@skaaning.bsky.social

Thank you! I think subtle but important difference, if I understand your project correctly, is that while you explore whether people make trade-offs, we will look into whether they perceive these trade-offs to exist. The projects should complement each other nicely and it would be great to chat.

Thanks a lot Elena!

Stort tillykke! Meget velfortjent.

In sum, we suggest that:

• To measure real support for transgressions and building interventions, embed violations in reality (for external validity).
• To isolate causal effects of undemocratic acts themselves, abstract hypotheticals remain useful due to information equivalence concerns.

Why? Hypothetical scenarios might suffer from a “ceiling effect”—most people already oppose abstract violations, so there’s little room to move them further. This is pretty crucial as many interventions have failed in prior studies.

In Wave 2, we nudge respondents with an intervention showing data on how many co‐citizens disapprove of democratic transgressions (plus their reasons). Against real‐world transgressions, disapproval jumped by +5 pp. But against hypotheticals, it barely moved—and even showed a tiny backlash.