1932

Abstract

If citizens are to hold politicians accountable for their performance, they probably must have some sense of the relevant facts, such as whether the economy is growing. In surveys, Democrats and Republicans often claim to hold different beliefs about these facts, which raises normative concerns. However, it is not clear that their divergent survey responses reflect actual divergence of beliefs. In this review, we conclude that partisan divergence in survey responses is often not due to sincere, considered differences of belief that fall along party lines—but determining what it due to is difficult. We review the evidence for possible explanations, especially insincere responding and congenial inference. Research in this area is still nascent, and much more will be required before we can speak with precision about the causes of partisan divergence in responses to factual questions.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-050904
2019-05-11
2024-06-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/polisci/22/1/annurev-polisci-051117-050904.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-050904&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abalakina-Paap M, Stephan WG, Craig T, Gregory WL 1999. Beliefs in conspiracies. Political Psychol 20:3637–47
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Abelson RP, Prentice DA 1989. Beliefs as possessions: a functional perspective. Attitude Structure and Function AR Pratkanis, SJ Breckler, AG Greenwald 361–81 New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Allport GW, Postman L 1947. The Psychology of Rumor New York City: Holt, Rinehart & Winston
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Alvarez RM, Franklin CH 1994. Uncertainty and political perceptions. J. Politics 56:3671–88
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Anthony S 1973. Anxiety and rumor. J. Soc. Psychol. 89:191–98
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bartels LM 2002. Beyond the running tally: partisan bias in political perceptions. Political Behav 24:2117–50
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Berinsky AJ 2018. Telling the truth about believing the lies? Evidence for the limited prevalence of expressive survey responding. J. Politics 80:1211–24
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bishop GF 2005. The Illusion of Public Opinion: Fact and Artifact in American Public Opinion Polls Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Blair G, Coppock A, Moor M 2018. When to worry about sensitivity bias: evidence from 30 years of list experiments Work. Pap., Univ. Calif. Los Angeles, CA:
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Blair G, Imai K 2012. Statistical analysis of list experiments. Political Anal 20:147–77
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bullock JG, Gerber AS, Hill SJ, Huber GA 2015. Partisan bias in factual beliefs about politics. Q. J. Political Sci. 10:4519–78
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Bullock JG, Lenz G 2018. Using financial incentives to elicit sincere responses to survey questions Work. Pap., Northwestern Univ. Evanston, IL:
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2018. Unemployment rate Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject. https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000. Retrieved July 16, 2018
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Campbell A, Converse PE, Miller WE, Stokes DE 1960. The American Voter Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Cooper M 2010. From Obama, the tax cut nobody heard of. New York Times Oct. 19, A1
    [Google Scholar]
  16. DellaVigna S, List JA, Malmendier U, Rao G 2017. Voting to tell others. Rev. Econ. Stud. 84:1143–81
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Duelfer C 2005. Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq's WMD, with Addendums Washington, DC: Gov. Publ. Off.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Fiorina MP 1981. Retrospective Voting in American National Elections New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Flynn DJ 2016. The scope and correlates of political misperceptions in the mass public Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association Sep. 1–4 Philadelphia, PA:
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Gelman A 2014. Thinking of doing a list experiment? Here's a list of reasons why you should think again. Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science May 21. http://andrewgelman.com/2014/04/23/thinking-list-experiment-heres-list-reasons-think/
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Gerber AS, Huber GA 2009. Partisanship and economic behavior: Do partisan differences in economic forecasts predict real economic behavior?. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 103:3407–26
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Hamermesh DS 2011. Beauty Pays: Why Attractive People Are More Successful Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Harris Interactive. 2010.“Wingnuts” and President Obama. Press release, Mar. 24. https://perma.cc/8HBK-CF63
  24. Hersh ED, Goldenberg MN 2016. Democratic and Republican physicians provide different care on politicized health issues. PNAS 113:4211811–16
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Hill SJ, Huber GA 2019. On the meaning of survey reports of roll call votes not cast in a legislature. Am. J. Political Sci. In press
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Huber GA, Yair O 2018. How robust is evidence of perceptual partisan bias in survey responses? A new approach for studying expressive responding Presented at the Midwest Political Science Association Annual Meeting Apr. 5–8 Chicago, IL:
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Jacobson GC 2010. Perception, memory, and partisan polarization on the Iraq War. Political Sci. Q. 125:131–56
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Jerit J, Barabas J 2012. Partisan perceptual bias and the information environment. J. Politics 74:3672–84
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Kahneman D 2003. Maps of bounded rationality: psychology for behavioral economics. Am. Econ. Rev. 93:1449–75
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Kahneman D 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow New York: Macmillan
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Khanna K, Sood G 2018. Motivated responding in studies of factual learning. Political Behav 40:179–101
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Krupenkin M 2018. Does partisanship affect compliance with government recommendations? Unpublished manuscript, Dep. Political Sci., Stanford Univ. Stanford, CA:
