Allyson Shortle, Ph.D.
allysonshortle@ou.edu
Associate Professor
University of Oklahoma
Research Interests
Public Opinion
Political Psychology
Religion & Politics
Race, Ethnicity and Politics
Experimental Research
Gender and Politics
Countries of Interest
United States
My Research:
Dr. Shortle is an associate professor at the University of Oklahoma, where she studies group identity in the context of American political behavior. She also serves as a faculty member for Latinx Studies and Women and Gender Studies. She runs OU’s Community Engagement + Experiments Laboratory (CEEL), Oklahoma City’s Community Poll (Exit Poll), and OU’s Democracy Survey of OU freshmen. For fun, she lends research support to organizations seeking to increase civic engagement and improve the physical and mental health of their communities. At the doctoral level, Dr. Shortle teaches courses on group identity, public opinion/political psychology, and American political behavior.Dr. Shortle’s Cambridge University Press book, The Everyday Crusade: Christian Nationalism in American Politics (2022 – w. Eric L. McDaniel and Irfan Nooruddin), examines the relationship between American religious exceptionalism and prejudicial and antidemocratic attitudes.She is a 2024–25 Public Fellow with the Public Religion Research Institute.
Publications:
Journal Articles:
Coming soon! My co-authors on this study are Samuel Perry, Eric McDaniel, and Joshua Grubbs.
Coming soon! My coauthors on this project are Travis Ruddle and Alisa Fryar.
The revelation that the Trump administration separated immigrant children from their families at the U.S.–Mexico border and placed them in detention facilities sparked protests across the country in 2018. While the policy received swift backlash from the public and was widely derided as running counter to American values and the rule of law, a segment of the American public supports the policy. We argue that ethnocultural forms of nationalism—beliefs about religious, ethnic, and gendered criteria for “true Americanness”—help explain support for family separations. We test this argument using two surveys collected 2 years apart. In both data sets, we find substantial evidence that ethnocultural forms of nationalism are linked to support for family separation, while generalized nationalism is not.
In the past 25 years, education funding in Oklahoma has stagnated. In some schools, students learn about American politics from tattered textbooks in which George W. Bush is listed as the current president (Hendry and Pasquantonio 2018). Across the board, teachers are grossly underpaid, yet many are compelled to buy school supplies with their own funds (Felder 2018a). Moreover, in one out of five schools, students come to class only four days a week (Carlson 2018). After the state legislature failed to pass a funding package to sufficiently increase spending on schools and salaries in early 2018, teachers across Oklahoma walked out on their jobs to protest at the Capitol for nine days. In addition to sharing their grievances, the hundreds of protesting educators had something else in common: many were women.
On November 8, 2016 Donald Trump, a man with no office-holding experience, won the Electoral College, defeating the first woman to receive the presidential nomination from a major party. This paper offers the first observational test of how sexism affects presidential vote choice in the general election, adding to the rich literature on gender and candidate success for lower-level offices. We argue that the 2016 election implicated gender through Hillary Clinton’s candidacy and Donald Trump’s sexist rhetoric, and activated gender attitudes such that sexism is associated with vote choice. Using an Election Day exit poll survey of over 1300 voters conducted at 12 precincts in a mid-size city and a national survey of over 10,000 White and Black Americans, we find that a politically defined measure of sexism—the belief that men are better suited emotionally for politics than women— predicts support for Trump both in terms of vote choice and favorability. We find the effect is strongest and most consistent among White voters. However, a domestically defined measure of sexism—whether men should be in control of their wives—offers little explanatory power over the vote. In total, our results demonstrate the importance of gender in the 2016 election, beyond mere demographic differences in vote choice: beliefs about gender and fitness for office shape both White men and women’s preferences.
