What Separates Bolivians From Each Other?
A Survey Experiment of the Effects of Social Identities on Trust and Affection
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35319/lajed.202442541Keywords:
Social identities, partianship, trust and bias, political polarization, behavioral experimentAbstract
This study examines the impact of historical and ascriptive social identities –such as ethnicity, region, and socioeconomic status– alongside newly formed partisan identities in Bolivia, using a behavioral survey experiment to measure trust and bias. Findings indicate that partisanship has emerged as a super-identity, consolidating various old unresolved cleavages and generating significantly stronger antagonism toward those with opposing voting preferences. On a one-to-ten scale, out-group bias among Incumbent and Opposition voters ranges from 0.90 to 1.73, compared to a statistically insignificant ethnic bias and a moderate regional bias of 0.55. Socioeconomic bias is also evident, with poorer groups exhibiting a 0.46 bias toward wealthier individuals. These results underscore the role of partisanship in amplifying historical divides. We also studied how behavioral measures compare to self-report measures of affection, and our results show that traditional measures of affection display more fragmentation and polarization than behavioral measures. Importantly, we find no significant differences across identity groups in policy attitudes on issues such as democracy, property rights, welfare, gay marriage, or abortion, suggesting that partisan divides may stem more from a sense of being included or excluded by the group than from ideological disagreement.
Downloads
References
Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., & McCabe, K. (1995). Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games and economic behavior, 10 (1), 122–142.
Brewer, M. B. (2001). Ingroup identification and intergroup conflict. Social identity, intergroup conflict, and conflict reduction, 3, 17-41.
Carlin, R. E., & Love, G. J. (2013). The politics of interpersonal trust and reciprocity: An experimental approach. Political Behavior , 35 (1), 43–63.
Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (1998). Are women less selfish than men?: Evidence from dictator experiments. The economic journal, 108 (448), 726–735.Everett, J. A., Faber, N. S., & Crockett, M. (2015). Preferences and beliefs in ingroup favoritism. Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience, 9, 15.
Fehr, E. (2009). On the economics and biology of trust. Journal of the European Economic Association, 7(2-3), 235-266. https://doi.org/10.1162/JEEA.2009.7.2-3.235
Fershtman, C., & Gneezy, U. (2001). Discrimination in a segmented society: An experimental ap- proach. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116 (1), 351–377.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. Psychology Press.
Fong, C. M., & Luttmer, E. F. (2011). Do fairness and race matter in generosity? evidence from a nationally representative charity experiment. Journal of Public Economics, 95 (5-6), 372–394.
Fowler, J. H., & Kam, C. D. (2007). Beyond the self: Social identity, altruism, and political partici- pation. The Journal of politics, 69 (3), 813–827.
Garrett, R. K., Gvirsman, S. D., Johnson, B. K., Tsfati, Y., Neo, R. L., & Dal, A. (2014). Implications of pro- and counterattitudinal information exposure for affective polarization. Human Communication Research, 40(3), 309-332. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12028
Gift, K., & Gift, T. (2015). Does politics influence hiring? evidence from a randomized experiment. Political Behavior , 37 (3), 653–675.
Habyarimana, J., Humphreys, M., Posner, D. N., & Weinstein, J. M. (2007). Why does ethnic diversity undermine public goods provision? American political science review , 101 (4), 709–725.
Hetherington, M., & Weiler, J. (2018). Prius or pickup?: How the answers to four simple questions explain america’s great divide. Houghton Mifflin.
Huber, G. A., & Malhotra, N. (2017). Political homophily in social relationships: Evidence from online dating behavior. The Journal of Politics, 79 (1), 269–283.
Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect, not ideology a social identity perspective on polarization. Public opinion quarterly , 76 (3), 405–431.
Iyengar, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2015). Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59 (3), 690–707.
Johnson, N. D., & Mislin, A. A. (2011). Trust games: A meta-analysis. Journal of economic psychology, 32 (5), 865–889.
Klar, S., Krupnikov, Y., & Ryan, J. B. (2018). Independent politics: How American disdain for parties leads to political inaction. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316711932
Krantz, J. H., & Reips, U.-D. (2017). The state of web-based research: A survey and call for inclusion in the experimental canon. Behavior Research Methods, 49, 1621–1629.
Lelkes, Y., & Westwood, S. J. (2017). The limits of partisan prejudice. The Journal of Politics, 79 (2), 485–501.
Levendusky, M., & Malhotra, N. (2016). Does media coverage of partisan polarization affect political attitudes? Political Communication, 33 (2), 283–301.
Lipset, S. M. (1960). Party systems and the representation of social groups. European Journal of Sociology/Archives Europ´eennes de Sociologie, 1 (1), 50–85.
Mason, L. (2016). A cross-cutting calm: How social sorting drives affective polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(S1), 351–377. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfw001
Mason, L. (2018). Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity. University of Chicago Press.
Mason, L., & Wronski, J. (2018). One tribe to bind them all: How our social group attachments strengthen partisanship. Political Psychology , 39 , 257–277.
Malka, A., Lelkes, Y., & Soto, C. J. (2019). Are cultural and economic conservatism positively correlated? A large-scale cross-national test. British Journal of Political Science, 49(3), 1045-1069. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123417000072
McConnell, C., Margalit, Y., Malhotra, N., & Levendusky, M. (2018). The economic consequences of partisanship in a polarized era. American Journal of Political Science, 62 (1), 5–18.
Roccas, S., & Brewer, M. B. (2002). Social identity complexity. Personality and social psychology review, 6 (2), 88–106.
Tajfel, H. (1970). Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American, 223(5), 96-102. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican1170-96
Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behavior. Social Science Information, 13(2), 65-93. https://doi.org/10.1177/053901847401300204
Tajfel, H., Turner, J. C., Austin, W. G., & Worchel, S. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. Organizational identity: A reader , 56 (65), 9780203505984–16.
Westwood, M., Ramaekers, B., Whiting, P., Tomini, F., Joore, M., Armstrong, N., . . . Kleijnen, J. (2015). Procalcitonin testing to guide antibiotic therapy for the treatment of sepsis in intensive care settings and for suspected bacterial infection in emergency department settings: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Technology Assessment , 19 (96), 3–236.
Wilson, R. K., & Eckel, C. C. (2011). Trust and social exchange. Cambridge handbook of experimental political science, 243–57.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Latin American Journal of Economic Development
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
