IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/105106.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A tale of two peoples: motivated reasoning in the aftermath of the Brexit vote

Author

Listed:
  • Sorace, Miriam
  • Hobolt, Sara

Abstract

Partisanship is a powerful driver of economic perceptions. Yet we know less about whether other political divisions may lead to similar evaluative biases. In this paper, we explore how the salient divide between "Remainers"and "Leavers"in the UK in the aftermath of the Brexit referendum has given rise to biased economic perceptions. In line with the cognitive dissonance framework, we argue that salient non-partisan divisions can change economic perceptions by triggering processes of self- and in-group justification. Using both nationally-representative observational and experimental survey data, we demonstrate that the perceptions of the economy are shaped by the Brexit divide and that these biases are exacerbated when respondents are reminded of Brexit. These findings indicate that perceptual biases are not always rooted in partisanship, but can be triggered by other political divisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Sorace, Miriam & Hobolt, Sara, 2020. "A tale of two peoples: motivated reasoning in the aftermath of the Brexit vote," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 105106, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
  • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:105106
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/105106/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bullock, John G., 2011. "Elite Influence on Public Opinion in an Informed Electorate," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 105(3), pages 496-515, August.
    2. Suzanna De Boef & Paul M. Kellstedt, 2004. "The Political (and Economic) Origins of Consumer Confidence," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 48(4), pages 633-649, October.
    3. Kinder, Donald R. & Kiewiet, D. Roderick, 1981. "Sociotropic Politics: The American Case," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(2), pages 129-161, April.
    4. Verbeek, Marno & Nijman, Theo, 1992. "Testing for Selectivity Bias in Panel Data Models," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 33(3), pages 681-703, August.
    5. Nijman, T.E. & Verbeek, M.J.C.M., 1992. "Testing for selectivity in panel data models," Other publications TiSEM 7ec34a6c-1d84-4052-971c-d, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    6. Sara B. Hobolt, 2018. "Brexit and the 2017 UK General Election," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(S1), pages 39-50, September.
    7. Lauderdale, Benjamin E., 2016. "Partisan Disagreements Arising from Rationalization of Common Information," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(3), pages 477-492, September.
    8. Barber, Michael & Pope, Jeremy C., 2019. "Does Party Trump Ideology? Disentangling Party and Ideology in America," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 113(1), pages 38-54, February.
    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. Magnus, Jan R. & Melenberg, Bertrand & Muris, Chris, 2011. "Global Warming and Local Dimming: The Statistical Evidence," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 106(494), pages 452-464.
    2. Haiyang Lu & Peng Nie & Alfonso Sousa-Poza, 2021. "The Effect of Parental Educational Expectations on Adolescent Subjective Well-Being and the Moderating Role of Perceived Academic Pressure: Longitudinal Evidence for China," Child Indicators Research, Springer;The International Society of Child Indicators (ISCI), vol. 14(1), pages 117-137, February.
    3. Lionel WILNER, 2019. "The Dynamics of Individual Happiness," Working Papers 2019-18, Center for Research in Economics and Statistics.
    4. Verbeek, M.J.C.M. & Nijman, T.E., 1992. "Incomplete panels and selection bias : A survey," Discussion Paper 1992-7, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    5. Patricia Cubí‐Mollá & Mireia Jofre‐Bonet & Victoria Serra‐Sastre, 2017. "Adaptation to health states: Sick yet better off?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(12), pages 1826-1843, December.
    6. Keisuke Hirano & Guido W. Imbens & Geert Ridder & Donald B. Rubin, 2001. "Combining Panel Data Sets with Attrition and Refreshment Samples," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 69(6), pages 1645-1659, November.
    7. Shabbar Jaffry & Yaseen Ghulam & Vyoma Shah, 2007. "Returns to Education in Pakistan," The Pakistan Development Review, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, vol. 46(4), pages 833-852.
    8. Aïssata COULIBALY & Urbain Thierry YOGO, 2016. "Access to Financial Services and Working Poverty in Developing Countries," Working Papers 201620, CERDI.
    9. E. Michael Foster & Grace Y. Fang, 2004. "Alternative Methods for Handling Attrition," Evaluation Review, , vol. 28(5), pages 434-464, October.
    10. E. Michael Foster & Leonard Bickman, 1996. "An Evaluator's Guide To Detecting Attrition Problems," Evaluation Review, , vol. 20(6), pages 695-723, December.
    11. Giambona, Erasmo & Golec, Joseph, 2010. "Strategic trading in the wrong direction by a large institutional insider," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 1-22, January.
    12. Michael Fertig & Stefanie Schurer, 2007. "Earnings Assimilation of Immigrants in Germany: The Importance of Heterogeneity and Attrition Bias," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 30, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    13. Maja Adena & Michal Myck, 2013. "Poverty and Transitions in Health," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1319, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    14. Linzert, Tobias & Nautz, Dieter & Bindseil, Ulrich, 2007. "Bidding behavior in the longer term refinancing operations of the European Central Bank: Evidence from a panel sample selection model," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 31(5), pages 1521-1543, May.
    15. Picchio, Matteo & van Ours, Jan C., 2013. "Retaining through training even for older workers," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 29-48.
    16. Melisa Bubonya & Deborah A. Cobb-Clark & Mark Wooden, 2017. "Job loss and the mental health of spouses and adolescent children," IZA Journal of Labor Economics, Springer;Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit GmbH (IZA), vol. 6(1), pages 1-27, December.
    17. Paas, L.J. & Bijmolt, T.H.A. & Vermunt, J.K., 2004. "Extending dynamic segmentation with lead generation : A latent class Markov analysis of financial product portfolios," Discussion Paper 2004-1, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    18. Badi H. Baltagi, 1999. "Specification Tests in Panel Data Models Using Artificial Regressions," Annals of Economics and Statistics, GENES, issue 55-56, pages 277-297.
    19. Lee, Hwa Ryung, 2009. "Does Bankruptcy Protection Harm the Airline Industry?," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt0s40v0x9, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    20. Phimister, Euan, 2005. "Urban effects on participation and wages: Are there gender differences?," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 513-536, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    perceptual bias; economic perceptions; accountability; referendums; Brexi;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • N0 - Economic History - - General

    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:ehl:lserod:105106. 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: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.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.