Revisiting Group Differences in High‐Dimensional Choices: Method and Application to Congressional Speech
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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