IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v105y2024i4p1368-1382.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is socially responsible capitalism truly polarizing?

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel F. Stone
  • Jeffrey Lees

Abstract

Objective We assess the hypothesis that socially responsible capitalism (SRC) is fundamentally partisan and primarily supported by people on the left, or whether this perception is another example of “false polarization”—overestimation of disagreement between the left and right. Methods We conduct two studies: (1) a survey of Americans' opinions on a general definition of SRC and five examples of recent prominent firm actions corresponding to distinct areas of SRC (n = 1000, representative sample) and (2) an incentivized survey on second‐order beliefs about results from the first survey (n = 605, quota‐matched convenience sample). We conduct statistical tests of the accuracy of second‐order beliefs about polarization between Democrats and Republicans in support for SRC and correlates of this accuracy. Results Large majorities of Democrats and Republicans support examples of corporate behavior from three of the five areas of SRC, but opinions are somewhat divided across the parties on support for SRC as a concept, and highly divided for the SRC examples on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and climate change. Both Democrats and Republicans generally underestimate SRC support from partisans on both sides except for DEI, which both parties overestimate support for. SRC support is especially underestimated by people opposed to SRC and people with no opinion on SRC. Democrats overestimate polarization in support for SRC. Overestimation of polarization in SRC support is correlated with affective polarization. Conclusion Bipartisan support for SRC is underappreciated, but some aspects of SRC are polarizing or even more polarizing than commonly perceived. Republican opposition to SRC may be partially due to underestimation of copartisan support for SRC. A focus in the news and popular discourse on the more polarizing aspects of SRC may contribute to a general perception that support for SRC is more polarized than it truly is.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel F. Stone & Jeffrey Lees, 2024. "Is socially responsible capitalism truly polarizing?," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 105(4), pages 1368-1382, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:105:y:2024:i:4:p:1368-1382
    DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.13395
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.13395
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ssqu.13395?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hunt Allcott & Giovanni Montanari & Bora Ozaltun & Brandon Tan, 2023. "An Economic View of Corporate Social Impact," NBER Working Papers 31803, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Hongbin Cai & Yuyu Chen & Hanming Fang, 2009. "Observational Learning: Evidence from a Randomized Natural Field Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(3), pages 864-882, June.
    3. Khawaja Fawad Latif & Aymen Sajjad, 2018. "Measuring corporate social responsibility: A critical review of survey instruments," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(6), pages 1174-1197, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Stone, Daniel & Lees, Jeffrey Martin, 2024. "Is SRC truly polarizing?," OSF Preprints jwmvf, Center for Open Science.
    2. Ruomeng Cui & Dennis J. Zhang & Achal Bassamboo, 2019. "Learning from Inventory Availability Information: Evidence from Field Experiments on Amazon," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(3), pages 1216-1235, March.
    3. Fishman, Arthur & Fishman, Ram & Gneezy, Uri, 2019. "A tale of two food stands: Observational learning in the field," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 101-108.
    4. Mitchell Hoffman & Gianmarco Leon, 2011. "Social Networks and Voting," Working Papers 11-08, NET Institute, revised Nov 2011.
    5. Mayank Aggarwal & Anindya S. Chakrabarti & Chirantan Chatterjee, 2023. "Movies, stigma and choice: Evidence from the pharmaceutical industry," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(5), pages 1019-1039, May.
    6. Cliff R. Kikawa & Charity Kiconco & Moses Agaba & Dimas Ntirampeba & Amos Ssematimba & Billy M. Kalema, 2022. "Social Media Marketing for Small and Medium Enterprise Performance in Uganda: A Structural Equation Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-20, November.
    7. Harry Pei, 2020. "Reputation Building under Observational Learning," Papers 2006.08068, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2020.
    8. Tingting Song & Jinghua Huang & Yong Tan & Yifan Yu, 2019. "Using User- and Marketer-Generated Content for Box Office Revenue Prediction: Differences Between Microblogging and Third-Party Platforms," Service Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(1), pages 191-203, March.
    9. Andreas Hefti & Peiyao Shen & King King Li, 2021. "Igniting deliberation in high stake decisions: a field study," ECON - Working Papers 378, Department of Economics - University of Zurich.
    10. Bazoche, Pascale & Guinet, Nicolas & Poret, Sylvaine & Teyssier, Sabrina, 2023. "Does the provision of information increase the substitution of animal proteins with plant-based proteins? An experimental investigation into consumer choices," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    11. Engström, Per & Forsell, Eskil, 2018. "Demand effects of consumers’ stated and revealed preferences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 43-61.
    12. Tat Y. Chan & Jia Li & Lamar Pierce, 2014. "Learning from Peers: Knowledge Transfer and Sales Force Productivity Growth," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(4), pages 463-484, July.
    13. Kee, Jennifer Y. & Segovia, Michelle S. & Palma, Marco A., 2023. "Slim or Plus-Size Burrito? A natural experiment of consumers’ restaurant choice," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    14. Bonan, Jacopo & Battiston, Pietro & Bleck, Jaimie & LeMay-Boucher, Philippe & Pareglio, Stefano & Sarr, Bassirou & Tavoni, Massimo, 2021. "Social interaction and technology adoption: Experimental evidence from improved cookstoves in Mali," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    15. Seul-Ki Kim & Young-Chul Kim, 2021. "Coed vs Single-Sex Schooling: An Empirical Study on Mental Health Outcomes," Working Papers 2103, Nam Duck-Woo Economic Research Institute, Sogang University (Former Research Institute for Market Economy).
    16. Anna K. Edenbrandt & Christian Gamborg & Bo Jellesmark Thorsen, 2020. "Observational learning in food choices: The effect of product familiarity and closeness of peers," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(3), pages 482-498, June.
    17. Régis Y. Chenavaz & Alexandra Couston & Stéphanie Heichelbech & Isabelle Pignatel & Stanko Dimitrov, 2023. "Corporate Social Responsibility and Entrepreneurial Ventures: A Conceptual Framework and Research Agenda," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-30, May.
    18. Grohmann, Antonia Charlotte & Sakha, Sahra, 2015. "The Effect of Peer Observation on the Consumption of Temptation Goods: Experimental Evidence," VfS Annual Conference 2015 (Muenster): Economic Development - Theory and Policy 113084, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    19. Jörg Peters & Jörg Langbein & Gareth Roberts, 2018. "Generalization in the Tropics – Development Policy, Randomized Controlled Trials, and External Validity," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 33(1), pages 34-64.
    20. Liangfei Qiu & Arunima Chhikara & Asoo Vakharia, 2021. "Multidimensional Observational Learning in Social Networks: Theory and Experimental Evidence," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 32(3), pages 876-894, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:105:y:2024:i:4:p:1368-1382. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.