About

Mollie Cohen is an associate professor of Political Science and a faculty member in the Cornerstone Integrated Liberal Arts program at Purdue University. She previously served as an assistant professor of International Affairs at the University of Georgia and was a research fellow at the LAPOP Lab. Dr. Cohen holds a Ph.D. in political science from Vanderbilt University. Her research focuses on public opinion and voting behavior, especially in Latin America. She has authored the book None of the Above: Protest Voting in Latin American Democracies, which examines how democratic backsliding fuels the emergence and success of campaigns promoting blank or spoiled votes. The book was published by the University of Michigan Press in 2024 and was selected for the David O. Sears Best Book on Mass Politics Award by the International Society of Political Psychology in 2025. Her research has been published in prominent outlets such as the American Journal of Political Science, Journal of Politics, Political Analysis, Political Behavior, and Public Opinion Quarterly.

Research topics

• Political Science
• Sociology
• Political economy
• Law
• Development economics
• Public administration
• Economics
• Gender studies
• Psychiatry
• Environmental health
• Demographic economics
• Family medicine
• Medicine
• Demography
• Internal medicine
• Pathology

Selected publications

• 1 in 5 Bolivians spoiled their ballots – a sign of voter dissatisfaction as nation tips to the right

  2025-08-18

  article1st authorCorresponding
  PublisherDOI

• Vote Buying, Norms, Context, and Trust in Elections

  Comparative Political Studies · 2024-05-24 · 4 citations

  article1st authorCorresponding

  Conventional wisdom says vote buying undermines trust in elections, but few have examined this systematically. We identify why this relationship ought to hold, on average. We also derive two conditioning hypotheses: vote buying will be less consequential among citizens who view these exchanges as positive and in contexts marred by electoral irregularities. We test these three expectations with analyses of cross-national survey data and an original survey experiment. We find only a small and inconsistent relationship between vote buying and electoral trust. We find weak evidence on the role of norms and more support for the notion that context matters. We conclude that a modest connection between vote buying and electoral trust is driven less by approval of vote buying practices and more by variation in how elections are actually conducted and, related, the relative novelty of being exposed to vote buying.

  PublisherDOI

• Partisan Poll Watchers and Americans’ Perceptions of Electoral Fairness

  Public Opinion Quarterly · 2024-01-01 · 4 citations

  article1st authorCorresponding

  Abstract Poll watchers play an increasingly visible role in American elections, yet there is little research into how their presence shapes beliefs about electoral integrity. On the one hand, poll watchers—like other election observers—may lead voters to be more trusting in elections. On the other hand, poll watchers who expressly represent political parties may contribute to polarized views of electoral integrity. We address this gap with two conjoint experiments and one vignette experiment administered on large national samples. The conjoint experiments vary several features of election polling locations, including the presence of poll watchers, voter identification requirements, and other election regulations. We find that regulations around poll watchers shape views of election fairness, but that the nature of this influence depends on the type and partisanship of poll watchers who are present. The vignette experiment shows that perceptions of poll watchers decline when these individuals act in bad faith; effects are especially large for Republican respondents. These findings help identify the potential that poll watchers have to shape Americans’ beliefs about election fairness and integrity.

  PublisherDOI

• What poll watchers can − and can’t − do on Election Day

  2024-11-04

  article1st authorCorresponding
  PublisherDOI

• None of the Above

  University of Michigan Press eBooks · 2023-07-19 · 3 citations

  book1st authorCorresponding

  particular thanks for reading and providing incisive feedback on multiple iterations of this manuscript.I am endlessly grateful to have these brilliant women in my corner

  PublisherDOI

• Reducing Item Nonresponse to Vote-Choice Questions: Evidence from a Survey Experiment in Mexico

  Public Opinion Quarterly · 2023-02-01 · 5 citations

  article1st authorCorresponding

  Abstract Retrospective vote choice is a critical question asked in political science surveys. Yet, this question suffers from persistently high item nonresponse rates, which can bias estimates and limit scholars’ ability to make sound inferences. In this paper, we develop a sensitive survey technique to decrease nonresponse to the vote-choice question in a representative, face-to-face survey in Mexico City and Mexico State in 2018–2019. Respondents received different iterations of three treatments: an anonymity guarantee, a confidentiality reminder, and audio-assisted interviewing technology. The use of audio technology combined with a credible anonymity guarantee significantly improved item response. Both anonymity and confidentiality assurances improved the accuracy of response, which more closely resembled official results in the treatment conditions. We then evaluate two non-rival mechanisms that might drive our findings: beliefs about response anonymity and re-engagement with the survey. We find that increased perceptions of response anonymity are associated with improved item response.

