IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/pscirm/v14y2026i2p506-522_14.html

Economic evaluations and partisan faultfinding: when are respondents most likely to answer survey questions honestly?

Author

Listed:
  • Zilinsky, Jan
  • Bisbee, James

Abstract

This paper introduces a simple approach for assessing which survey questions are more likely to elicit political identity-influenced responses. We use daily data from Gallup to test which survey self-reports exhibit more or less susceptibility to politicization, finding the highest likelihood of politicization for societal-level questions. Conversely, we show that self-reported assessments of personal finances are less sensitive to partisan motivated responding. We also show how egotropic economic evaluations are influenced by the presence of other items on the same survey. Taken together, our results uncover scope conditions for how to interpret self-reported views of the economy, and we argue that measures of public opinion which have not yet been strongly politicized are better proxies for capturing the underlying welfare of the public.

Suggested Citation

  • Zilinsky, Jan & Bisbee, James, 2026. "Economic evaluations and partisan faultfinding: when are respondents most likely to answer survey questions honestly?," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(2), pages 506-522, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:pscirm:v:14:y:2026:i:2:p:506-522_14
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2049847025000329/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    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:cup:pscirm:v:14:y:2026:i:2:p:506-522_14. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/ram .

    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.