CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 299Electoral Systems and Political ParticipationTerrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political ViolencePolitical Conflict and Governance

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Voting after the Bombings: A Natural Experiment on the Effect of Terrorist Attacks on Democratic Elections

Montalvo, José G.·2011·Review of Economics and Statistics
DOI 10.1162/rest_a_00115
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Can terrorist attacks be timed to change the outcome of democratic elections? In this paper, we analyze the electoral impact of the terrorist attacks of March 11, 2004, in Madrid. Studies using individual level postelectoral survey data reach contradictory conclusions. We propose an alternative approach. Since the bombings took place only three days before the 2004 congressional election, we can find a control group of individuals who cast their vote before the terrorist attacks. The results indicate that the attacks had an important electoral impact, rejecting the hypothesis that the identity of the winner was unaffected by the terrorist attacks.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1162/rest_a_00115

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 15 references

2 of the 15 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Donald S., 2007, this REVIEW, 89, 221
  2. Lago I., 2005, Claves de la Razón Práctica, 149, 36
  3. Montalvo J. G., 2006, Universital Pompeu Fabra working paper, 1000
  4. Moulton B., 1990, this REVIEW, 72, 334

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–284 of 284

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Montalvo, J. G.
Affiliations
Universitat Pompeu Fabra (ES)
Corresponding author
Montalvo, José G.
ORCID
Montalvo, José G.
Venue
Review of Economics and Statistics
Publisher
MIT Press
Published
2011-11
Volume
93
Issue
4
Pages
1146-1154
ISSN
  • 0034-6535 (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-9142
DOI
10.1162/rest_a_00115
OpenAlex
W1984307355
Cited by
299
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 5
FWCI
49.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Review of Economics and Statistics (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Terrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Political Conflict and Governance
Keywords
terrorist attacks, Madrid train bombings, electoral consequences, voting behavior, democratic elections, 2004 Spanish general election, natural experiment, political violence

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