This project advances a new framework for understanding prejudice by distinguishing between category-level and cue-level bias. Whereas most experimental studies of discrimination focus on category-level prejudice—bias directed at entire groups identified through labels such as Black, gay, or immigrant—Naunov argues that much contemporary discrimination operates at the cue level, targeting the visible and audible markers that make those identities perceptible.

Administrative burdens impede access to social safety net programs and disproportionately affect marginalized groups, reinforcing existing inequalities. Government agencies increasingly deploy algorithmic decision-support tools to streamline processes and improve uptake. Yet growing evidence suggests that these tools can produce disparate impact and may automate inequality. What remains underexplored is how frontline staff interact with algorithmic outputs and whether cognitive biases in human–AI interaction translate into unequal, burden-creating choices.

Dwidar will investigate the practice of federal agency interventions to facilitate greater participation by advocates for socially and economically marginalized communities in American rulemaking, using the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) as a case. Do these interventions successfully promote greater civic access among public participants representing socially and economically marginalized constituencies in agency rulemaking? How are participants' advocacy behaviors shaped by this access?

How does knowledge of past atrocities shape support for contemporary redress policies? Relatedly, how do public memory projects shape political attitudes and support for transitional justice mechanisms? While lacking specific knowledge of past atrocities can be associated with denial of ongoing inequalities, recent research on the effects of memorializing past atrocities has shown that these efforts can increase support for democratic institutions and decrease support for previous repressive regimes.

Elections are opportunities for citizens to choose who will make decisions for them and who will exert the power of the state over them. Pundits and scholars have contended that voting for a candidate based on their racial, ethnic, or gender identity is irrational and unreasonable and leads to suboptimal outcomes. Political scientist Ismail White will examine how racial, ethnic, and gender identity influence voting decisions and how an initial identity-driven political choice shapes subsequent voting decisions. He will conduct three survey experiments for his study.

Ensuring the political representation of ethnic and racial minorities is one of the oldest and most pressing challenges facing American democracy. However, simply electing racial and ethnic politicians does not guarantee that they will respond to the needs of their minority constituents. Sociologist Ellis Monk and political scientist René Rejon will examine the relationship between the racial and ethnic identity of African American, Asian American, and Latinx politicians and their support for legislation benefiting their minority constituents.

In a representative democracy, the ability to vote is a citizen’s primary tool for holding policymakers accountable. Women’s suffrage was an important step in resolving significant inequality in access to political power for women. However, we know little about whether policymakers adapted their behavior to account for women’s suffrage. Political scientists Michael Olson, Mirya Holman, and Christina Wolbrecht will examine how women’s enfranchisement impacted state policymakers’ behavior in the first half of the twentieth century.