IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/socarx/hr5ba.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

"Unmotivated Bias" and Partisan Hostility: Empirical Evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Stone, Daniel

Abstract

Extreme partisan animosity has been on the rise in the US and is prevalent around the world. This hostility is typically attributed to social group identity, motivated reasoning, or a combination thereof. In this paper, I empirically examine a novel explanation: the ``unmotivated'' cognitive bias of overprecision (overconfidence in precision of beliefs). Overprecision could cause partisan hostility indirectly via inflated confidence in one's own ideology, partisan identity, or perceptions of social distance between the parties. Overprecision could also cause this hostility directly by causing excessively strong inferences from observed information that is either skewed against the out-party or simply misunderstood. Using a nationally representative sample, I find consistent support for direct effects of overprecision and mixed support for indirect effects. The point estimates imply a one standard deviation increase in a respondent's overprecision predicts as much as a 0.71 standard deviation decline in relative out-party favorability.

Suggested Citation

  • Stone, Daniel, 2018. ""Unmotivated Bias" and Partisan Hostility: Empirical Evidence," SocArXiv hr5ba, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:hr5ba
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/hr5ba
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/5bc74f1953cec40018af0356/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/hr5ba?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. Cheng, Ing-Haw & Hsiaw, Alice, 2022. "Distrust in experts and the origins of disagreement," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    2. Ben Gillen & Erik Snowberg & Leeat Yariv, 2015. "Experimenting with Measurement Error: Techniques with Applications to the Caltech Cohort Study," NBER Working Papers 21517, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Laibson, David & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1998. "Amos Tversky and the Ascent of Behavioral Economics," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 7-47, April.
    4. Hoppe, Eva I. & Kusterer, David J., 2011. "Behavioral biases and cognitive reflection," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 110(2), pages 97-100, February.
    5. James Andreoni & Tymofiy Mylovanov, 2012. "Diverging Opinions," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 4(1), pages 209-232, February.
    6. Gregory J. Martin & Ali Yurukoglu, 2017. "Bias in Cable News: Persuasion and Polarization," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(9), pages 2565-2599, September.
    7. Michael D. Grubb, 2015. "Overconfident Consumers in the Marketplace," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 29(4), pages 9-36, Fall.
    8. Bryan Caplan, 2002. "Systematically Biased Beliefs About Economics: Robust Evidence of Judgemental Anomalies from the Survey of Americans and Economists on the Economy," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 112(479), pages 433-458, April.
    9. Congleton, Roger D, 2001. "Rational Ignorance, Rational Voter Expectations, and Public Policy: A Discrete Informational Foundation for Fiscal Illusion," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 107(1-2), pages 35-64, April.
    10. Roland G. Fryer, Jr. & Philipp Harms & Matthew O. Jackson, 2013. "Updating Beliefs with Ambiguous Evidence: Implications for Polarization," NBER Working Papers 19114, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Schnellenbach, Jan & Schubert, Christian, 2015. "Behavioral political economy: A survey," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 40(PB), pages 395-417.
    12. repec:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:1:p:114-120 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Jha, Anand & Boudreaux, Christopher J. & Banerjee, Vasabjit, 2018. "Political leanings and social capital," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 95-105.
    14. Dan Kahan, 2012. "Why we are poles apart on climate change," Nature, Nature, vol. 488(7411), pages 255-255, August.
    15. Roland Bénabou & Jean Tirole, 2016. "Mindful Economics: The Production, Consumption, and Value of Beliefs," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 30(3), pages 141-164, Summer.
    16. Clio Andris & David Lee & Marcus J Hamilton & Mauro Martino & Christian E Gunning & John Armistead Selden, 2015. "The Rise of Partisanship and Super-Cooperators in the U.S. House of Representatives," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(4), pages 1-14, April.
    17. Fernanda Leite Lopez Leon & Renata Rizzi, 2016. "Does forced voting result in political polarization?," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 166(1), pages 143-160, January.
    18. Shanto Iyengar & Sean J. Westwood, 2015. "Fear and Loathing Across Party Lines: New Evidence on Group Polarization," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 59(3), pages 690-707, July.
    19. Levy, Raphaël, 2014. "Soothing politics," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 126-133.
    20. Caplan, Bryan, 2001. "Rational Irrationality and the Microfoundations of Political Failure," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 107(3-4), pages 311-331, June.
    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 F., 2019. "“Unmotivated bias” and partisan hostility: Empirical evidence," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 12-26.
    2. Le Yaouanq, Yves, 2018. "A Model of Ideological Thinking," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 85, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    3. Apolte, Thomas & Müller, Julia, 2022. "The persistence of political myths and ideologies," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    4. Schnellenbach, Jan & Schubert, Christian, 2015. "Behavioral political economy: A survey," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 40(PB), pages 395-417.
    5. Eugen Dimant, 2020. "Hate Trumps Love: The Impact of Political Polarization on Social Preferences," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 029, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    6. Huremović, Kenan & Ozkes, Ali I., 2022. "Polarization in networks: Identification–alienation framework," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    7. Daniel J. Benjamin, 2018. "Errors in Probabilistic Reasoning and Judgment Biases," NBER Working Papers 25200, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Golman, Russell, 2023. "Acceptable discourse: Social norms of beliefs and opinions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    9. Hestermann, Nina & Le Yaouanq, Yves & Treich, Nicolas, 2020. "An economic model of the meat paradox," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    10. Straubhaar, Thomas (ed.), 2021. "Neuvermessung der Datenökonomie," Edition HWWI, Hamburg Institute of International Economics (HWWI), volume 6, number 6.
    11. Ester Faia & Andreas Fuster & Vincenzo Pezone & Basit Zafar, 2024. "Biases in Information Selection and Processing: Survey Evidence from the Pandemic," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 106(3), pages 829-847, May.
    12. Isaac Loh & Gregory Phelan, 2019. "Dimensionality And Disagreement: Asymptotic Belief Divergence In Response To Common Information," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 60(4), pages 1861-1876, November.
    13. Jan Schnellenbach & Christian Schubert, 2019. "A note on the behavioral political economy of innovation policy," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 29(5), pages 1399-1414, November.
    14. Bryan Caplan, 2003. "The Logic of Collective Belief," Rationality and Society, , vol. 15(2), pages 218-242, May.
    15. Dylan Bugden, 2022. "Denial and distrust: explaining the partisan climate gap," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 170(3), pages 1-23, February.
    16. Hassan Afrouzi & Carolina Arteaga & Emily Weisburst, 2022. "Can Leaders Persuade? Examining Movement in Immigration Beliefs," CESifo Working Paper Series 9593, CESifo.
    17. Scheffer, Niklas & Sturm, Silke & Islam, Zahurul, 2021. "Implizite Motive in der politischen Kommunikation," Edition HWWI: Chapters, in: Straubhaar, Thomas (ed.), Neuvermessung der Datenökonomie, volume 6, pages 173-197, Hamburg Institute of International Economics (HWWI).
    18. Eric Crampton & Andrew Farrant, 2004. "Expressive and Instrumental Voting: The Scylla and Charybdis of Constitutional Political Economy," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 77-88, March.
    19. Benoît, Jean-Pierre & Dubra, Juan, 2014. "A Theory of Rational Attitude Polarization," MPRA Paper 60129, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Roberto Dell’Anno & Jorge Martinez-Vazquez, 2019. "A problem with observational equivalence: Disentangling the renter illusion hypothesis," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 56(1), pages 193-209, January.

    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:osf:socarx:hr5ba. 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://arabixiv.org .

    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.