Disagreement Spillovers: How Moral Stances Influence Economic Policy Persuasion

Core Concepts

People are less persuaded by economic policy proposals if the source also expresses opposing views on moral social policies, a phenomenon called "disagreement spillover."

Abstract

This is a research paper that investigates the phenomenon of "disagreement spillovers," where individuals are less persuaded by economic policy proposals from sources who hold opposing views on moral social policies.

Bibliographic Information: Bonomi, G. (2024). Disagreement Spillovers (No. 2411.11186). arXiv.

Research Objective: To understand how the association of economic and social policy stances in political messaging affects the persuasiveness of economic policy recommendations.

Methodology: The paper uses a combination of survey experiments and a theoretical model to analyze how individuals update their beliefs about economic policies based on the source's stance on related social policies.

Key Findings:

• The study finds strong evidence of disagreement spillovers, with individuals less likely to support an economic policy if the source expresses opposing views on moral social policies like abortion or transgender rights.
• There is evidence of "backlash," where individuals may even adopt the opposite economic stance to that advocated by the source due to moral misalignment.
• The study finds no evidence of "agreement spillovers," meaning that agreement on moral social policies does not necessarily make individuals more likely to agree with the source's economic policy recommendations.

Main Conclusions:

• The association of economic and social policy stances in political messaging can have a significant impact on the persuasiveness of economic policy recommendations.
• Disagreement spillovers can contribute to increased polarization by strengthening the correlation between economic and social policy views in the electorate.
• Politicians and opinion leaders may have incentives to exploit disagreement spillovers to solidify their voter base and increase their political power.

Significance: This research sheds light on the dynamics of political persuasion and polarization, particularly in contexts where moral and cultural issues are intertwined with economic policy debates.

Limitations and Future Research: The study focuses on specific policy issues (abortion, trade, taxation, transgender rights) and a US context. Further research could explore the generalizability of disagreement spillovers across different policy domains and cultural contexts.

Stats

Political ads in 2018 were three times as likely to cover both social policy and economic issues as in the early 2000s.
Respondents who received a pro-CPTPP message bundled with a misaligned abortion message were 13 percentage points less likely to support the trade agreement.
Respondents who read an anti-CPTPP message bundled with a misaligned abortion message were more than 20 percentage points more likely to support the trade agreement.
Pro-choice respondents were more than 11 percentage points less likely to support the CPTPP when the pro-CPTPP recommendation came bundled with a pro-life stance.
Respondents favorable to transgender adoptions were 8 percentage points less likely to favor a tax proposal when it came bundled with an endorsement of an adoption ban.

Quotes

"people are much less persuaded by economic policy proposals if the source contextually takes social policy stances that go against their cultural views. I call this phenomenon disagreement spillovers."
"The evidence suggests that adding pro-life content to the pro-CPTPP policy message affects the association of policy views among participants, with pro-choice views becoming negatively correlated with pro-trade ones."
"My experimental results provide strong support for the disagreement spillover hypothesis."
"Surprisingly, but consistently with the preliminary evidence [...], I do not find evidence of agreement spillovers"

Key Insights Distilled From

Disagreement Spillovers

by Giampaolo Bo... at arxiv.org 11-19-2024

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2411.11186.pdf

Deeper Inquiries

How might the rise of social media and personalized news feeds amplify or mitigate the effects of disagreement spillovers?

The rise of social media and personalized news feeds presents a double-edged sword when it comes to disagreement spillovers. Here's how it can both amplify and mitigate the effects:
Amplification:

Echo Chambers and Filter Bubbles: Social media algorithms, designed to maximize engagement, often trap users in echo chambers where they are primarily exposed to information confirming their existing beliefs. This can exacerbate disagreement spillovers as users encounter a constant stream of messages reinforcing the association between their preferred social and economic stances, while rarely encountering opposing viewpoints.
Increased Salience of Moral and Cultural Issues: Social media platforms, by their very nature, thrive on content that evokes strong emotions. This often leads to a heightened focus on moral and cultural issues, which can then spill over and further polarize economic policy debates.
Spread of Misinformation and Disinformation: The ease with which misinformation and disinformation can spread on social media can further fuel disagreement spillovers. Fabricated or misleading content linking specific economic policies to disliked cultural groups can solidify negative associations and hinder constructive dialogue.
Mitigation:

