Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T09:52:51.507Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rational Learners or Impervious Partisans? Economic News and Partisan Bias in Economic Perceptions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 October 2018

J. Scott Matthews  and
Mark Pickup
J. Scott Matthews*
Affiliation:
Memorial University of Newfoundland, Science Building, Room 2028, St. John's, NL A1B 3X9Canada
Mark Pickup
Affiliation:
Simon Fraser University, AQ6069 – 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, B.C. V5A 1S6Canada
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Decades of research have established the direct influence of partisanship on voter perception of a host of real-world conditions. Even so, numerous factors have been found to moderate this “partisan bias.” We examine one plausible moderator: the volume of perceptually relevant information that is available in the mass media. Both dissonance-theoretic and motivated-reasoning formulations of partisan bias in political perception suggest that the availability of perceptually relevant information may constrain perceptual bias. Yet this proposition has rarely been investigated systematically. This article investigates the moderation of partisan bias by informational conditions, focusing on the impact of economic news on economic perceptions during five Canadian general elections (1993–2006). Although the overall pattern is mixed, evidence suggests that bias reduction in response to information depends on the broader economic and political context.

Résumé

Des décennies de recherche attestent l'influence directe de la partisanerie sur la perception qu'ont les électeurs d'une foule de conditions réelles. On a observé que de nombreux facteurs exercent une influence modérée sur ce « biais partisan ». Nous examinons un modérateur plausible : le volume d'information pertinente sur le plan perceptif qui est accessible dans les médias de masse. Les formulations de la théorie de la dissonance et du raisonnement motivé des biais partisans dans la perception politique suggèrent que de tels préjugés peuvent être limités par l’accessibilité d'informations pertinentes sur le plan perceptif. Pourtant, cette proposition a rarement fait l'objet d'une enquête systématique. Cet article examine la modération des biais partisans par les conditions informationnelles en soulignant l'impact des nouvelles économiques sur les perceptions économiques au cours de cinq élections générales canadiennes (1993 à 2006). Nous constatons une tendance générale mixte, mais des preuves suggérant que la réduction des biais en réponse à l'information dépend du contexte économique et politique plus large.

Type
Research Article/Étude originale
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 52 , Issue 2 , June 2019 , pp. 303 - 321
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

A previous version of this article was presented at the Canadian Political Science Association Annual General Meeting, Ottawa, Ontario, in June 2015. This article builds on an earlier article presented at the American Political Science Association Annual Conference, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in September 2006. For comments, advice or suggestions regarding that article, the authors would like to thank Chris Wlezien, Elizabeth Goodyear-Grant, Dimitrios Panagos and James Cottrill. Components of the research arise from Matthews’ dissertation, which was supported, in the form of a doctoral fellowship, by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. For comments on the dissertation and related research, the authors would like to thank Richard Johnston, Fred Cutler and Paul Quirk. For generously making available to us the media data utilized in the article, the authors thank Stuart Soroka. None of these parties are responsible for the arguments of, or errors in, this article.

