Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-kw2vx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-26T01:36:45.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Expressive Survey Responding: A Closer Look at the Evidence and Its Implications for American Democracy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 January 2022

Ariel Malka Open the ORCID record for Ariel Malka [Opens in a new window]  and
Mark Adelman
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Concerns about public opinion-based threats to American democracy are often tied to evidence of partisan bias in factual perceptions. However, influential work on expressive survey responding suggests that many apparent instances of such bias result from respondents insincerely reporting politically congenial views in order to gain expressive psychological benefits. Importantly, these findings have been interpreted as “good news for democracy” because partisans who knowingly report incorrect beliefs in surveys can act on their correct beliefs in the real world. We synthesize evidence and commentary on this matter, drawing two conclusions: (1) evidence for insincere expressive responding on divisive political matters is limited and ambiguous and (2) when experimental manipulations in surveys reduce reports of politically congenial factual beliefs, this is often because such reported beliefs serve as flexible and interchangeable ways of justifying the largely stable allegiances that guide political behavior. The expressive value of acting on political commitments should be viewed as a central feature of the American political context rather than a methodological artifact of surveys.

Type
Methods, Ethics, Motivations: Connecting the How and Why of Political Science
Information
Perspectives on Politics , Volume 21 , Issue 4: Special Section: Methods, Ethics, Motivations: Connecting the How and Why of Political Science , December 2023 , pp. 1198 - 1209
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the American Political Science Association

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.)

