Cited by 4Computational and Text Analysis MethodsElectoral Systems and Political ParticipationSentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining

Revisiting Group Differences in High‐Dimensional Choices: Method and Application to Congressional Speech

Open access
Hofmarcher, Paul, Vavra, Jan, Adhikari, Sourav, Grün, Bettina·2025·Journal of Applied Econometrics

Abstract

Gentzkow, Shapiro, and Taddy, Econometrica 87, no. 4, 2019 (henceforth GST), use a supervised text‐based regression model to assess changes in partisanship in US congressional speech over time. Their estimates imply that partisanship is far greater in recent years than in the past and that it increased sharply in the early 1990s. The paper at hand provides a replication in the wide sense of GST by complementing their analysis in three ways. First, we propose an alternative unsupervised language model, which combines ideas of topic models and ideal point models, to analyze the change in partisanship over time. We apply this model to the Senate speech data used in GST ranging from 1981 to 2017. Using our model, we replicate their results on the specific evolution of partisanship. Second, our model provides additional insights such as the data‐driven estimation of evolvement of topical contents over time. Third, we identify key phrases of partisanship on topic level.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jae.3125

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 16 · Cited by 4

Authors
Hofmarcher, P., Vavra, J., Adhikari, S., & Grün, B.
Affiliations
  • University of Salzburg (AT)
  • Department of Economics University of Salzburg Salzburg Austria
  • Vienna University of Economics and Business (AT)
Corresponding author
Hofmarcher, Paul
Venue
Journal of Applied Econometrics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2025-04-22
Volume
40
Issue
5
Pages
577-588
ISSN
  • 0883-7252 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-1255
OpenAlex
W4409664171
Cited by
4
References
16
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 1
FWCI
4.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Applied Econometrics (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • ePLUS (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • WU Research (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
Oesterreichische Nationalbank (18718)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › General Social Sciences › Computational and Text Analysis Methods
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
Keywords
partisanship, congressional speeches, United States Senate, topic modeling, ideal point model, high-dimensional text data, topic evolution over time, political polarization, replication

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review