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

What's new on AEI

Making Ryan's tax plan smarter
image The teacher evaluation confronts the future
image How to reform the US immigration system
image Inversion hysteria
AEI on Facebook
Events Calendar
  • 01
    MON
  • 02
    TUE
  • 03
    WED
  • 04
    THU
  • 05
    FRI
Wednesday, September 03, 2014 | 9:00 a.m. – 10:30 a.m.
From anarchy to Augustus: Lessons on dealing with disorder, from Rome’s first emperor

We invite you to join us for two panel discussions on how Augustus created order from chaos 2,000 years ago, and what makes for durable domestic and international political systems in the 21st century.

Event Registration is Closed
Wednesday, September 03, 2014 | 12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.
Multiple choice: Expanding opportunity through innovation in K–12 education

Please join us for a book launch event and panel discussion about how a marketplace of education options can help today's students succeed in tomorrow's economy. Attendees will receive a complimentary copy of the featured book.

Thursday, September 04, 2014 | 12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.
How conservatives can save the safety net

Please join us for a luncheon event in which our panel will discuss what conservatives can learn from how liberals talk and think about the safety net and where free-market economics, federalism, and social responsibility intersect to lift people out of poverty.

No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled today.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.