The public opinion literature stresses the importance of source cues in determining which types of messages affect attitudes and which types do not. Building upon such research, we seek to determine if messenger ethnicity influences how individuals evaluate candidates speaking on immigration in the context of a campaign. Do Americans (and Anglo Americans in particular) view Latino candidates as more experienced, stronger leaders, more trustworthy, and more qualified on immigration than Anglo candidates? Moreover, do such relationships hold regardless of the valence of the message itself ? Through an original survey experiment presenting subjects with immigration talk on the campaign trail, we find Latino candidates are reviewed more positively than Anglo candidates when it comes to the immigration messages they speak (especially when it comes to pro-immigration messages). Such findings give us insight into whether or not Latino candidates have the potential to “own” the issue of immigration, as well as offering another path by which Latino candidates can gain a strong foothold with the public in the context of a campaign.
The attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001 and subsequent military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq created a sharp increase in expressions of national pride and the invocation of “nation” in political discourse. Using the 1996 and 2004 General Social Surveys, we document these changing patterns of national pride, and ask how they affect conceptions of national identity. We report three main findings. First, the data corroborate the conventional wisdom that there was a greater expression of national pride than before September 11, 2001. Second, conceptions of American national identity became more nativist. Finally, the conventionally accepted distinction between patriots and nationalists has shrunk; patriots, like nationalists, are more likely to express nativist conceptions of national identity during a time of threat than they were pre-9/11. Our findings have important implications for research on group identification and national identity formation.
We test for relationships between anti-Muslim attitudes and opinion and competing religious identity and religious belief variables in an evangelical Christian constituency. Original survey data from a statewide sample of 508 likely voters in Oklahoma are subjected to a robust regression analysis to determine (1) indicators of holding Christian nationalist beliefs and (2) the relationship between belief measures of Christian nationalism, evangelical Christian identity, and subsequent anti-Muslim sentiment. Christian nationalism is more prevalent among self-identified evangelicals. Christian nationalist beliefs and strong belief in Biblical literalism are significantly related to negative and restrictive views of Muslims. Anti-Muslim sentiments in the form of general disapproval and the desire to limit Muslim worship are shaped more by beliefs than identities or behaviors. Evangelical self-identification does not help us disentangle domestic opinion regarding Muslims as well as measures that disentangle beliefs from identity.
How does religion affect one’s attitudes toward immigrants? Scholars have shown that members of minor religious groups are less anti-immigrant than members of majority affiliations and that Evangelical Protestants are particularly hostile. Other scholars have demonstrated that increased religiosity reduces immigrant animus. Here, we argue that religion affects immigration attitudes via a distinct religiously informed interpretation of America’s national identity, which we call Christian nationalism. Christian nationalists believe that America has a divinely inspired mission and link its success to God’s favor. Using social identity complexity theory, we argue that citizens who ascribe to this worldview should be least tolerant of those they perceive as symbolic threats to American national identity. We assess this claim using the 2006 Pew Immigration Attitudes Survey and the 2008 Cooperative Congressional Election Survey. Christian nationalism is a robust determinant of immigrant animus, whereas religious affiliation only affects immigrant animus when Christian nationalism is excluded.
Books Written:
What is causing the American public to move more openly into alt-right terrain? What explains the uptick in anti-immigrant hysteria, isolationism, and an increasing willingness to support alternatives to democratic governance? The Everyday Crusade provides an answer. The book points to American Religious Exceptionalism (ARE), a widely held religious nationalist ideology steeped in myth about the nation's original purpose. The book opens with a comprehensive synthesis of research on nationalism and religion in American public opinion. Making use of survey data spanning three different presidential administrations, it then develops a new theory of why Americans form extremist attitudes, based on religious exceptionalism myths. The book closes with an examination of what's next for an American public that confronts new global issues, alongside existing challenges to perceived cultural authority. Timely and enlightening, The Everyday Crusade offers a critical touchstone for better understanding American national identity and the exclusionary ideologies that have plagued the nation since its inception.
Other:
This op-ed describes the preliminary results of a study I am conducting with Brooklyn Walker (Hutchinson Community College) and Mark Harvey (University of Saint Mary). We conducted a survey experiment on over 1,000 US adults just two weeks before Swift endorsed Harris for president in the 2024 election. Among Swift's fans, we found that a partisan Swift endorsement demobilized undecided voters. This has implications for the election as well as research on voting behavior and celebrity politics.
