About

Nathaniel Swigger (Ph.D., Illinois, 2009) is an Associate Professor at The Ohio State University, based on the Newark campus. His research and teaching interests are centered on American politics, with particular emphasis on public opinion, political psychology, campaigns and elections, pop culture, and media analysis. His current research focuses on gender politics, specifically examining how beliefs about sex influence attitudes on gender-related policies. Additionally, he is collecting data on inter-generational differences in attitudes toward civil liberties and democratic values. Swigger's work contributes to understanding the psychological and cultural factors shaping political attitudes and behaviors within the American political landscape.

Research topics

• Computer Science
• Political Science
• Economics
• Psychology
• Social psychology
• Law
• Cognitive psychology

Selected publications

• Is it them vs. Us, or do we just think it’s them vs. Us?

  Current Psychology · 2025-08-16

  articleOpen access1st authorCorresponding

  Abstract Social identities shape our worldview and influence information processing. Some categories of social identity (such as political partisanship or college football fans) are intrinsically competitive. Others (such as religions or ethnicities) are not always competitors but may be viewed as competitors by some group members. We examine social identities and use the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) and the Game of Dice Task (GDT) to examine decision making. We manipulated the tasks such that a flag from the US, UK, or China was visible near risky or safe choices. We find that the presence of a rival symbol and individual levels of nationalism both influence decision making when the advantageous decision is unclear. These findings suggest that some forms of (non-competitive) identity bias can be mitigated, but that others will persist as individuals always perceive group competition.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Partisans Hear, but They Don’t Listen: Testing the Limits of Partisanship in Risky Decision Making

  American Politics Research · 2022 · 4 citations

  1st authorCorresponding
  • Political Science
  • Social psychology
  • Computer Science

  Political partisanship stems from the fundamental process of categorizing one’s social world and influences important behavioral outcomes, such information processing. The present study examines the role of political partisanship in risky decision making as assessed with the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT), a common ecologically valid behavioral task. Participants ( N = 881) were randomly assigned to modified IGT conditions: one in which the advantageous card decks were labeled with the same political affiliation as the participant and one in which the advantageous card decks were labeled with the opposite political affiliation. We demonstrate that partisan heuristics can enhance or inhibit good decision making. We found partisan heuristics enhanced decision making if a partisans’ identity was congruent with clearly advantageous options. However, when the options are more ambiguous, partisan bias interferes with partisans’ ability to make advantageous decisions. Partisan bias has limits though, as partisans reject unambiguously bad options, even if those options carry their party label.

  PublisherDOI

• Ohio Swings toward the GOP

  2022-01-01

  other1st authorCorresponding
  PublisherDOI

• Could a woman defeat Donald Trump? What political science research says

  2020-01-07

  article1st authorCorresponding
  PublisherDOI

• Investigating Political Partisanship in the Decision-Making Process

  OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) · 2019-05-14

  other1st authorCorresponding
  Publisher

• Republicans may be panicking over Ohio’s special election results

  2018-08-08

  preprint1st authorCorresponding
  PublisherDOI

• Gender Essentialism and Responses to Candidates’ Messages

  Political Psychology · 2018-11-25 · 16 citations

  article1st authorCorresponding

  People often form negative attitudes against those who deviate from gender norms. Within the political realm, this has the potential to translate into effects on perceptions of candidate likability and traits. Female candidates who tend to focus on issues stereotypically thought of as feminine are generally more positively evaluated than those who focus on stereotypically masculine domains. The current studies investigate whether these effects vary depending on the extent to which people endorse gender essentialism, which is the tendency to attribute gender differences to relatively more intrinsic, innate, and immutable factors versus believing that gender differences are largely due to cultural and learned factors. Current data with adults across two studies suggest a number of interesting findings: Evaluations of candidates depended on an interaction between respondents’ gender essentialism and whether or not the candidate’s message fit traditional stereotypes. In particular, high essentialist respondents felt significantly more negative toward male candidates with nonstereotypic messages.

  PublisherDOI

• Will Trump use the convention to broadcast a more moderate image?

  2016-07-15

  preprint1st authorCorresponding
  PublisherDOI

• The Effect of Gender Norms in Sitcoms on Support for Access to Abortion and Contraception

  American Politics Research · 2016-05-30 · 18 citations

  article1st authorCorresponding

  Can ostensibly nonpolitical television programming affect policy opinions? In this article, I use a laboratory experiment to test whether the gender norms portrayed on two primetime sitcoms can alter political attitudes on gender issues, specifically access to abortion, and contraception. Though the shows in the experiment did not explicitly discuss any policy, I find that sitcoms can influence policy opinions, particularly when the show conveys a “boys will be boys” mentality toward sexual behavior. This finding has important implications for public opinion scholars because it suggests that there may not be such a thing as apolitical programming, and pop culture may have a profound, overlooked effect on public opinion.

  PublisherDOI

• Four quotes from the sixth GOP presidential debate, explained by experts

  2016-01-15

  preprintSenior author
  PublisherDOI

Frequent coauthors

• Christopher Tiwald

  Advanced Conductor Technologies (United States)

  4 shared

• Svitlana Chernykh

  4 shared

• Sergio C. Wals

  University of Nebraska–Lincoln

  4 shared

• David J. Hendry

  University of Hong Kong

  4 shared

• Scott L. Althaus

  4 shared

• James H. Wirth

  The Ohio State University Newark

  1 shared

• Bradley M. Okdie

  The Ohio State University Newark

  1 shared

• Meredith Meyer

  University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

  1 shared