Polarization, Trust, and Institutions
Paper Session
Friday, Jan. 3, 2025 10:15 AM - 12:15 PM (PST)
- Chair: Guglielmo Briscese, University of Chicago
Sorting Fact from Fiction in a Complex World under the Shadow of Motivated Reasoning
Abstract
We present a comprehensive framework combining theory and a survey-experimental study conducted in Austria, Germany, and the UK to investigate how the ability to sort fact from fiction as well as updating from new information are influenced by cognitive ability, motivated reasoning, and overconfidence. Our study involves news themes that are politically charged (and more complex than everyday politics): immigration, climate change, science, and inequality. We predict and find that the ability to discern correct and false news increases in cognitive ability (in particular, in both IQ and educational attainment). We show that the positive effect of cognitive ability is robust and immune to motivated reasoning. That is, the ability to give correct answers that counter one’s existing issue opinions and biases increases in cognitive ability. These novel results are good news, suggesting the malleability of the ability to sort fact from fiction. However, we also document that motivated reasoning plays a highly significant role in explaining respondent decision making. Thus, our results differ from the extant literature (e.g., Pennycook and Rand, 2019; Angelucci and Prat, 2024): in complex themes, motivated reasoning has a strong influence on assessments and thus may play a significant role in the evolution of opinions, making polarization easier. On the aggregate, cognitive ability is not associated with the magnitude of motivated reasoning. However, when we disaggregate data by news theme, we find that higher cognitive ability may boost motivated reasoning. Our findings suggest that the quality of institutions and trust in institutions matter. On the aggregate, Germany performs better than Austria and the UK in the news quiz, which is what we expected as Germany ranks higher than the other two countries in most governance rankings. We also find that trust in institutions reduces the magnitude of motivated reasoning, which likely helps limit opinion polarization.Cognitive Skills and the Demand for Bad Policy
Abstract
Rational choice theories assume citizens accurately assess policy options. However, many policies---such as price controls or Pigouvian taxation---yield \emph{equilibrium effects} that citizens may underestimate, leading to support for harmful policies or opposition to beneficial ones. This under-appreciation might be linked to cognitive functions, raising fundamental research questions: Do cognitive abilities influence citizens' preferences regarding policies, especially untried reforms? If so, what is the underlying mechanism? We use a theoretical framework and an experiment using an UK-representative sample to show that enhanced cognitive abilities can lead to better policy choices. Moreover, we emphasize the crucial role of beliefs about \emph{other citizens'} cognitive abilities. These findings have important policy implications as they suggest that educational programs developing cognitive skills or interventions increasing trust in others' understanding could improve the quality of democratic decision-making in our societies. We complement these findings with the textual analysis of two open ended policy questions and external evidence from a main socioeconomic survey.Trust and Health-Care Seeking Behaviors
Abstract
We present results from a nationally representative survey of American adults, guided by a simple theoretical model expressing health care-seeking behavior as a function of economic and behavioral fundamentals and highlighting the role of trust. We report several findings. First, we document a strong association between higher levels of trust in the health care system and reported care-seeking behavior, both retrospective and anticipated. This relationship holds across several care scenarios, from routine check-ups to vaccinations. Second, the impact of trust on health care utilization is similar in magnitude to that of factors such as income and education, long recognized as crucial in the existing literature. Third, the relationship between trust and care seeking behavior appears to be mediated by key mechanisms from our theoretical framework, notably individuals’ beliefs about the system's effectiveness in managing their health and their personal disutility tied to medical visits. Fourth, we ask respondents about trust in specific health care system sectors, and we find important heterogeneity in the associations between trust and care-seeking behavior, notably between trust in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the likelihood to receive flu and COVID-19 vaccinations. Finally, we find no differential relationship between trust and care-seeking for Black respondents, but we find important differences by age and political affiliation. Our findings hold significant implications for policy, particularly given that trust in medical and, more broadly, scientific expertise is increasingly difficult to establish.Restoring Social Capital: Experimental Evidence on Improving Trust in Public Institutions
Abstract
Trust in public institutions, a pillar of a country's social capital, has reached a historic low in the United States. While prior research identifies drivers of this decline, little evidence exists on interventions to reverse it. We conduct two experiments based on a model of behavioral inattention during the U.S. election periods of 2020 and 2024, and show that reducing search costs for institution-sourced information that citizens value to make informed decisions for their well-being improves factual knowledge, institutional trust, adherence to recommended behaviors, and policy support, with effects persisting over time. These results suggest that properly designed informational campaigns may be a powerful tool to restore public confidence in institutions.Discussant(s)
Victoria Prowse
,
Purdue University
Patricia Fearon Andrews
,
Stanford University
Alessandra Cassar
,
University of San Francisco
Alexander Coutts
,
York University
Galina Zudenkova
,
TU Dortmund University
JEL Classifications
- D8 - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty
- H1 - Structure and Scope of Government