政治分歧:期望与偏好

IF 1.6 3区 经济学 Q2 ECONOMICS
Trent McNamara , Roberto Mosquera
{"title":"政治分歧:期望与偏好","authors":"Trent McNamara ,&nbsp;Roberto Mosquera","doi":"10.1016/j.socec.2024.102213","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The divergence of attitudes towards their ideological extremes has become an identifying feature in the United States. Little is known about its source, how large it is, whether information can attenuate it, and its causal impact on civic behavior. We design a survey experiment that identifies differences in beliefs rather than preferences as a source of division. We randomly introduce factual information about government spending and show that it corrects beliefs. We further use this variation and estimate effects on a suite of outcomes. For individuals who learn the government spends worse than they would prefer, they become 0.35 s.d. less supportive towards the government, believe the government is less efficient by 0.42 s.d.<!--> <!-->and are less willing to compromise and trust by 0.43 s.d. We do not find any changes for those who learn the government spends more in line with their preferences. This asymmetric response is consistent with a literature showing that negative information has a greater impact on attitudes and beliefs than positive information.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51637,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics","volume":"110 ","pages":"Article 102213"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The political divide: The case of expectations and preferences\",\"authors\":\"Trent McNamara ,&nbsp;Roberto Mosquera\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.socec.2024.102213\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The divergence of attitudes towards their ideological extremes has become an identifying feature in the United States. Little is known about its source, how large it is, whether information can attenuate it, and its causal impact on civic behavior. We design a survey experiment that identifies differences in beliefs rather than preferences as a source of division. We randomly introduce factual information about government spending and show that it corrects beliefs. We further use this variation and estimate effects on a suite of outcomes. For individuals who learn the government spends worse than they would prefer, they become 0.35 s.d. less supportive towards the government, believe the government is less efficient by 0.42 s.d.<!--> <!-->and are less willing to compromise and trust by 0.43 s.d. We do not find any changes for those who learn the government spends more in line with their preferences. This asymmetric response is consistent with a literature showing that negative information has a greater impact on attitudes and beliefs than positive information.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51637,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics\",\"volume\":\"110 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102213\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221480432400051X\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221480432400051X","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在美国,人们对意识形态极端态度的分歧已成为一个显著特征。人们对分歧的来源、分歧的程度、信息是否能削弱分歧以及分歧对公民行为的影响知之甚少。我们设计了一个调查实验,将信仰差异而非偏好差异作为分裂的根源。我们随机引入有关政府支出的事实信息,并证明它能纠正人们的信念。我们进一步利用这种差异,估算了对一系列结果的影响。对于那些了解到政府支出比他们所希望的要差的人来说,他们对政府的支持度会降低 0.35 个百分点,认为政府效率较低的比率会降低 0.42 个百分点,更不愿意妥协和信任政府的比率会降低 0.43 个百分点。这种非对称反应与负面信息比正面信息对态度和信念的影响更大的文献相一致。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The political divide: The case of expectations and preferences

The divergence of attitudes towards their ideological extremes has become an identifying feature in the United States. Little is known about its source, how large it is, whether information can attenuate it, and its causal impact on civic behavior. We design a survey experiment that identifies differences in beliefs rather than preferences as a source of division. We randomly introduce factual information about government spending and show that it corrects beliefs. We further use this variation and estimate effects on a suite of outcomes. For individuals who learn the government spends worse than they would prefer, they become 0.35 s.d. less supportive towards the government, believe the government is less efficient by 0.42 s.d. and are less willing to compromise and trust by 0.43 s.d. We do not find any changes for those who learn the government spends more in line with their preferences. This asymmetric response is consistent with a literature showing that negative information has a greater impact on attitudes and beliefs than positive information.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
12.50%
发文量
113
审稿时长
83 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly the Journal of Socio-Economics) welcomes submissions that deal with various economic topics but also involve issues that are related to other social sciences, especially psychology, or use experimental methods of inquiry. Thus, contributions in behavioral economics, experimental economics, economic psychology, and judgment and decision making are especially welcome. The journal is open to different research methodologies, as long as they are relevant to the topic and employed rigorously. Possible methodologies include, for example, experiments, surveys, empirical work, theoretical models, meta-analyses, case studies, and simulation-based analyses. Literature reviews that integrate findings from many studies are also welcome, but they should synthesize the literature in a useful manner and provide substantial contribution beyond what the reader could get by simply reading the abstracts of the cited papers. In empirical work, it is important that the results are not only statistically significant but also economically significant. A high contribution-to-length ratio is expected from published articles and therefore papers should not be unnecessarily long, and short articles are welcome. Articles should be written in a manner that is intelligible to our generalist readership. Book reviews are generally solicited but occasionally unsolicited reviews will also be published. Contact the Book Review Editor for related inquiries.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信