IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/1711.10602.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Effect of Partisanship and Political Advertising on Close Family Ties

Author

Listed:
  • M. Keith Chen
  • Ryne Rohla

Abstract

Research on growing American political polarization and antipathy primarily studies public institutions and political processes, ignoring private effects including strained family ties. Using anonymized smartphone-location data and precinct-level voting, we show that Thanksgiving dinners attended by opposing-party precinct residents were 30-50 minutes shorter than same-party dinners. This decline from a mean of 257 minutes survives extensive spatial and demographic controls. Dinner reductions in 2016 tripled for travelers from media markets with heavy political advertising --- an effect not observed in 2015 --- implying a relationship to election-related behavior. Effects appear asymmetric: while fewer Democratic-precinct residents traveled in 2016 than 2015, political differences shortened Thanksgiving dinners more among Republican-precinct residents. Nationwide, 34 million person-hours of cross-partisan Thanksgiving discourse were lost in 2016 to partisan effects.

Suggested Citation

  • M. Keith Chen & Ryne Rohla, 2017. "The Effect of Partisanship and Political Advertising on Close Family Ties," Papers 1711.10602, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2018.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:1711.10602
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1711.10602
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shanto Iyengar & Sean J. Westwood, 2015. "Fear and Loathing Across Party Lines: New Evidence on Group Polarization," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 59(3), pages 690-707, July.
    2. 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.
    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. Eugen Dimant & Michele Gelfand & Anna Hochleitner & Silvia Sonderegger, 2023. "Strategic Behavior with Tight, Loose and Polarized Norms," CESifo Working Paper Series 10233, CESifo.
    2. Schreiner, Nicolas, 2021. "Changes in Well-Being Around Elections," Working papers 2021/03, Faculty of Business and Economics - University of Basel.
    3. Lane, Tom & Miller, Luis & Rodriguez, Isabel, 2024. "The normative permissiveness of political partyism," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    4. Mazen Hassan & Sarah Mansour & Stefan Voigt & May Gadallah, 2022. "When Syria was in Egypt’s land: Egyptians cooperate with Syrians, but less with each other," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 191(3), pages 337-362, June.
    5. Ricardo Perez-Truglia, 2020. "The Effects of Income Transparency on Well-Being: Evidence from a Natural Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 110(4), pages 1019-1054, April.
    6. Friedrichsen, Jana & König, Tobias & Schmacker, Renke, 2018. "Social image concerns and welfare take-up," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 168, pages 174-192.
    7. Hungerman, Daniel & Rinz, Kevin & Weninger, Tim & Yoon, Chungeun, 2018. "Political campaigns and church contributions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 403-426.
    8. Lilla V. Orr & Gregory A. Huber, 2020. "The Policy Basis of Measured Partisan Animosity in the United States," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 64(3), pages 569-586, July.
    9. Chonnakan Rittinon & Boontida Sa-ngimnet & Suparit Suwanik & Tanisa Tawichsri & Thiti Tosborvorn, 2022. "(I Think) I Don't Think Like You and I Don't Like You: Perception of Polarization and Out-Group Animosity," PIER Discussion Papers 194, Puey Ungphakorn Institute for Economic Research.
    10. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:3:p:373-380 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Leonardo Bursztyn & Georgy Egorov & Ingar Haaland & Aakaash Rao & Christopher Roth, 2023. "Justifying Dissent," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 138(3), pages 1403-1451.
    12. Luca Henkel & Philipp Sprengholz & Lars Korn & Cornelia Betsch & Robert Böhm, 2022. "The Association Between Vaccination Status Identification and Societal Polarization," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 197, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    13. Alan Gerber & Mitchell Hoffman & John Morgan & Collin Raymond, 2020. "One in a Million: Field Experiments on Perceived Closeness of the Election and Voter Turnout," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 12(3), pages 287-325, July.
    14. Stone, Daniel, 2018. ""Unmotivated Bias" and Partisan Hostility: Empirical Evidence," SocArXiv hr5ba, Center for Open Science.
    15. Alan Abramowitz & Jennifer McCoy, 2019. "United States: Racial Resentment, Negative Partisanship, and Polarization in Trump’s America," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 681(1), pages 137-156, January.
    16. Joshua Conrad Jackson & Marieke van Egmond & Virginia K Choi & Carol R Ember & Jamin Halberstadt & Jovana Balanovic & Inger N Basker & Klaus Boehnke & Noemi Buki & Ronald Fischer & Marta Fulop & Ashle, 2019. "Ecological and cultural factors underlying the global distribution of prejudice," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(9), pages 1-17, September.
    17. Sgroi, Daniel & Yeo, Jonathan & Zhuo, Shi, 2021. "Ingroup Bias with Multiple Identities: The Case of Religion and Attitudes Towards Government Size," IZA Discussion Papers 14714, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    18. Jetter, Michael & Walker, Jay K., 2022. "News coverage and mass shootings in the US," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    19. Abhishek Samantray & Paolo Pin, 2019. "Credibility of climate change denial in social media," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-8, December.
    20. Niels Boissonnet & Alexis Ghersengorin & Simon Gleyze, 2022. "Revealed Deliberate Preference Change," Working Papers hal-03672734, HAL.
    21. Michael Thaler, 2020. "The Fake News Effect: Experimentally Identifying Motivated Reasoning Using Trust in News," Papers 2012.01663, arXiv.org, revised May 2022.

    More about this item

    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:arx:papers:1711.10602. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.