Exposure to Diverse Viewpoints: While algorithms often create echo chambers, social media also has the potential to expose users to a wider range of perspectives than they might encounter offline. This exposure, if presented constructively, could help mitigate disagreement spillovers by challenging rigid associations between social and economic stances.
Fact-Checking and Source Verification: The rise of fact-checking organizations and tools for source verification on social media can help combat the spread of misinformation and disinformation that often fuels disagreement spillovers. By promoting accurate information, these initiatives can encourage more reasoned and less polarized discussions.
Promoting Civil Discourse: Some social media platforms are actively developing features and policies aimed at fostering more civil and respectful online discussions. By encouraging users to engage with different viewpoints in a constructive manner, these efforts could help mitigate the negative consequences of disagreement spillovers.
Overall, the impact of social media on disagreement spillovers is complex and multifaceted. While the personalized nature of online information consumption poses significant risks of exacerbating polarization, the potential for exposure to diverse viewpoints and fact-checked information offers some hope for mitigation.

Could disagreement spillovers be explained by a lack of trust in the source's competence on economic issues, rather than moral misalignment?

While the provided context focuses on preference-based trust and identity-based updating as explanations for disagreement spillovers, it's certainly plausible that a lack of trust in the source's competence on economic issues could play a role.
Here's how this alternative explanation could work:

Hueristic Reasoning: Individuals might use a source's stance on moral issues as a cognitive shortcut to assess their competence on economic matters. If a source holds what an individual considers to be "wrong" moral views, they might infer that the source is generally uninformed or lacks good judgment, extending this skepticism to their economic policy recommendations.
Group Identity and Perceived Expertise: People often associate expertise with their in-group. If a source belongs to a cultural out-group, individuals might be more likely to question their economic competence, even if there's no direct link between their moral stance and their economic expertise.
Confirmation Bias: Individuals already distrustful of a source due to moral misalignment might be more likely to interpret any perceived flaws in their economic arguments as evidence of incompetence, further solidifying their negative perception.
Distinguishing Competence from Moral Misalignment:
Disentangling the effects of competence and moral misalignment is challenging but crucial. The study mentioned in the context attempts to address this by:

Controlling for Perceived Source Knowledge: Measuring respondents' prior beliefs about the source's knowledge on both social and economic issues could help isolate the unique effect of moral misalignment.
Framing the Source's Expertise: Explicitly presenting the source as having expertise in economics, regardless of their moral stance, could help assess whether distrust stems solely from moral disagreement.
Further research is needed to fully understand the interplay between perceived competence and moral misalignment in driving disagreement spillovers.

How can we encourage more nuanced and less polarized public discourse in an era where moral and cultural issues are increasingly intertwined with economic policy debates?

Encouraging nuanced and less polarized public discourse in our current climate is a significant challenge, but not an insurmountable one. Here are some potential strategies:
1. Promote Media Literacy and Critical Thinking:

Educate the Public: Equip citizens with the tools to critically evaluate information, identify biases, and recognize manipulative communication tactics. This includes understanding how algorithms work, recognizing logical fallacies, and discerning credible sources.
Encourage Source Diversification: Encourage individuals to engage with a variety of media outlets representing different viewpoints, rather than relying solely on sources reinforcing their existing beliefs.
2. Foster Constructive Dialogue and Empathy:

Facilitate Cross-Partisan Conversations: Create spaces, both online and offline, for respectful dialogue between individuals with differing viewpoints. Structured conversations focusing on shared values and common goals can be particularly effective.
Humanize the "Other": Encourage empathy and perspective-taking by highlighting the personal stories and lived experiences of individuals from diverse backgrounds. This can help break down stereotypes and foster understanding.
3. Reframe the Public Discourse:

Focus on Shared Values and Common Goals: Shift the conversation away from divisive moral and cultural issues towards shared values and common goals, such as economic opportunity, quality education, and affordable healthcare.
Emphasize Evidence-Based Policymaking: Promote a culture of evidence-based policymaking, where decisions are grounded in data and research rather than driven by ideology or partisan agendas.
4. Address Underlying Societal Issues:

Reduce Inequality and Promote Social Mobility: Address economic disparities and promote social mobility to alleviate feelings of resentment and injustice that often fuel polarization.
Combat Discrimination and Promote Inclusion: Create a more just and equitable society by actively combating discrimination and promoting inclusion for all individuals, regardless of their background or beliefs.
These strategies, while not exhaustive, offer a starting point for fostering a more nuanced and less polarized public discourse. It requires a collective effort from individuals, policymakers, educators, and media organizations to create a climate where respectful dialogue and evidence-based decision-making prevail.