IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/osfxxx/9nfg7.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Policies Can Still Create New Politics: Contemporary Causal Evidence from New York Preschool Parents

Author

Listed:
  • Jacobson, Sophie

    (Columbia University)

Abstract

Can citizens' firsthand experiences with government policies shape their political opinions? Research on mass "policy feedback" effects increasingly raises doubts about the capacity of even salient policies to overcome partisan and ideological divisions to shift citizen attitudes. I advance this debate with causal estimates of recent, substantial, and broad-based belief change through personal experience with a child in public preschool. Using a difference-in-differences design with an original opinion panel of New York parents universally eligible for too few free full-day seats, I show that experience with public pre-K creates new political beliefs within months. Parents’ baseline preferences for government-provided childcare over private options doubles after a single semester. This profound shift does not differ between Republicans or conservatives with UPK seats and their more liberal counterparts. Social scientists have shown that universal preschool could transform children's life chances, GDP, and gender parity in economic life; this study suggests profound political effects, too.

Suggested Citation

  • Jacobson, Sophie, 2024. "Policies Can Still Create New Politics: Contemporary Causal Evidence from New York Preschool Parents," OSF Preprints 9nfg7, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:9nfg7
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/9nfg7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/671bdd60d75254242c629924/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/9nfg7?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. Zhang, Baobao & Mildenberger, Matto & Howe, Peter D. & Marlon, Jennifer & Rosenthal, Seth A. & Leiserowitz, Anthony, 2020. "Quota sampling using Facebook advertisements," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(3), pages 558-564, July.
    2. Sances, Michael W., 2021. "Missing the Target? Using Surveys to Validate Social Media Ad Targeting," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(1), pages 215-222, January.
    3. repec:nas:journl:v:115:y:2018:p:12441-12446 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Coppock, Alexander, 2019. "Generalizing from Survey Experiments Conducted on Mechanical Turk: A Replication Approach," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(3), pages 613-628, July.
    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. André Grow & Daniela Perrotta & Emanuele Del Fava & Jorge Cimentada & Francesco Rampazzo & B. Sofia Gil-Clavel & Emilio Zagheni & René D. Flores & Ilana Ventura & Ingmar G. Weber, 2021. "How reliable is Facebook’s advertising data for use in social science research? Insights from a cross-national online survey," MPIDR Working Papers WP-2021-006, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany.
    2. André Grow & Daniela Perrotta & Emanuele Del Fava & Jorge Cimentada & Francesco Rampazzo & Sofia Gil‐Clavel & Emilio Zagheni & René D. Flores & Ilana Ventura & Ingmar Weber, 2022. "Is Facebook's advertising data accurate enough for use in social science research? Insights from a cross‐national online survey," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 185(S2), pages 343-363, December.
    3. Lamberova, Natalia, 2021. "The puzzling politics of R&D: Signaling competence through risky projects," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 801-818.
    4. Brodeur, Abel & Cook, Nikolai & Heyes, Anthony, 2022. "We Need to Talk about Mechanical Turk: What 22,989 Hypothesis Tests Tell Us about Publication Bias and p-Hacking in Online Experiments," IZA Discussion Papers 15478, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    5. Peluso, Alessandro M. & Pichierri, Marco & Pino, Giovanni, 2021. "Age-related effects on environmentally sustainable purchases at the time of COVID-19: Evidence from Italy," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    6. Robert Kubinec & Haillie Na‐Kyung Lee & Andrey Tomashevskiy, 2021. "Politically connected companies are less likely to shutdown due to COVID‐19 restrictions," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(5), pages 2155-2169, September.
    7. Laura D. Scherer & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2020. "Eliciting Medical Maximizing-Minimizing Preferences with a Single Question: Development and Validation of the MM1," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(4), pages 545-550, May.
    8. Brodeur, Abel & Cook, Nikolai & Heyes, Anthony, 2022. "We Need to Talk about Mechanical Turk: What 22,989 Hypothesis Tests Tell us about p-Hacking and Publication Bias in Online Experiments," GLO Discussion Paper Series 1157, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    9. Trisha R. Shrum, 2021. "The salience of future impacts and the willingness to pay for climate change mitigation: an experiment in intergenerational framing," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 165(1), pages 1-20, March.
    10. Beata Woźniak-Jęchorek, 2023. "Experiments in Modern Economics – Expansion and Technological and Institutional Innovations in the U.S," Ekonomista, Polskie Towarzystwo Ekonomiczne, issue 1, pages 78-101.
    11. FabianG. Neuner, 2020. "Public Opinion and the Legitimacy of Global Private EnvironmentalGovernance," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 20(1), pages 60-81, February.
    12. Andreas Fügener & Jörn Grahl & Alok Gupta & Wolfgang Ketter, 2022. "Cognitive Challenges in Human–Artificial Intelligence Collaboration: Investigating the Path Toward Productive Delegation," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 33(2), pages 678-696, June.
    13. Beknazar-Yuzbashev, George & Stalinski, Mateusz, 2022. "Do social media ads matter for political behavior? A field experiment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 214(C).
    14. Jerrod M. Penn & Daniel R. Petrolia & J. Matthew Fannin, 2023. "Hypothetical bias mitigation in representative and convenience samples," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(2), pages 721-743, June.
    15. Johannes G. Jaspersen & Marc A. Ragin & Justin R. Sydnor, 2022. "Insurance demand experiments: Comparing crowdworking to the lab," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 89(4), pages 1077-1107, December.
    16. Ritwik Banerjee & Priyama Majumdar, 2023. "Exponential growth bias in the prediction of COVID‐19 spread and economic expectation," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 90(358), pages 653-689, April.
    17. Sean F. Ellis & Olesya M. Savchenko & Kent D. Messer, 2022. "Mitigating stigma associated with recycled water," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 104(3), pages 1077-1099, May.
    18. Accominotti, Fabien & Tadmon, Daniel, 2020. "How the reification of merit breeds inequality: theory and experimental evidence," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 103865, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    19. M Tahir Kilavuz & Sharan Grewal & Robert Kubinec, 2023. "Ghosts of the Black Decade: How legacies of violence shaped Algeria’s Hirak protests," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 60(1), pages 9-25, January.
    20. Chinchanachokchai, Sydney & de Gregorio, Federico, 2020. "A consumer socialization approach to understanding advertising avoidance on social media," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 474-483.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:osf:osfxxx:9nfg7. 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://osf.io/preprints/ .

    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.