References

Allcott, Hunt, Boxell, Levi., Conway, Jacob, Gentzkow, Matthew, Thaler, Michael, and Yang, David. 2020. Polarization and Public Health: Partisan Differences in Social Distancing during the Coronavirus Pandemic. NBER Working Paper 26946. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
Arceneaux, Kevin, and Vander Wielen, Ryan J.. 2017. Taming Intuition: How Refection Minimizes Partisan Reasoning and Promotes Democratic Accountability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Badger, Emily. 2020. “Most Republicans Say They Doubt the Election: How Many Really Mean It?” New York Times, November 30.Google Scholar
Baldassarri, Delia, and Park, Barum. 2020. “Was There a Culture War? Partisan Polarization and Secular Trends in US Public Opinion.” Journal of Politics 82 (3): 809–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barro, Josh 2017. “Trump Produces Enough Real Risks, so Stop Imagining Fake Ones.” Business Insider Nederland, August 10.Google Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 2002. “Beyond the Running Tally: Partisan Bias in Political Perceptions.” Political Behavior 24 (2): 117–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berinsky, Adam J. 2018. “Telling the Truth about Believing the Lies? Evidence for the Limited Prevalence of Expressive Survey Responding.” Journal of Politics 80: 2011–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bisgaard, Martin. 2019. “How Getting the Facts Right Can Fuel Partisan-Motivated Reasoning.” American Journal of Political Science 63 (4): 824–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloom, Max. 2017. “Polls Don’t Measure What You Think They Measure.” National Review, August 11.Google Scholar
Bullock, John G., Gerber, Alan S., Hill, Seth J., and Huber, Gregory A.. 2015. “Partisan Bias in Factual Beliefs about Politics.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 10 (4): 519–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bullock, John G., and Lenz, Gabriel. 2019. “Partisan Bias in Surveys.” Annual Review of Political Science 22 (1): 325–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Troy H., and Kay, Aaron C.. 2014. “Solution Aversion: On the Relation between Ideology and Motivated Disbelief.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 107 (5): 809–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Connors, Elizabeth C. 2020. “Do Republicans Really Believe the Election Was Stolen—or Are They Just Saying That?” Washington Post, December 22.Google Scholar
Druckman, James N., Leeper, Thomas J., and Slothuus, Rune. 2018. “Motivated Responses to Political Communications: Framing, Party Cues, and Science Information.” In The Feeling, Thinking Citizen: Essays in Honor of Milton Lodge, eds. Lavine, Howard G. and Taber, Charles S., 125–50. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Effron, Daniel A. 2018. “It Could Have Been True: How Counterfactual Thoughts Reduce Condemnation of Falsehoods and Increase Political Polarization.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 44 (5): 729–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flynn, D. J., Nyhan, Brendan, and Reifler, Jason. 2017. “The Nature and Origins of Misperceptions: Understanding False and Unsupported Beliefs about Politics.” Advances in Political Psychology 38 (S1): 127–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gal, David, and Rucker, Derek D.. 2011. “Answering the Unasked Question: Response Substitution in Consumer Surveys.” Journal Marketing Research 48 (1): 185–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, David A. 2017. “Do Republicans Want to Postpone the 2020 Election?” The Atlantic, August 10.Google Scholar
Graham, Matthew H. 2020. “Self-Awareness of Political Knowledge.” Political Behavior 42: 305–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, Matthew H., and Huber, Gregory A.. 2021. “The Expressive Value of Answering Survey Questions.” In The Politics of Truth in a Polarized Era, eds. Barker, David C. and Suhay, Elizabeth, 83–112. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Green, Jon, Kingzette, Jon, Minozzi, William. and Neblo, Michael. 2020. “A Speech Act Perspective on the Survey Response.” Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Groenendyk, Eric W. 2013. Competing Motives in the Partisan Mind: How Loyalty and Responsiveness Shape Party Identification and Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haidt, Jonathan 2001. “The Emotional Dog and Its Rational Tail: A Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment.” Psychological Review 108 (4): 814–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamlin, Alan, and Jennings, Colin. 2011. “Expressive Political Behaviour: Foundations, Scope and Implications.” British Journal of Political Science 41 (3): 645–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heider, Fritz. 1958. “The Naive Analysis of Action.” In The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations, 79–124. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, Gregory A., and Malhotra, Neil. 2017. “Political Homophily in Social Relationships: Evidence from Online Dating Behavior.” Journal of Politics 79 (1): 269–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, Lelkes, Yphtach, Levendusky, Matthew, Malhotra, Neil, and Westwood, Sean J.. 2019. “The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States.” Annual Review of Political Science 22: 129–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, and Westwood, Sean J.. 2015. “Fear and Loathing across Party Lines: New Evidence on Group Polarization.” American Journal of Political Science 59 (3): 690–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jerit, Jennifer, and Barabas, Jason. 2012. “Partisan Perceptual Bias and the Information Environment.” Journal of Politics 74 (3): 672–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahan, Dan M. 2015. “The Expressive Rationality of Inaccurate Perceptions.” Behavioral & Brain Sciences 40: 26–28.Google Scholar
Khanna, Kabir, and Sood, Gaurav. 2018. “Motivated Responding in Studies of Factual Learning.” Political Behavior 40 (79): 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuklinski, James H., Quirk, Paul J., Jerit, Jennifer, Schwieder, David, and Rich, Robert F.. 2000. “Misinformation and the Currency of Democratic Citizenship.” Journal of Politics 62 (3): 790–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lauderdale, Benjamin E. 2016. “Partisan Disagreements Arising from Rationalization of Common Information.” Political Science Research and Methods 4 (3): 477–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lerman, Amy E., Sadin, Meredith L., and Trachtman, Samuel. 2017. “Policy Uptake as Political Behavior: Evidence from the Affordable Care Act.” American Political Science Review 111 (4): 755–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malka, Ariel, and Lelkes, Yphtach. 2017. “In a New Poll, Half of Republicans Say They Would Support Postponing the 2020 Election if Trump Proposed It.” Washington Post, August 10.Google Scholar
Mason, Lilliana, and Wronski, Julie. 2018. “One Tribe to Bind Them All: How Our Social Group Attachments Strengthen Partisanship.” Political Psychology 39 (S1): 257–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nyhan, Brendan. 2020. “Facts and Myths about Misperceptions.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 34 (3): 220–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pennycook, Gordon, Epstein, Ziv, Mosleh, Mohsen, Arechar, Antonio A., Eckles, Dean, and Rand, David G.. 2021. “Shifting Attention to Accuracy Can Reduce Misinformation Online.” Nature 592: 1–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peterson, Erik, and Iyengar, Shanto. 2021a. “Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information‐Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading?” American Journal of Political Science 65 (1): 133–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, Erik, and Iyengar, Shanto. 2021b. “Partisan Reasoning in a High Stakes Environment.” Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Prior, Markus, Sood, Gaurav, and Khanna, Kabir. 2015. “You Cannot Be Serious: The Impact of Accuracy Incentives on Partisan Bias in Reports of Economic Perceptions.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 10 (4): 489–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robbett, Andrea, and Matthews, Peter H.. 2018. “Partisan Bias and Expressive Voting.” European Journal of Political Economy 157: 107–20.Google Scholar
Schaffner, Brian F., and Luks, Samantha. 2018. “Misinformation or Expressive Responding? What an Inauguration Crowd Can Tell Us about the Source of Political Misinformation in Surveys.” Public Opinion Quarterly 82 (1): 135–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaffer, Stephen D. 1981. “Balance Theory and Political Cognitions.” American Politics Quarterly 9 (3): 291–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stern, Chadly D., and Ondish, Peter. 2018. “Political Aspects of Shared Reality.” Current Opinion in Psychology 23: 11–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Swire, Briony, Berinsky, Adam J., Lewandowsky, Stephan, and Ullrich, K. H. Ecker. 2017. “Processing Political Misinformation: Comprehending the Trump Phenomenon.” Royal Society Open Science 4 (3):160802.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taber, Charles S., and Lodge, Milton. 2006. “Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs.” American Journal of Political Science 50 (3): 755–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilley, James, and Hobolt, Sara B.. 2011. “Is the Government to Blame? An Experimental Test of How Partisanship Shapes Perceptions of Performance and Responsibility.” Journal of Politics 73 (2): 316–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uhlmann, Eric Luis, Pizarro, David A., Tannenbaum, David, and Ditto, Peter H.. 2009. “The Motivated Use of Moral Principles.” Judgment and Decision Making 4 (6): 476–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yair, Omer, and Huber, Gregory A.. 2020. “How Robust Is Evidence of Partisan Perceptual Bias in Survey Responses? A New Approach for Studying Expressive Responding.” Public Opinion Quarterly 84 (2): 469–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaller, John R. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Malka and Adelman supplementary material

Malka and Adelman supplementary material

Download Malka and Adelman supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 250.1 KB