work in progress
working papers
-
Strategic Narratives during War: Topic Modeling Russian and Western Media Coverage of Russia's War on Ukraine. R&R · Post-Soviet Affairs
read abstract
Public diplomacy is a vital strategy through which states seek to influence foreign publics, and international crises create key opportunities to shape global opinion through competing media narratives. This study examines portrayals of Russia's war on Ukraine in Russian and Western state-affiliated media targeting audiences in Russia's “near abroad.” Using an original dataset of approximately 125,000 Russian-language news articles published between January 2022 and December 2023, I apply structural topic modeling to assess issue salience across the two blocs. The results reveal clear agenda divergence: Russian outlets emphasize geopolitical confrontation, Western military aid, and Russian military gains, while Western media prioritize humanitarian consequences, domestic repression, Russian casualties, and sanctions. These findings demonstrate that state-affiliated media shape public perceptions not only through framing but also through agenda-setting — specifically, the selection of which issues receive sustained attention — making it a core mechanism of wartime public diplomacy. -
Do News Feeds Affect Attitudes? An Independent Replication of the Meta Experiments. Under Review
read abstract
As traditional media has collapsed, more Americans than ever before report receiving their news via social media. This trend has sparked grave concern, in part on the assumption that social media news feeds drive a host of unwelcome outcomes, especially polarization and misinformation. Much existing research about the effects of social media news feeds, however, has been carried out in coordination with social media companies, leading to questions about research independence. To circumvent such concerns, we build and study a simulated, open-source version of a social media news feed. We focus on climate change, an issue often tied to polarization and misinformation. In pre-registered experiments, we randomly vary the quality of climate change-related news that participants see in their simulated news feed. Despite the realistic nature of our news feed and ample statistical power, exposure to high-quality news feeds did not change attitudes. -
The Ukraine Effect: Evolving Perceptions of Russia, China, and the West in Central Asia. Under Review
read abstract
This study examines how proximate conflicts shape public attitudes toward foreign countries in non-combatant states. Using survey data from Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan collected both before and after Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine, we leverage this geopolitical shock to identify shifts in public sentiment toward major powers. We find that favorable views of Russia declined in both countries after the invasion, with Kazakhstan experiencing a more pronounced drop. This decline is primarily driven by titular ethnic groups. Economic ties through remittances and media usage showed limited influence on attitudes. Attitudes toward the USA remained stable. Meanwhile, favorable views of China increased substantially, particularly in Kazakhstan where China surpassed Russia as the most positively viewed foreign power. These findings demonstrate how proximate conflict triggers both a reassessment of the aggressor and a broader recalibration of partnership preferences in non-combatant states. -
Interests Trump Values: Differentiated Non-alignment in the Russia–Ukraine War and Preferred Peace Settlements in India. Under Review
read abstract
What shapes global attitudes towards the Russia–Ukraine War? Existing scholarship has emphasized both pragmatic, interest-driven explanations for Global South states' non-alignment as well as a shared ideological affinity with Moscow's anti-colonial and anti-Western positioning. We still know relatively little, however, about the bottom-up attitudes towards the war, as well as whether explanations for states' foreign policies are congruent with public opinion more broadly. To address these gaps we examine the case of Russia–India relations, including a preregistered survey conducted in summer 2025 evaluating support for hypothetical peace outcomes. We find strong evidence that material interests outweigh other considerations when it comes to preferred peace settlements. At the same time, however, respondents show little enthusiasm for outcomes that reward Russian aggression. These findings carry important implications for understanding the global dynamics of the Russia–Ukraine War and provide empirical evidence that material considerations weigh more heavily than ideology in shaping attitudes towards the war. -
The Enemy of My Enemy: Populism, Political Communication, and Perceptions of the Russia–Ukraine War in India. In Progress
read abstract
What shapes public attitudes towards foreign wars? While international relations scholarship has emphasized the importance of strategic narratives and prior beliefs in explaining foreign policy preferences, studies have largely focused on attitudes towards the foreign policy of one's own state. This gap is particularly relevant during major crises such as interstate wars, when sharply divergent narratives compete for the support and sympathy of foreign audiences. We address this gap by examining public opinion towards the Russia–Ukraine War through a preregistered survey of Indian citizens conducted in summer 2025. We find that populist attitudes are the single strongest driver of support for Russian aggression abroad. Populists are more likely to view Russia's military intervention as justified and less likely to blame Russia for the outbreak of hostilities, while simultaneously viewing the United States as responsible. Populist support, we argue, is driven less by innate sympathy towards Russia or hostility towards Ukraine and more via skepticism towards the United States. Meanwhile, narrative framing effects were modest, as prior beliefs and political attitudes proved far more powerful in shaping respondents' views. These findings carry important implications for understanding the relationship between domestic politics and foreign policy attitudes, as well as providing empirical evidence that populism at home is associated with support for autocracies' aggression abroad. - Simulating Human Responses to AI-Generated Political Content: The Predictive Validity of LLMs. In Progress
-
Stronger Than Fiction: Facts Change Beliefs More Than Misinformation. In Progress
read abstract
By one common telling, misinformation represents an urgent threat with pernicious consequences for beliefs and behaviors, which facts have little chance to counteract. Meta-analysis of experiments spanning 17 countries, 80,000 participants and more than 130 issues upends this account. The effect of factually accurate information on belief accuracy is almost three times larger than the effect of misinformation. The positive effect of facts on belief accuracy is nearly universal, observed in every experiment but one and among subgroups most expected to resist. The effects of both factually accurate and inaccurate information on attitudes and behaviors are far smaller; the effect of misinformation on attitudes is indistinguishable from zero. Our findings are robust to the inclusion of other studies and modeling strategies. Concerns about citizens' receptivity to facts are not warranted by evidence — and any crisis of misinformation is better explained by structural forces than features of individual psychology. - In the Shadow of Communism: Political Responsiveness in Post-Soviet Kazakhstan. In Progress