In this spotlight analysis, I discuss the paradoxical opposition to Taylor Swift's TIME's "Person of the Year" award by partisans at the political extremes. Using PRRI data, I examine Americans' normative views about who is considered the "prototypical American" by the political Left versus Right. I conclude with a statement about the inescapability of national identity norms in conversations about popular public figures.
Access to reliable local news is an essential component of civic life. Particularly in rural communities, local news provides information and promotes community engagement. Despite the importance of local news, data on the status of access and quality of Oklahoma news media is sparse and contradictory. In partnership with the Kirkpatrick Foundation and the Oklahoma Media Center, social scientists Rosemary Avance (Media & Strategic Communications, Oklahoma State University) and Allyson Shortle (Political Science, University of Oklahoma) designed, implemented, and analyzed a qualitative exploratory study to understand Oklahomans’ perceptions of, access to, and consumption of reliable local news and information. Focusing on seven Oklahoma counties chosen for their varying access to local news, we conducted 352 community conversations through interviews, focus groups, and open-ended surveys to understand factors influencing Oklahomans’ media use and perceptions. We found that Oklahomans statewide primarily rely on social media and local word of mouth for local news. Additionally, rural Oklahoma areas face specific challenges that problematize traditional news industry models. Using our unique dataset and ethnographic engagement with our study communities, we offer several recommendations to improve Oklahomans’ trust in and engagement with local news. This study has practical and theoretical implications for local news media organizations in Oklahoma and other states with similar social and economic dynamics and broader implications regarding the role of journalism in democracy today
Op-ed: Why did so many of the Jan. 6 attackers on the Capitol claim to be acting on behalf of their Christian beliefs and values? How do they link Christian tenets to justify their violent and illiberal actions? For the past decade, we have studied the phenomenon of “Christian nationalism” through public opinion surveys. We argue that citizens who participated in the January insurrection are nationalists first and foremost; their religious beliefs are subsumed in nationalism. In our work, we refer to this as American religious exceptionalism. Adherents are driven by their conviction that they are the epitome of a “true” American. An increasingly multicultural America challenges their sense of self, driving them to embrace illiberal anti-democratic ideas they rationalize as necessary for defending “true” Americans. These self-identified Christians have internalized deeply secular and yet superficially religious myths about the United States’ exceptional role in the world. Religious nationalists do not need to attend church, read scripture or have any commitment to their religion. They merely need to believe that their nation is chosen by God and that they are one of God’s people; therefore, everything they do is divinely ordained. Was Jan. 6 a Christian revolt? No. It was an insurrection led by nationalists in Christianity’s clothing. The attackers are not only traitors to their country. By their blasphemous use of religious imagery, they also betray the promise of a great faith. To allow them to claim anything more is to feed their paranoid delusions.
In this original Monkey Cage article - now available on Good Authority - we discuss how the rise in Christian nationalism reflects a popular ideology known as American religious exceptionalism. We present findings from our 2022 Book, "The Everyday Crusade: Christian Nationalism in American Politics," which show a disturbing connection between ARE and openness to authoritarian rule. We conclude with a discussion of the emerging challenge of Christian nationalism and ARE to American democratic norms.
Media Appearances:
TV Appearances:
I appeared on live television to discuss my recent study examining a hypothetical Taylor Swift endorsement of Kamala Harris for president in the lead-up to the 2024 presidential election (conducted before the actual endorsement occurred). I also spoke about the effect of celebrities and social media influencers in general. The conversation then focused on the plausible impact of the nation's changing media climate on young American voters and the importance of evolving news media ecosystems on youth attitudes and voting behaviors. This final conversation was based on my work with a local independent journalism nonprofit in Oklahoma.
Blog Posts:
In this spotlight analysis, I discuss the paradoxical opposition to Taylor Swift's TIME's "Person of the Year" award by partisans at the political extremes. Using PRRI data, I examine Americans' normative views about who is considered the "prototypical American" by the political Left versus Right. I conclude with a statement about the inescapability of national identity norms in conversations about popular public figures.