Research indicates that susceptibility to having one’s job replaced by technology is associated with candidate and party preferences in affluent democracies, but there is little understanding of why. We investigate whether workers exposed to technology are more supportive of candidates and parties that prioritize the economy, unemployment, and welfare state programs, currently or with historical reputations for doing so. In the United States which we examine here, however, technology threatening jobs has not been politically salient and partisan attachments are strong, which could limit issue-based conversions in candidate preferences. To examine these possibilities, we use survey experiments randomizing exposure to information about the individual-level threat of losing one’s job to technology and hypothetical candidate issue priorities in experiments with and without party labels. We find that there are some differences in “issue premiums” among high-exposure individuals in the party labels experiment, but whether individuals are made aware of their exposure does not explain any issue-based variation in candidate preferences. We also find that when made aware of their exposure to technology, high- and low-exposure Republicans and low-exposure independents become slightly more supportive of Republican candidates.
BansakKirk. 2021. “Estimating Causal Moderation Effects with Randomized Treatments and Non-randomized Moderators.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A184 (1): 65–86.
BrynjolfssonErikMcAfeeAndrew. 2014. The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies. New York: W.W. Norton.
9.
CliffordScottJewellRyan M.WaggonerPhilip D.2015. “Are Samples Drawn from Mechanical Turk Valid for Research on Political Ideology?” Research & Politics 2 (4).
10.
CraigStephen C.CossettePaulina S.2020. “Who Owns What, and Why? The Origins of Issue Ownership Beliefs.” Politics & Policy48 (1): 107–34.
11.
De la CuestaBrandonEgamiNaokiImaiKosuke. 2021. “Improving the External Validity of Conjoint Analysis: The Essential Role of Profile Distribution.” Political Analysis.
12.
DennisonJames. 2019. “A Review of Public Issue Salience: Concepts, Determinants and Effects on Voting.” Political Studies Review17 (4): 436–46.
13.
EganPatrick J.2013. Partisan Priorities: How Issue Ownership Drives and Distorts American Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
14.
FreyCarl BenediktBergerThorChenChinchih. 2018. “Political Machinery: Did Robots Swing the 2016 US Presidential Election?” Oxford Review of Economic Policy34 (3): 418–42.
15.
FreyCarl BenediktOsborneMichael A.2017. “The Future of Employment: How Susceptible Are Jobs to Computerisation?” Technological Forecasting and Social Change114:254–80.
GeysBenny. 2012. “Success and Failure in Electoral Competition: Selective Issue Emphasis under Incomplete Issue Ownership.” Electoral Studies31 (2): 406–12.
18.
GingrichJane. 2019. “Did State Responses to Automation Matter for Voters?” Research & Politics 6 (1).
19.
HackerJacob S.RehmPhilippSchlesingerMark. 2013. “The Insecure American: Economic Experiences, Financial Worries, and Policy Attitudes.” Perspectives on Politics11 (1): 23–49.
20.
HainmuellerJensHangartnerDominikYamamotoTeppei. 2015. “Validating Vignette and Conjoint Survey Experiments against Real-World Behavior.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America112 (8): 2395–400.
HeinrichTobiasWitkoChristopher. 2021. “Technology-Induced Job Loss and the Prioritization of Economic Problems in the Mass Public.” Review of Policy Research38 (2): 164–79.
23.
HelgasonAgnar FreyrMerolaVittorio. 2017. “Employment Insecurity, Incumbent Partisanship, and Voting Behavior in Comparative Perspective.” Comparative Political Studies50 (11): 1489–523.
24.
HibbsDouglas A.1977. “Political Parties and Macroeconomic Policy.” American Political Science Review71 (4): 1467–87.
25.
HoriuchiYusakuSmithDaniel M.YamamotoTeppei. 2018. “Measuring Voters’ Multidimensional Policy Preferences with Conjoint Analysis: Application to Japan’s 2014 Election.” Political Analysis26 (2): 190–209.