  PublisherDOI

• How Worried Should We Be? The Implications of Fabricated Survey Data for Political Science

  International Journal of Public Opinion Research · 2023-03-30 · 2 citations

  article

  Abstract Surveys are ubiquitous in the study of politics, making enumerator fabrication a critical issue. A prevailing view is that faked interviews affect inferences drawn from compromised datasets. Researchers have generated theories about how fabrication might affect inferences. Yet, speculation has outpaced systematic testing. We leverage a rare dataset to address this gap: a national face-to-face survey in Venezuela in which a uniquely high volume of falsified interviews was detected, canceled, and replaced. Comparing the verified and fraudulent datasets, we find that descriptive inference is sometimes affected, but correlational results hold, even in a dataset with an unusually high-fabrication rate. Enumerators largely fabricate plausible data. Though still egregious, enumerator fabrication may not constitute a grave threat to political science research.

  PublisherDOI

• Replication Data for: Partisan Poll Watchers and Americans’ Perceptions of Electoral Fairness

  Harvard Dataverse · 2023-11-14

  datasetOpen accessSenior author

  This data archive contains the necessary files and code to replicate the main paper and appendix analyses for Partisan Poll Watchers and Americans' Perceptions of Electoral Fairness.

  PublisherDOI

• Replication Data for: Reducing Item Non-Response to Vote Choice Questions: Evidence from a Survey Experiment in Mexico

  Harvard Dataverse · 2022-09-12

  datasetOpen access1st authorCorresponding

  This file replicates all analyses presented in the article, "Reducing Item Non-Response to Vote Choice Questions: Evidence from a Survey Experiment in Mexico."

  PublisherDOI

• Winners’ Consent? Citizen Commitment to Democracy When Illiberal Candidates Win Elections

  American Journal of Political Science · 2022 · 63 citations

  1st authorCorresponding
  • Political Science
  • Political Science
  • Political economy

  Abstract Democracy is in decline worldwide, primarily because voters elect candidates harboring antidemocratic aspirations. Scholars argue that elections animate the democratic spirits of winners and deflate those of losers, but what about contests ending in the victory of authoritarian candidates? To answer this question, we consider the dynamics of commitment to democracy in Brazil's 2018 presidential campaign. Drawing on AmericasBarometer data and an original five‐wave panel survey, we confirm that Jair Bolsonaro's campaign attracted skeptics of democracy. Although his election and inauguration boosted his supporters’ allegiance to the political system, it also exacerbated their tolerance for institutional ruptures such as executive‐led coups. Meanwhile, election losers retained their democratic commitments. As a result, the authoritarian victory narrowed preexisting winner–loser gaps in support for the political system, but widened gaps in tolerance for certain antidemocratic maneuvers. Thus, authoritarian electoral victories can foster short‐term satisfaction among democracy's critics while abetting future instability.

  PublisherDOI

Frequent coauthors

• Zach Warner

  Cardiff University

  21 shared

• Amy Erica Smith

  University of Massachusetts Boston

  8 shared

• Elizabeth J. Zechmeister

  Vanderbilt University

  6 shared

• Mason W. Moseley

  6 shared

• Matthew L. Layton

  Ohio University

  6 shared

• Geoffrey Sheagley

  University of Georgia

  2 shared

• Kleydson Bonfim Andrade

  Pan American Health Organization (Brasil)

  2 shared

• Oscar Castorena

  Vanderbilt University

  2 shared

Awards & honors

• David O. Sears Best Book on Mass Politics Award by the Inter…