

Research

Publications

Responsibility for Impairment Shapes the Perceived Deservingness of Welfare Claimants with Disabilities, Political Psychology

With Jac Larner [Open Access Version] [Preprint] [Pre-Registration]

• Abstract
  

When do people support government assistance for people with disabilities (PWD)? Disability welfare programs account for large shares of national welfare budgets, but little is known about public attitudes toward disabled welfare claimants. Drawing on psychological research in stereotype content, we argue that attitudes toward welfare for PWD are likely to be more conditional than previously acknowledged. In two nationally representative, pre-registered survey experiments in Wales (N=3,393) and Scotland (1,707), we ask respondents to evaluate the deservingness of a fictitious disabled claimant to government assistance. We manipulate the claimant’s out-group status and the manner in which they acquired their impairment. We find that disabled claimants perceived as even somewhat responsible for their impairments are considered substantially less deserving of government assistance than those perceived not responsible, even when their needs for assistance are identical. Contrary to expectations, we find relatively modest and inconsistent out-group penalties in perceived deservingness. Finally, we find large heterogeneous treatment effects among respondents with different political values. These results challenge conventional wisdom regarding the universality of support for disability welfare, and help explain why voters may not be inclined to punish politicians who propose cuts to programs for even stereotypically high-deserving groups.

Vulnerability Appeals in the COVID-19 Pandemic: Insights from a National ​Survey Experiment, Journal of Experimental Political Science

With Jac Larner [Latest version] [Pre-Registration]

• Abstract
  

Does priming the vulnerability of particular groups to COVID-19 encourage empathy and prosocial behaviour? Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, elite appeals emphasized the particular vulnerability of some social minorities to severe illness and death. Did these appeals work? In a nationally representative survey experiment (N=4,000) conducted in early 2021, we examine whether providing respondents with information about the particular vulnerability of ethnic minorities and people with disabilities (PWD) elicits empathic concern and support for COVID-19 restrictions. We find no evidence that such appeals increase empathic concern or willingness to abide by COVID-19 restrictions in the general population. By contrast, we find that disabled respondents report significantly higher levels of empathic concern and support for restrictions than non-disabled respondents. These findings provide novel experimental evidence of group-level political solidarity among people with disabilities.

CV and Contact

You can find the latest version of my CV [here]

Contact Information

Email: jrthorp@umich.edu

Twitter: @JoshuaThorp