Martin Naunov

Call for Proposals: Data Collection for Replication+Novel Political Science Survey Experiments Alexander Coppock and Mary McGrath January 27, 2026 We invite proposals for a survey experiment replication+novel design competition. Se- lected replication+novel design survey experiments will be conducted on large samples of American respondents, quota sampled to match U.S. Census margins and filtered for quality and attention by the survey sample provider Rep Data (repdata.com). Each proposal consists of two parts: (1) a replication study of an existing, previously published survey experiment, and (2) a novel experimental design on a topic of the authors’ choosing. The replication studies and reanalyses of the existing studies will be combined into a meta-paper to be co-authored by all authors of accepted proposals along with the princi- pal investigators (Coppock and McGrath). As a condition for acceptance, authors commit to sharing the data and producing a write-up of the findings from their novel design for submission to a scholarly journal, and public posting of a working paper pre-publication.

🎺 Call for proposals 🎺

1️⃣ replicate an existing experiment
2️⃣ run a novel experiment

on repdata.com

3️⃣ coauthor with Mary McGrath and me to meta-analyze the replications and existing studies
4️⃣ publish your study

details: alexandercoppock.com/replication_...
applications open Feb 1

please repost!

Congrats, Stu! So very exciting!

Congrats Luca, what amazing news! 🎉

Friday’s workshop was a joy to host. ☺️

We brought together researchers and activists to talk about LGBTQ+ criminalization, discrimination at work and in parenting, dating bias, and how the far right weaponizes LGBTQ issues.

Grateful to everyone involved and to VU's VICES for the support. 🏳️‍🌈

When people hear others’ views on politically sensitive topics (e.g., migration, abortion), they quickly become disrespectful or disengage. How can we express our views in such a way that they foster respect and interaction?

@emilykubin.bsky.social, @kurtjgray.bsky.social & I studied this.
🧵1/7

Thanks so much for the shout-out, Luca! :)

Thanks so much for the shout-out, Laura! 🙏

Happy Pride! Let’s keep pushing for the kind of inclusion & egalitarianism that doesn’t demand we “cover” or tone down our (minoritized) identities & blend into the mainstream 🌈

The Right Kind of (Gay) Man? Sexuality, Gender Presentation, and Heteronormative Constraints on Electability | The Journal of Politics: Vol 0, No ja

It’s #PrideMonth 🌈 & I'm proud to share my new JOP article. Using a survey experiment, I show: Republicans still penalize gay candidates. Democrats do not—but they do penalize even subtle gender nonconformity, expecting gay cands to look & sound “straight”
www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/...

Thank you thank you! I remember chatting with you about this project over coffee mid-May 2021. Feels so good it’s finally out! 🙂

New lab preprint, from @abbycassario.bsky.social's furiously typing fingers to your eyes

Love this! Congrats again on the awesome article and on the well-deserved spotlight!

A Tinder Test of Democratic Norms💋

New paper in @thejop.bsky.social with @bertous.bsky.social

We rely on a visual conjoint experiment, cross-sectional data, & panel data to show that affective polarization drives the normalisation of the far right among the centre-right 🇬🇧🇪🇸
doi.org/10.1086/736698

Thank you, Drew!! Hope we can catch up soon :)

Thanks so much!!

Thank you!

Thanks for the shout-out, friend!!

Thank you, Andrew! And yes—would love that. We should def make a point of celebrating these wins together :)

Thank you, Matt!!

Thanks so much!! That means a lot!

Thanks for the shout-out — and for all your support—friend! ♥️

11 / If the manuscript is gated for you, let me know—I’m happy to share a copy via e-mail.

10/ So grateful to @thejop.bsky.social and all who supported this work since it began as a first-year seminar paper (!)

9/ I call for a methodological shift in studying discrimination: away from simple, text-based cues that reduce identity to a census box. Facial & vocal stimuli better reflect how we perceive difference and categorize others in the real world—& can help uncover bias at both group and subgroup levels.

8/ In particular, we must look beyond group-level biases (e.g., gay vs. straight, Black vs. white) and attend to how ppl respond to subsets within minority groups—those who refuse or fail to “cover” distinct markers of their known minority identity and culture, like hairstyle, speech, or clothing.

7/ While focused on sexual orientation, I hope this study speaks to & has important takeaways for research on status, prejudice, discrimination, and respectability politics more broadly.

6/ This finding underscores the value of recalibrating our empirical approach to studying LGBTQ politics and disparities, paying closer attention to insights from queer and political theory that identify heteronormativity, not heterosexuality per se, as the central axis of power and exclusion.

5/ Gender nonconformity biases disproportionately affect sexual minorities. Still, I argue & find that straight candidates with relatively gender nonconforming traits also fall near or outside the bounds of heteronormativity and, as a result, face discrimination.

4/ Put bluntly, I show the acceptance of gay candidates by younger and Democratic voters is paired with a demand for them, in a sense, to look and sound “straight.”

3/ I find that while Republicans discriminate against gay candidates, Democrats if anything slightly prefer them. But both Democrats and Republicans penalize gender nonconformity.