Suchergebnisse

We examine whether information about racial discrimination causally affects support for pro-black policies. Using representative samples of Americans, we elicit quantitative and incentivized beliefs about the extent of hiring discrimination against blacks. Relative to Republicans, Democrats think that blacks have to send out 47 percent more resumes than whites to receive a callback. An information treatment substantially narrows Republican–Democrat differences in beliefs, but fails to narrow differences in political behavior. Overall, the results demonstrate that correcting biases in beliefs about the extent of racial discrimination is not sufficient to reduce political polarization in support for pro-black policies.

Do labor market concerns affect support for immigration? Using a large, representative sample of the US population, we first elicit beliefs about the labor market impact of immigration. To generate exogenous variation in beliefs, we then provide respondents in the treatment group with research evidence showing no adverse labor market impacts of immigration. Treated respondents update their beliefs and become more supportive of immigration, as measured by self-reported policy views and petition signatures. Treatment effects also persist in an obfuscated follow-up study. Our results demonstrate that information about the labor market impact of immigration causally affects support for immigration.

Abstract
We examine the relative importance of accuracy concerns and belief confirmation motives in driving the demand for news. In experiments with US voters, we first vary beliefs about whether an outlet reports the news in a right-wing biased, left-wing biased, or unbiased way. We then measure demand for a newsletter covering articles from this outlet. Right-wing voters strongly reduce their demand for left-wing biased news, but not for right-wing biased news. The reverse patterns hold for left-wing voters. These results suggest a trade-off between accuracy concerns and belief confirmation motives. We quantify this trade-off using a structural model and find a similar quantitative importance of both motives.

In a large-scale online experiment with U.S. Democrats, we examine how the demand for a newsletter about an economic relief plan changes when the newsletter content is fact-checked. We first document an overall muted demand for fact-checking when the newsletter features stories from an ideologically aligned source, even though fact-checking increases the perceived accuracy of the newsletter. The aver-age impact of fact-checking masks substantial heterogeneity by ideology: fact-checking reduces demand among Democrats with strong ideological views and increases demand among ideologically moderate Democrats. Furthermore, fact-checking increases demand among all Democrats when the newsletter fea-tures stories from an ideologically non-aligned source. (c) 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.