Read the full paper here 👉 papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…

And see the coverage by @kingscollegelondon.bsky.social:t.co/N4kE3L0mXl

Interpretation:
Well-designed, work-neutral disability benefits do not reduce labor market participation.
The small positive effects under strict assessors likely reflect filtering out strategic claims, not large behavioral responses.

📊 Results:
•Expanding access (mental health) → no reduction in employment, if anything small positive effects
•Restricting access (minor physical disabilities) → no gains in employment
•Stricter assessors → small but significant ↑ in employment

Using UK panel data (2009–2019) & quasi-experimental variation from the DLA→PIP reform, we estimate employment effects for:
•Mental health conditions (gained eligibility)
•Minor physical disabilities (lost eligibility)
•Regions with stricter vs lenient assessors

PIP is unique. It covers the extra costs of disability but has no earnings tests & no work incapacity requirements. This design lets us isolate pure income effects without substitution distortions.

Most disability benefits combine income support + work restrictions. That makes it hard to know: do people work less because they can, or because policy forces them not to?

Available at www.cambridge.org/core/journal...

Takeaway: politics matters in private life—but signaling openness can bridge divides. Surfacing “tolerance” on platforms might reduce partisan sorting

Gender splits: Men penalized “progressive” profiles; women rewarded them. Women also showed a stronger in‑party preference than men

Counter‑stereotypes: Conservatives were more open to out‑partisans who defied stereotypes (e.g., White/Traditional/Non‑veg Labour). Labour respondents tended to prefer stereotypical Tories—except they liked progressive Tories

But tolerance is even stronger. Profiles saying “open to match with anyone” gained +19.9 pp—the largest effect; similar in size to being attractive. It’s not just avoiding “No Tories/No Labour” profiles. Even among co‑partisans, people preferred tolerant over intolerant profiles

Headline: Co‑partisanship is powerful. Co‑partisan profiles were picked +18.2 pp more often than out‑partisans

We ran a visual conjoint with 3,000 UK daters (18–40). Profiles varied party (Labour/Tory), a clear “tolerance” cue, ideology, race, education, diet, height, and facial attractiveness—using real photos to mirror apps

link.springer.com/article/10.1...

Thanks to @bkleinteeselink.bsky.social for the great collaboration on this project. Looking forward to continuing this line of research! #PoliticalScience #Polarization #AmericanPolitics

Why do these findings matter? A lack of trust in government when the "other side" is in power can hinder democratic functioning. It makes it harder for citizens to hold their own party accountable and can lead to efforts to undermine opposing governments. 🏛️

Why? Highly educated people show a stronger president-in-power effect, and they've increasingly shifted towards identifying as Democrats over time.