IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ces/ceswps/_9549.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Can Cognitive Dissonance Theory Explain Action Induced Changes in Political Preferences?

Author

Listed:
  • Tanja Artiga González
  • Francesco Capozza
  • Georg D. Granic

Abstract

We present the results of a novel experiment investigating how participation in the electoral process can causally change political preference via cognitive dissonance theory. We present a novel experimental design, which complements the existing empirical literature, isolating the net effect of cognitive dissonance on preference changes. Our results suggest that cognitive dissonance created by expressing support for a losing candidate causally led participants to align their preferences with that of the supported candidate more closely. Our results, however, also uncovered a strong dependency of such preferences changes on the outcome of the election. When supported candidates won the election, no preference change was observed. Although more research is needed, our results may be an indication that previous studies overestimated the cognitive dissonance effect on preference changes.

Suggested Citation

  • Tanja Artiga González & Francesco Capozza & Georg D. Granic, 2022. "Can Cognitive Dissonance Theory Explain Action Induced Changes in Political Preferences?," CESifo Working Paper Series 9549, CESifo.
    • Handle: RePEc:ces:ceswps:_9549
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cesifo.org/DocDL/cesifo1_wp9549_0.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Huddy, Leonie & Mason, Lilliana & Aarã˜E, Lene, 2015. "Expressive Partisanship: Campaign Involvement, Political Emotion, and Partisan Identity," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 109(1), pages 1-17, February.
    2. Gaebler, Stefanie & Potrafke, Niklas & Roesel, Felix, 2020. "Compulsory voting and political participation: Empirical evidence from Austria," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    3. Jonathan de Quidt & Johannes Haushofer & Christopher Roth, 2018. "Measuring and Bounding Experimenter Demand," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 108(11), pages 3266-3302, November.
    4. Bracha, Anat & Brown, Donald J., 2012. "Affective decision making: A theory of optimism bias," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 67-80.
    5. Ilyana Kuziemko & Michael I. Norton & Emmanuel Saez & Stefanie Stantcheva, 2015. "How Elastic Are Preferences for Redistribution? Evidence from Randomized Survey Experiments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(4), pages 1478-1508, April.
    6. Roland Bénabou & Jean Tirole, 2006. "Belief in a Just World and Redistributive Politics," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(2), pages 699-746.
    7. Rabin, Matthew, 1994. "Cognitive dissonance and social change," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 177-194, March.
    8. Stefano Dellavigna & John A. List & Ulrike Malmendier & Gautam Rao, 2017. "Voting to Tell Others," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 84(1), pages 143-181.
    9. Neeraja Gupta & Luca Rigotti & Alistair Wilson, 2021. "The Experimenters' Dilemma: Inferential Preferences over Populations," Papers 2107.05064, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2021.
    10. Lergetporer, Philipp & Schwerdt, Guido & Werner, Katharina & West, Martin R. & Woessmann, Ludger, 2018. "How information affects support for education spending: Evidence from survey experiments in Germany and the United States," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 138-157.
    11. Ruben Durante & Paolo Pinotti & Andrea Tesei, 2019. "The Political Legacy of Entertainment TV," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(7), pages 2497-2530, July.
    12. Akerlof, George A & Dickens, William T, 1982. "The Economic Consequences of Cognitive Dissonance," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(3), pages 307-319, June.
    13. Peter Buisseret & Richard Van Weelden, 2020. "Crashing the Party? Elites, Outsiders, and Elections," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 64(2), pages 356-370, April.
    14. Marco Faravelli & Kenan Kalayci & Carlos Pimienta, 2020. "Costly voting: a large-scale real effort experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(2), pages 468-492, June.
    15. Gonzã Lez, Tanja Artiga & Granic, Georg D., 2020. "Spatial Voting Meets Spatial Policy Positions: An Experimental Appraisal," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 114(1), pages 285-290, February.
    16. Cukierman, Alex & Tommasi, Mariano, 1998. "When Does It Take a Nixon to Go to China?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(1), pages 180-197, March.
    17. repec:cup:judgdm:v:10:y:2015:i:1:p:34-49 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. SHOR, BORIS & McCARTY, NOLAN, 2011. "The Ideological Mapping of American Legislatures," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 105(3), pages 530-551, August.
    19. Leonardo Bursztyn & Georgy Egorov & Stefano Fiorin, 2020. "From Extreme to Mainstream: The Erosion of Social Norms," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 110(11), pages 3522-3548, November.
    20. Christopher A. Bail & Lisa P. Argyle & Taylor W. Brown & John P. Bumpus & Haohan Chen & M. B. Fallin Hunzaker & Jaemin Lee & Marcus Mann & Friedolin Merhout & Alexander Volfovsky, 2018. "Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 115(37), pages 9216-9221, September.
    21. Alan S. Gerber & Donald P. Green & Ron Shachar, 2003. "Voting May Be Habit‐Forming: Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 47(3), pages 540-550, July.
    22. repec:oup:restud:v:84:y::i:1:p:143-181. is not listed on IDEAS
    23. Tomz, Michael & Van Houweling, Robert P., 2008. "Candidate Positioning and Voter Choice," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 102(3), pages 303-318, August.
    24. Anthony Downs, 1957. "An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 65(2), pages 135-135.
    25. Abdellaoui, Mohammed & Barrios, Carolina & Wakker, Peter P., 2007. "Reconciling introspective utility with revealed preference: Experimental arguments based on prospect theory," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 138(1), pages 356-378, May.
    26. Thomas Fujiwara & Kyle Meng & Tom Vogl, 2016. "Habit Formation in Voting: Evidence from Rainy Elections," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 160-188, October.
