More money, less partisanship?

Decisions by

Article Highlights

  • A recent study suggests that much of partisan disagreement on facts is just cheap talk.

    Tweet This

  • The researchers find that if people are given a chance to earn monetary rewards for providing correct answers on factual questions, the partisan gaps found in polls sharply narrow.

    Tweet This

  • These findings imply that concerns about polarization may be overblown, and that Americans can actually agree on much more than opinion polls suggest.

    Tweet This

We often hear that the U.S. electorate is more politically polarized than ever, a claim that is supported by poll data. For example, a recent Gallup poll shows that President Barack Obama has a 90 percent job approval rating among Democrats, compared to only 8 percent among Republicans. In contrast, in 1996, President Bill Clinton had an approval rating of 23 percent among Republicans and 86 percent among Democrats.

Subscribe to
The Ledger
Get AEIecon's weekly snapshot of news, views, and economic cues.

First Name:
Last Name:
Email:
Zip Code:

In other words, voters with different partisan affiliations hold vastly different political opinions, and those differences seem to be growing.

And it's not just that Republican and Democratic voters have starkly differing opinions. They also seem to disagree – along predictable party lines – on the facts. For example, polls suggest that Democrats are more likely than Republicans to overestimate the fraction of Americans who are pro-choice on abortion. And Republicans are more likely than Democrats to assert that Obama is a Muslim who was not born in the United States.

But a recent study – by John G. Bullock, Alan S. Gerber, and Gregory A. Huber of Yale University, and Seth J. Hill of the University of California of San Diego – suggests that much of this partisan disagreement on the facts is just cheap talk. The researchers find that if people are given a chance to earn monetary rewards for providing correct answers – or for being willing to admit their ignorance – on factual questions, the partisan gaps found in polls sharply narrow.

When study subjects were asked factual questions with no financial incentives, their answers differed strongly along party lines in the way that one might expect. For example, Democrats were more likely than Republicans to report (correctly) that inflation and unemployment rose under President George W. Bush. Democrats also tended to overestimate the number of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq.

However, when the researchers offered subjects monetary prizes in exchange for correct answers, Republicans' and Democrats' responses moved closer together – in fact, the gap between the parties fell by more than half. The authors conclude that, because polls do not involve monetary stakes, respondents may engage in "partisan cheerleading," rooting for their favorite team rather than reporting their honest assessment.

Of course, subjects who are unsure of the correct answer might still engage in partisan cheerleading: if you don't know the answer, you might as well root for your team. To test this, the authors did another variation of the experiment in which subjects were offered monetary rewards not just for correct answers, but also for admitting that they did not know the answers. In this case, they found that the partisan gaps in answers fell by around 80 percent.

These findings imply that concerns about polarization may be overblown, and that Americans can actually agree on much more than opinion polls suggest. The authors of the study explain: "Just as people enjoy rooting for their favorite sports team and arguing that their team's players are superior, even when they are not, surveys give citizens an opportunity to cheer for their partisan team … Deep down, however, individuals understand the true merits of different teams and players – or, at the minimum, they understand that they don't know enough to support their expressive responding as correct."

At Marginal Revolution, Alex Taborrok points out another interesting interpretation: this study suggests that people may make smarter decisions in the marketplace – where there are personal financial consequences for getting the facts wrong – than in the voting booth. As Tabarrok puts it, "Voting is just another survey without individual consequence so voting encourages expressions of rational irrationality and it's no surprise why democracies choose bad policies." While elected officials certainly do make decisions with huge financial consequences, the chances of an individual's vote swinging an election are practically zero. Thus, the democratic process is likely to bring out the worst partisan cheerleading in individuals.

The public sector faces serious budgetary challenges in coming years, and these challenges will require voters and their elected representatives to make hard choices on entitlements and taxes. The public discussion about these issues can be made more productive if we recognize that much of the partisan rhetoric coming from supporters of both parties is merely cheerleading.

Sita Nataraj Slavov is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

Also Visit
AEIdeas Blog The American Magazine
About the Author

 

Sita Nataraj
Slavov
  • Economist Sita Nataraj Slavov specializes in public finance issues dealing with retirement and the economics of aging. Her recent work has focused on whether retiree health insurance encourages early retirement, the impact of widowhood on out-of-pocket medical expenses among the elderly and the optimal time to claim Social Security. Before joining AEI, Slavov taught a variety of economic courses at Occidental College: game theory, public finance, behavioral economics and econometrics. She has also served as a senior economist specializing in public finance issues at the White House's Council of Economic Advisers. Her work at AEI will focus on Social Security and retirement issues.


    Click here to view CV


    Follow Sita on Twitter

  • Phone: 202-862-7161
    Email: sita.slavov@aei.org
  • Assistant Info

    Name: Brittany Pineros
    Phone: 202-862-5926
    Email: brittany.pineros@aei.org

What's new on AEI

image The Census Bureau and Obamacare: Dumb decision? Yes. Conspiracy? No.
image A 'three-state solution' for Middle East peace
image Give the CBO long-range tools
image The coming collapse of India's communists
AEI on Facebook
Events Calendar
  • 14
    MON
  • 15
    TUE
  • 16
    WED
  • 17
    THU
  • 18
    FRI
Wednesday, April 16, 2014 | 10:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m.
Calling treason by its name: A conversation with Liam Fox

Join us at AEI as the Right Honorable Liam Fox sits down with Marc Thiessen to discuss and debate whether America’s intelligence agencies have infringed on the personal privacy of US citizens.

Thursday, April 17, 2014 | 4:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.
The curmudgeon's guide to getting ahead

How can young people succeed in workplaces dominated by curmudgeons who are judging their every move? At this AEI book event, bestselling author and social scientist Charles Murray will offer indispensable advice for navigating the workplace, getting ahead, and living a fulfilling life.

Event Registration is Closed
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled today.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.