References

Achen, Christopher and Bartels, Larry. 2016. Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Albaugh, Quinn, Sevenans, Julie and Soroka, Stuart. 2013. Lexicoder Topic Dictionaries, June 2013 versions. Montreal, QC: McGill University. http://lexicoder.com (January 24, 2017).Google Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 2002. “Beyond the Running Tally: Partisan Bias in Political Perceptions.” Political Behavior 24: 117–50.Google Scholar
Baum, Matthew A. and Groeling, Tim. 2010. “Reality asserts itself: Public opinion on Iraq and the elasticity of reality.” International Organization 64(Summer): 443–79.Google Scholar
Baumeister, Roy F., Bratslavsky, Ellen, Finkenauer, Catrin and Vohs, Kathleen D.. 2001. “Bad is stronger than good.” Review of General Psychology 5 (4): 323–70.Google Scholar
Beck, Nathaniel 1983. Time-Varying Parameter Regression Models. American Journal of Political Science 27(3): 557–600.Google Scholar
Bélanger, Éric and Soroka, Stuart. 2012. “Campaigns and the Prediction of Election Outcomes: Can Historical and Campaign-Period Prediction Models Be Combined?” Electoral Studies 31 (4): 702–14.Google Scholar
Berelson, Bernard. 1952. “Democratic Theory and Public Opinion.” Public Opinion Quarterly 16 (3): 313–30.Google Scholar
Berelson, Bernard, Lazarsfeld, Paul and McPhee, William. 1954. Voting. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bond, Jon R., Fleischer, Richard and Wood, B. Dan. 2003. “The Marginal and Time-Varying Effect of Public Approval on Presidential Success in Congress.” Journal of Politics 65 (1): 92–110.Google Scholar
Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M., Darmofal, David and Farrell, Christian A.. 2009. “The aggregate dynamics of campaigns.” Journal of Politics 71 (1): 309–23.Google Scholar
Brooks, Stephen P. and Gelman, Andrew. 1997. “General Methods for Monitoring Convergence of Iterative Simulations.” Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 7 (4): 434–55.Google Scholar
Carmines, Edward G. and Stimson, James A.. 1980. “The Two Faces of Issue Voting.” American Political Science Review 74 (1): 78–91.Google Scholar
Chzhen, Kat, Evans, Geoffrey and Pickup, Mark. 2014. “When Do Economic Perceptions Matter for Party Approval? Examining the Endogeneity of Economic Perceptions before and during the Economic Downturn.” Political Behavior 36 (2): 291–313.Google Scholar
Commandeur, Jacques F. Jacques and Jan Koopman, Siem. 2007. An Introduction to State Space Time Series Analysis. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert. 1998. On Democracy, 2d ed. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Daku, Marc, Mahon, Adam, Soroka, Stuart and Young, Lori. 2009. “Media Content and Election Campaigns: 2008 in Comparative Context.” Presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, Ottawa, ON.Google Scholar
Daku, Mark, Soroka, Stuart and Young, Lori. 2011. Lexicoder, version 2.0. Montreal, QC: McGill University. http://lexicoder.com (January 24, 2017).Google Scholar
Duch, Raymond M., Palmer, Harvey D. and Anderson, Christopher J.. 2000. “Heterogeneity in Perceptions of National Economic Conditions.” American Journal of Political Science 44 (4): 635–52.Google Scholar
Duch, Raymond M. and Stevenson, Randy T.. 2008. The Economic Vote: How Political and Economic Institutions Condition Election Results. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, Geoffrey and Pickup, Mark. 2010. “Reversing the Causal Arrow: The Political Conditioning of Economic Perceptions in the 2000–2004 US Presidential Election Cycle.” Journal of Politics 72 (4): 1236–51.Google Scholar
Festinger, Leon. 1957. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.Google Scholar
Gaines, Brian J., Kuklinski, James, Quirk, Paul, Peyton, Buddy and Verkuilen, Jay. 2007. “Same Facts, Different Interpretations: Partisan Motivation and Opinion on Iraq.” Journal of Politics 69 (4): 957–74.Google Scholar
Gelman, Andrew and King, Gary. 1993. “Why Are American Presidential Election Campaign Polls So Variable When Votes Are So Predictable?” British Journal of Political Science 23 (4): 409–51.Google Scholar
Gelman, Andrew and Rubin, Donald B.. 1992. “Inference from Iterative Simulation Using Multiple Sequences.” Statistical Science 7 (4) 457–72.Google Scholar
Healy, Andrew J., Persson, Mikael and Snowberg, Erik. 2017. “Digging into the Pocketbook: Evidence on Economic Voting from Income Registry Data Matched to a Voter Survey.” American Political Science Review 111 (4): 771–85.Google Scholar
Hetherington, Marc J. 2001. “Resurgent Mass Partisanship: The Role of Elite Polarization.” American Political Science Review 95 (3): 619–32.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Alan M. 2008. “How Do Ideas Matter? Mental Models and Attention in German Pension Politics.” Comparative Political Studies 42 (2): 252–79.Google Scholar
Jerit, Jennifer and Barabas, Jason. 2012. “Partisan Perceptual Bias and the Information Environment.” Journal of Politics 74 (3): 672–84.Google Scholar
Johnston, Richard and Brady, Henry. 2002. “The Rolling Cross-Section Design.” Electoral Studies 21 (2): 283–95.Google Scholar
Johnston, Richard, Thorson, Emily and Gooch, Andrew. 2010. “The Economy and the Dynamics of the 2008 Presidential Campaign: Evidence from the National Annenberg Election Study.” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 20 (2): 271–89.Google Scholar
Kellstedt, Paul M., Linn, Suzanna and Lee Ha, A.. 2015. “The Usefulness of Consumer Sentiment: Assessing Construct and Measurement.” Public Opinion Quarterly 79 (1): 181–203.Google Scholar
Kunda, Ziva 1990. “The Case for Motivated Reasoning.” Psychological Bulletin 108 (3): 480–98.Google Scholar
Lebo, Matthew J. and Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M.. 2008. “Dynamic Conditional Correlations in Political Science.” American Journal of Political Science 52 (3): 688–704.Google Scholar
Lord, Charles G., Ross, Lee and Lepper, Mark R.. 1979. “Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization: The Effects of Prior Theories on Subsequently Considered Evidence.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37 (11): 2098–109.Google Scholar
McAvoy, Gregory E. 2006. “Stability and Change: The Time Varying Impact of Economic and Foreign Policy Evaluations on Presidential Approval.” Political Research Quarterly 59 (1): 71–83.Google Scholar
Matthews, J. Scott 2010. “Enlightenment, Equalization or What? Campaign Learning and the Economy in Canadian Elections.” In Voting Behaviour in Canada, ed. Anderson, Cameron and Stephenson, Laura. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Matthews, J. Scott 2013. “When Partisans Are Attacked: Motivated Reasoning and the New Party System.” In Parties, Elections and the Future of Canadian Politics, ed. Bittner, Amanda and Koop, Royce. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Matthews, J. Scott and Johnston, Richard. 2010. “The Campaign Dynamics of Economic Voting.” Electoral Studies 29 (1): 13–24.Google Scholar
Meinhold, Richard J. and Singpurwalla, Nozer D.. 1983. “Understanding the Kalman Filter.” American Statistician 37 (2): 123–7.Google Scholar
Nyhan, Brendan and Reifler, Jason. 2010. “When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions.” Political Behavior 32 (2): 303–30.Google Scholar
Parker-Stephen, Evan. 2013. “Tides of Disagreement: How Reality Facilitates (and Inhibits) Partisan Public Opinion.” Journal of Politics 75 (4):1077–88.Google Scholar
Soroka, Stuart N. 2014. Negativity in Democratic Politics: Causes and Consequences. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Swamy, P.A.V.B. 1971. Statistical Inference in Random Coefficient of Regression Models. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Taber, Charles S. and Lodge, Milton. 2006. “Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs.” American Journal of Political Science 50 (3): 755–69.Google Scholar
Young, Lori and Soroka, Stuart. 2012. Lexicoder Sentiment Dictionary. Montreal, QC: McGill University. http://lexicoder.com (January 24, 2017).Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Matthews and Pickup supplementary material

Matthews and Pickup supplementary material 1

Download Matthews and Pickup supplementary material(File)
File 67 KB