    27. Ebonya Washington & Sendhil Mullainathan, 2009. "Sticking with Your Vote: Cognitive Dissonance and Political Attitudes," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 1(1), pages 86-111, January.
    28. Ricardo Perez-Truglia & Guillermo Cruces, 2017. "Partisan Interactions: Evidence from a Field Experiment in the United States," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 125(4), pages 1208-1243.
    29. Robert J. Oxoby, 2004. "Cognitive dissonance, status and growth of the underclass," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 114(498), pages 727-749, October.
    30. Armin Falk & Florian Zimmermann, 2017. "Consistency as a Signal of Skills," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(7), pages 2197-2210, July.
    31. Michael M. Bechtel & Dominik Hangartner & Lukas Schmid, 2018. "Compulsory Voting, Habit Formation, and Political Participation," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 100(3), pages 467-476, July.
    32. Alan Gerber & Donald Green & Ron Shachar, 2003. "Voting may be habit forming: Evidence from a randomized field experiment," Natural Field Experiments 00251, The Field Experiments Website.
    33. Bechtel, Michael M. & Hangartner, Dominik & Schmid, Lukas, 2018. "Compulsory voting, habit formation, and political participation," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 89714, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    34. James Konow, 2000. "Fair Shares: Accountability and Cognitive Dissonance in Allocation Decisions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(4), pages 1072-1091, September.
    35. Humphreys, Macartan & Laver, Michael, 2010. "Spatial Models, Cognitive Metrics, and Majority Rule Equilibria," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 40(1), pages 11-30, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sebastian Garmann, 2020. "Political efficacy and the persistence of turnout shocks," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(3), pages 411-429, November.
    2. Jean-Victor Alipour & Lindlacher Valentin, 2022. "No Surprises, Please: Voting Costs and Electoral Turnout," CESifo Working Paper Series 9759, CESifo.
    3. Pereira dos Santos, João & Tavares, José & Vicente, Pedro C., 2021. "Can ATMs get out the vote? Evidence from a nationwide field experiment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    4. Romain Espinosa & Jan Stoop, 2021. "Do people really want to be informed? Ex-ante evaluations of information-campaign effectiveness," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(4), pages 1131-1155, December.
    5. Gaebler, Stefanie & Potrafke, Niklas & Roesel, Felix, 2020. "Compulsory voting and political participation: Empirical evidence from Austria," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    6. Mikael Elinder, 2012. "Correcting mistakes: cognitive dissonance and political attitudes in Sweden and the United States," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 153(1), pages 235-249, October.
    7. Mark Bowden, 2015. "A model of information flows and confirmatory bias in financial markets," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 38(2), pages 197-215, October.
    8. Marco Giani & Pierre-Guillaume Méon, 2023. "Elections and norms of behaviour: a survey," Working Papers CEB 23-001, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    9. Elisabeth Grewenig & Philipp Lergetporer & Katharina Werner & Ludger Woessmann, 2019. "Do Party positions affect the public's policy preferences?," CESifo Working Paper Series 7579, CESifo.
    10. Östling Robert, 2009. "Economic Influences on Moral Values," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 9(1), pages 1-26, January.
    11. Jonas Jessen & Daniel Kuehnle & Markus Wagner, 2021. "Is Voting Really Habit-Forming and Transformative? Long-Run Effects of Earlier Eligibility on Turnout and Political Involvement from the UK," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1973, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    12. Leonardo Bursztyn & Davide Cantoni & Patricia Funk & Noam Yuchtman, 2017. "Polls, the Press, and Political Participation: The Effects of Anticipated Election Closeness on Voter Turnout," Working Papers 2017-052, Human Capital and Economic Opportunity Working Group.
    13. Leonardo Bursztyn & Davide Cantoni & Patricia Funk & Felix Schönenberger & Noam Yuchtman, 2017. "Identifying the Effect of Election Closeness on Voter Turnout: Evidence from Swiss Referenda," NBER Working Papers 23490, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Yoichi Hizen & Kengo Kurosaka, 2021. "Monetary Costs Versus Opportunity Costs in a Voting Experiment," Working Papers SDES-2021-1, Kochi University of Technology, School of Economics and Management, revised Feb 2021.
    15. Gosnell, Greer K., 2018. "Communicating Resourcefully: A Natural Field Experiment on Environmental Framing and Cognitive Dissonance in Going Paperless," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 128-144.
    16. Ahrens, Steffen & Bosch-Rosa, Ciril, 2023. "Motivated beliefs, social preferences, and limited liability in financial decision-Making," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    17. Eszter Czibor & David Jimenez‐Gomez & John A. List, 2019. "The Dozen Things Experimental Economists Should Do (More of)," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 86(2), pages 371-432, October.
    18. Roland Benabou & Jean Tirole, 2009. "Over My Dead Body: Bargaining and the Price of Dignity," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(2), pages 459-465, May.
    19. Gianmarco Daniele & Andrea F.M. Martinangeli & Francesco Passarelli & Willem Sas & Lisa Windsteiger, 2023. "Externalities and the Erosion of Trust," CESifo Working Paper Series 10474, CESifo.
    20. Jante Parlevliet & Massimo Giuliodori & Matthijs Rooduijn, 2023. "Populist attitudes, fiscal illusion and fiscal preferences: evidence from Dutch households," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 197(1), pages 201-225, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    political participation; political support; political preferences; cognitive dissonance; online experiment;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ces:ceswps:_9549. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Klaus Wohlrabe (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cesifde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.