26.
HuberEvelyneRaginCharlesStephensJohn D.1993. “Social Democracy, Christian Democracy, Constitutional Structure and the Welfare State.” American Journal of Sociology99 (3): 711–49.
27.
HuffConnorTingleyDustin. 2015. “‘Who Are These People?” Evaluating the Demographic Characteristics and Political Preferences of MTurk Survey Respondents.” Research & Politics 2 (3).
28.
ImZ. J.MayerN.PalierB.RovnyJ.2019. “The ‘Losers of Automation’: A Reservoir of Votes for the Radical Right.” Research & Politics 6 (1).
29.
IrwinDouglas A.2020. Free Trade under Fire. 5th ed.Princeton: Princeton University Press.
30.
IversenTorben. 2001. “The Dynamics of Welfare State Expansion: Trade Openness, Deindustrialization and Partisan Politics.” In The New Politics of the Welfare State, edited by PiersonPaul, 45–79. New York: Oxford University Press.
31.
JenkeLibbyBansakKirkHainmuellerJensHangartnerDominik. 2021. “Using Eye-Tracking to Understand Decision-Making in Conjoint Experiments.” Political Analysis29 (1): 75–101.
32.
KaplanNoahParkDavid K.RidoutTravis N.2006. “Dialogue in American Political Campaigns? An Examination of Issue Convergence in Candidate Television Advertising.” American Journal of Political Science50 (3): 724–36.
33.
KarolDavid. 2000. “Divided Government and US Trade Policy: Much Ado about Nothing?” International Organization54 (4): 825–44.
34.
KongarEbru. 2008. “Is Deindustrialization Good for Women? Evidence from the United States.” Feminist Economics14 (1): 73–92.
35.
KorpiWalter. 1978. The Working Class in Welfare Capitalism: Work, Unions, and Politics in Sweden. London: Routledge.
36.
KurerThomas. 2020. “The Declining Middle: Occupational Change, Social Status, and the Populist Right.” Comparative Political Studies53 (10–11): 1798–835.
37.
KurerThomasPalierBruno. 2019. “Shrinking and Shouting: The Political Revolt of the Declining Middle in Times of Employment Polarization.” Research & Politics 6 (1).
38.
MajlesiKavehDornDavidHansonGordonAutorDavid. 2020. “Importing Political Polarization? The Electoral Consequences of Rising Trade Exposure.” American Economic Review110 (10): 3139–83.
39.
MakalicEnesSchmidtDaniel F.2016. “High-Dimensional Bayesian Regularised Regression with the BayesReg Package.” arxiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.06649.
40.
MasonLilliana. 2018. Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
41.
MullinixKevin J.LeeperThomas J.DruckmanJames N.FreeseJeremy. 2015. “The Generalizability of Survey Experiments.” Journal of Experimental Political Science2 (2): 109–38.
PopkinSamuel. 1991. The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
47.
RehmPhilipp. 2011. “Risk Inequality and the Polarized American Electorate.” British Journal of Political Science41 (2): 363–87.
48.
RehmPhilipp. 2016. Risk Inequality and Welfare States: Social Policy Preferences, Development, and Dynamics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
49.
SeebergHenrik Bech. 2017. “How Stable Is Political Parties’ Issue Ownership? A Cross-Time, Cross-National Analysis.” Political Studies65 (2): 475–92.
50.
SingerMatthew M.2011. “Who Says ‘It’s the Economy’? Cross-National and Cross-Individual Variation in the Salience of Economic Performance.” Comparative Political Studies44 (3): 284–312.
51.
ThewissenStefanRuedaDavid. 2017. “Automation and the Welfare State: Technological Change as a Determinant of Redistribution Preferences.” Comparative Political Studies52 (2): 171–208.
52.
WrightJohn R.2012. “Unemployment and the Democratic Electoral Advantage.” American Political Science Review106 (4): 685–702.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
