通过新颖的行为实验考察情感上的党派两极分化:美国的平等对等测试(2019-2022年)

IF 1.6 3区 经济学 Q2 ECONOMICS Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics Pub Date : 2024-06-22 DOI:10.1016/j.socec.2024.102253
Jonathan Hall , Sam Whitt
{"title":"通过新颖的行为实验考察情感上的党派两极分化:美国的平等对等测试(2019-2022年)","authors":"Jonathan Hall ,&nbsp;Sam Whitt","doi":"10.1016/j.socec.2024.102253","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Existing behavioral studies of affective partisan polarization only capture a subset of decision-making preferences and strategies. We apply an innovative experimental design, the Equality Equivalency Test (EET), to investigate a broader range of affective behavior toward partisan others. Based on data from yearly nationwide surveys between 2019 and 2022 with over 6000 observations, we find that affective polarization is expressed through strong malevolent, and to a lesser degree, benevolent deviations from rational expected-utility maximization. The rising preponderance of spitefulness towards political opponents supports negative partisanship as the dominant mechanism governing affective polarization. In addition, we find evidence of growing negative partisanship among independents, who are turning increasingly spiteful toward members of both parties. We argue that the EET should be utilized by scholars as a next-generation design innovation to deepen our understanding of affective polarization.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51637,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics","volume":"112 ","pages":"Article 102253"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Examining affective partisan polarization through a novel behavioral experiment: The equality equivalency test in the United States (2019–2022)\",\"authors\":\"Jonathan Hall ,&nbsp;Sam Whitt\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.socec.2024.102253\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Existing behavioral studies of affective partisan polarization only capture a subset of decision-making preferences and strategies. We apply an innovative experimental design, the Equality Equivalency Test (EET), to investigate a broader range of affective behavior toward partisan others. Based on data from yearly nationwide surveys between 2019 and 2022 with over 6000 observations, we find that affective polarization is expressed through strong malevolent, and to a lesser degree, benevolent deviations from rational expected-utility maximization. The rising preponderance of spitefulness towards political opponents supports negative partisanship as the dominant mechanism governing affective polarization. In addition, we find evidence of growing negative partisanship among independents, who are turning increasingly spiteful toward members of both parties. We argue that the EET should be utilized by scholars as a next-generation design innovation to deepen our understanding of affective polarization.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51637,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics\",\"volume\":\"112 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102253\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214804324000910\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214804324000910","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

现有的党派极化情感行为研究只能捕捉到决策偏好和策略的一部分。我们采用创新的实验设计--等效测试(EET)--来研究更广泛的对党派他人的情感行为。基于 2019 年至 2022 年期间每年全国范围内超过 6000 个观测点的调查数据,我们发现情感极化表现为强烈的恶意偏离理性预期效用最大化,其次是善意偏离理性预期效用最大化。对政治对手的怨恨程度不断上升,这支持了消极党派作为情感极化的主导机制。此外,我们还发现了无党派人士中消极党派性不断增强的证据,他们对两党成员的唾弃情绪也在不断增加。我们认为,学者们应该利用 EET 作为下一代设计创新,以加深我们对情感极化的理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Examining affective partisan polarization through a novel behavioral experiment: The equality equivalency test in the United States (2019–2022)

Existing behavioral studies of affective partisan polarization only capture a subset of decision-making preferences and strategies. We apply an innovative experimental design, the Equality Equivalency Test (EET), to investigate a broader range of affective behavior toward partisan others. Based on data from yearly nationwide surveys between 2019 and 2022 with over 6000 observations, we find that affective polarization is expressed through strong malevolent, and to a lesser degree, benevolent deviations from rational expected-utility maximization. The rising preponderance of spitefulness towards political opponents supports negative partisanship as the dominant mechanism governing affective polarization. In addition, we find evidence of growing negative partisanship among independents, who are turning increasingly spiteful toward members of both parties. We argue that the EET should be utilized by scholars as a next-generation design innovation to deepen our understanding of affective polarization.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
12.50%
发文量
113
审稿时长
83 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly the Journal of Socio-Economics) welcomes submissions that deal with various economic topics but also involve issues that are related to other social sciences, especially psychology, or use experimental methods of inquiry. Thus, contributions in behavioral economics, experimental economics, economic psychology, and judgment and decision making are especially welcome. The journal is open to different research methodologies, as long as they are relevant to the topic and employed rigorously. Possible methodologies include, for example, experiments, surveys, empirical work, theoretical models, meta-analyses, case studies, and simulation-based analyses. Literature reviews that integrate findings from many studies are also welcome, but they should synthesize the literature in a useful manner and provide substantial contribution beyond what the reader could get by simply reading the abstracts of the cited papers. In empirical work, it is important that the results are not only statistically significant but also economically significant. A high contribution-to-length ratio is expected from published articles and therefore papers should not be unnecessarily long, and short articles are welcome. Articles should be written in a manner that is intelligible to our generalist readership. Book reviews are generally solicited but occasionally unsolicited reviews will also be published. Contact the Book Review Editor for related inquiries.
期刊最新文献
Privacy during pandemics: Attitudes to public use of personal data Understanding inconsistencies in risk attitude elicitation games: Evidence from smallholder farmers in five African countries Inflation expectations in the wake of the war in Ukraine Asking for a friend: Reminders and incentives for crowdfunding college savings ‘Update Bias’: Manipulating past information based on the existing circumstances
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1