How do crises affect presidential rhetoric, public approval, and the exercise of authority?
A closer account of the question, evidence, and how to interpret this work.
The 2013 published article identifies foreign-policy crises as particularly consequential for unilateral presidential authority. An adjacent research program asks how leaders communicate during crises and how public evaluations of presidents change. These are different outcomes: a president can act unilaterally without necessarily gaining approval, and a persuasive public speech does not establish expansion of executive power.
Foreign-policy confrontations, economic disruption, epidemics, and natural disasters create different demands on leaders and different opportunities to claim competence. Research on speeches or approval should not treat all emergencies as equal. The publicly described program considers disaster declarations, economic evaluations, approval, and foreign-policy context across a long historical period.
The site lists these as developing collaborations and related research, not one completed pooled study. The stronger public claim belongs to the separate published article; specific communication effects, datasets, and reported results need their own completed analysis.
Source: Collaborative presidential-crises and rhetoric research directions; see the published Presidential Studies Quarterly article for completed results.
The site lists related ongoing collaborations, not one completed comprehensive study. No combined result or causal estimate is claimed.
Collaborative research · In development · Laura D. Young and collaborators · Executive-politics research agenda.