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Kuklinski JH, Cobb MD, Gilens M 1997. Racial attitudes and the “New South.”. J. Politics 59:2323–49
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Kull S, Ramsay C,, Subias S, Weber S, Lewis E 2004. The separate realities of Bush and Kerry supporters Program on International Policy Attitudes/Knowledge Networks Poll, Oct. 21. http://worldpublicopinion.net/the-separate-realities-of-bush-and-kerry-supporters/
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Kunda Z 1990. The case for motivated reasoning. Psychol. Bull. 108:3480–98
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Lerman AE, Sadin ML, Trachtman S 2017. Policy uptake as political behavior: evidence from the Affordable Care Act. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 111:4755–70
    [Google Scholar]
  37. McConnell C, Margalit Y, Malhotra N, Levendusky M 2018. The economic consequences of partisanship in a polarized era. Am. J. Political Sci. 62:15–18
    [Google Scholar]
  38. McGrath MC 2017. Economic behavior and the partisan perceptual screen. Q. J. Political Sci. 11:4363–83
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Nyhan B, Porter E, Reifler J, Wood T 2017. Taking corrections literally but not seriously? The effects of information on factual beliefs and candidate favorability Work. Pap., Dartmouth College Hanover, NH: https://www.dartmouth.edu/∼nyhan/trump-corrections.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Nyhan B, Reifler J 2010. When corrections fail: the persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behav 32:2303–30
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Nyhan B, Reifler J, Ubel PA 2013. The hazards of correcting myths about health care reform. Med. Care 51:2127–32
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Oliver JE, Wood TJ 2014. Conspiracy theories and the paranoid style(s) of mass opinion. Am. J. Political Sci. 58:4952–66
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Oliver JE, Wood TJ 2018. Enchanted America Chicago, IL: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Ortoleva P, Snowberg E 2015. Overconfidence in political behavior. Am. Econ. Rev. 105:2504–35
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Palmer HD, Duch RM 2001. Do surveys provide representative or whimsical assessments of the economy?. Political Anal 9:158–77
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Prior M, Sood G, Khanna K 2015. You cannot be serious: the impact of accuracy incentives on partisan bias in reports of economic perceptions. Q. J. Political Sci. 10:4489–518
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Public Policy Polling. 2009. Obama's approval steady News release, Sep. 23 Public Policy Polling Raleigh, NC: https://www.publicpolicypolling.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/PPP_Release_National_9231210.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Quealy K 2017. The more education Republicans have, the less they tend to believe in climate change. New York Times Nov. 14. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/11/14/upshot/climate-change-by-education.html
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Ramsay C, Kull S, Lewis E, Subias S 2010. Misinformation and the 2010 election: a study of the US electorate Rep., Prog. Intl. Policy Attitudes (PIPA), Univ. Maryland, College Park, MD http://drum.lib.umd.edu/handle/1903/11375
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Robbett A, Matthews PH 2018. Partisan bias and expressive voting. J. Public Econ. 157:107–20
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Rosenfeld B, Imai K, Shapiro JN 2016. An empirical validation study of popular survey methodologies for sensitive questions. Am. J. Political Sci. 60:3783–802
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Schaffner BF, Luks S 2018. Misinformation or expressive responding? What an inauguration crowd can tell us about the source of political misinformation in surveys. Public Opin. Q. 82:1135–47
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Schaffner BF, Roche C 2017. Misinformation and motivated reasoning: responses to economic news in a politicized environment. Public Opin. Q. 81:186–110
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Sears DO, Lau RR 1983. Inducing apparently self-interested political preferences. Am. J. Political Sci. 27:2223–52
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Shani D 2006. Knowing your colors: Can knowledge correct for partisan bias in political perceptions? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association Apr. 20–23 Chicago, IL:
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Shapiro RY, Bloch‐Elkon Y 2008. Do the facts speak for themselves? Partisan disagreement as a challenge to democratic competence. Crit. Rev. 20:1–2115–39
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Sood G 2015.Partisan retrospection? Partisan gaps in retrospection are highly variable. Work. Pap., Goji Berries Blog, http://gbytes.gsood.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/partisanRetrospection.pdf
  58. Thorson E 2016. Belief echoes: the persistent effects of corrected misinformation. Political Commun 33:3460–80
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Tourangeau R, Rips LJ, Rasinski KA 2000. The Psychology of Survey Response New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Tourangeau R, Yan T 2007. Sensitive questions in surveys. Psychol. Bull. 133:5859–83
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Weeks BE 2015. Emotions, partisanship, and misperceptions: how anger and anxiety moderate the effect of partisan bias on susceptibility to political misinformation. J. Commun. 65:4699–719
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Wilcox N, Wlezien C 1993. The contamination of responses to survey items: economic perceptions and political judgments. Political Anal 5:181–213
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Wintoki MB, Xi Y 2017. Political partisan bias in mutual fund portfolios Work. Pap., School of Business, Univ Kansas: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2933270
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Wood T, Porter E 2018. The elusive backfire effect: mass attitudes' steadfast factual adherence. Political Behav 32:303–30
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Zaller J 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Zaller J, Feldman S 1992. A simple theory of the survey response. Am. J. Political Sci. 36:3579–616
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-050904
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error