IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hka/wpaper/2019-015.html

Presidential Elections, Divided Politics, and Happiness in the U.S

Author

Listed:
  • Sergio Pinto

    (University of Maryland)

  • Panka Bencsik

    (University of Sussex)

  • Tuugi Chuluun

    (Loyola University Maryland)

  • Carol Graham

    (The Brookings Institution)

Abstract

We examine the effects of the 2016 and 2012 U.S. presidential election outcomes on the subjective well-being of Democrats and Republicans using large-scale Gallup survey data and a regression discontinuity approach. We use metrics that capture two dimensions of well-being – evaluative (life satisfaction) and hedonic (positive and negative affect) – and document a significant negative impact on both dimensions of well-being for Democrats immediately following the 2016 election and a negative but much smaller impact for Republicans following the 2012 election. However, we found no equivalent positive effect for those identifying with the winning party following either election. The results also vary across gender and income groups, especially in 2016, with the negative well-being effects more prevalent among women and middle-income households. In addition, in 2016 the votes of others living in the respondent's county did not have a large impact on individual well-being, although there is some suggestive evidence that Democrats in more pro-Trump counties suffered a less negative effect, while Republicans in less pro-Trump and more typically urban counties were actually negatively impacted by the election outcome. We also find evidence that being on the losing side of the election had negative effects on perceptions about the economy, financial well-being, and the community of residence. Lastly, the evaluative well-being gaps between the different party affiliations tend to persist longer, with those in expected life satisfaction lasting until at least the end of 2016, while the hedonic well-being gaps typically dissipate within the two weeks following the election.

Suggested Citation

  • Sergio Pinto & Panka Bencsik & Tuugi Chuluun & Carol Graham, 2019. "Presidential Elections, Divided Politics, and Happiness in the U.S," Working Papers 2019-015, Human Capital and Economic Opportunity Working Group.
  • Handle: RePEc:hka:wpaper:2019-015
    Note: MIP
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://humcap.uchicago.edu/RePEc/hka/wpaper/Pinto_Bencsik_Chuluun_etal_2019_presidential-elections-happiness-us.pdf
    File Function: First version, February, 2019
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Teresa Perry, 2023. "Did the 2016 election cause changes in substance use? An intersectional approach," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(3), pages 1020-1069, November.
    2. Sergio Pinto & Panka Bencsik & Tuugi Chuluun & Carol Graham, 2021. "Presidential Elections, Divided Politics, and Happiness in the USA," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 88(349), pages 189-207, January.
    3. Schreiner, Nicolas, 2021. "Changes in Well-Being Around Elections," Working papers 2021/03, Faculty of Business and Economics - University of Basel.
    4. Isabel Musse & Rodrigo Schneider, 2023. "The effect of presidential election outcomes on alcohol drinking," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(1), pages 146-162, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
    • I31 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - General Welfare, Well-Being

    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:hka:wpaper:2019-015. 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: Jennifer Pachon (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/mfichus.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.