Partisan polarization is a central feature of American political life, and a robust literature has shown that citizens engage in partisan motivated reasoning when processing political information. At the same time, however, recent events have highlighted a rising tide of antigovernment sentiment among Democrats and Republicans alike. Using an original set of survey experiments, we find that citizens engage in confirmation bias when they encounter new information, and this is driven not only by party and ideology but also by beliefs about the quality and efficiency of government. Taken together, our findings suggest important limitations to citizens’ capacity to learn about public administration, and expand our understanding of what drives confirmation bias with respect to public and private service provision.
AbramowitzA. I.SaundersK. L. (2005). Why can’t we all just get along? The reality of a polarized America. The Forum, 3, 1-22.
2.
AldrichJ. (1996). Why parties? The origin and transformation of party politics in America. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
3.
BafumiJ.ShapiroR. Y. (2009). A new partisan voter. The Journal of Politics, 71, 1-24.
4.
BalcetisE.DunningD. (2006). See what you want to see: Motivational influences on visual perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 612-625.
5.
BartelsL. M. (2002). Beyond the running tally: Partisan bias in political perceptions. Political Behavior, 24, 117-150.
6.
BattaglioR. P. (2009). Privatization and citizen preferences: A cross-national analysis of demand for private versus public provision of services in three industries. Administration & Society, 41, 38-66.
7.
BerelsonR.LazarsfeldP. F.McPheeW. N. (1954). Voting: A study of opinion formation in a presidential campaign. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
8.
BullockJ. (2007). Experiments on partisanship and public opinion: Party cues, false beliefs, and Bayesian updating (Doctoral thesis). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3267471)
9.
CampbellA.ConverseP. E.MillerW. E.StokesD. E. (1960). The American voter. New York, NY: John Wiley.
10.
DanceyL.GorenP. (2010). Party identification, issue attitudes, and the dynamics of political debate. American Journal of Political Science, 54, 686-699.
11.
DiMaggioP.JohnE.BethanyB. (1996). Have Americans’ social attitudes become more polarized?American Journal of Sociology, 102, 690-755.
DruckmanJ. N.FeinJ.LeeperT. J. (2012). A source of bias in public opinion stability. American Political Science Review, 106, 430-454.
14.
DruckmanJ. N.PetersonE.SlothuusR. (2013). How elite partisan polarization affects public opinion formation. American Political Science Review, 107, 57-79.
15.
DurantR. F.LeggeJ. S.Jr. (2002). Politics, public opinion, and privatization in France: Assessing the calculus of consent for market reforms. Public Administration Review, 62, 307-323.
16.
EnnsP. K.KellstedtP. M.McAvoyG. E. (2012). The consequences of partisanship in economic perceptions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76, 287-310.
17.
FernandezS.SmithC. R. (2006). Looking for evidence of public employee opposition to privatization: An empirical study with implications for practice. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 26, 356-381.
18.
FiorinaM. P.AbramsS. J. (2008). Political polarization in the American public. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 563-588.
19.
FiorinaM. P.AbramsS. J.PopeJ. C. (2005). Culture war? The myth of a polarized America. New York, NY: Pearson Longman.
20.
GerberA.GreenD. (1999). Misperceptions about perceptual bias. Annual Review of Political Science, 2, 189-210.
21.
GreenD.PalmquistB.SchicklerE. (2004). Partisan hearts and minds: Political parties and the social identities of voters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
22.
HayesD. (2005). Candidate qualities through a partisan lens: A theory of trait ownership. American Journal of Political Science, 49, 908-923.
23.
IyengarS.SoodG.LelkesY. (2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76, 405-431.
24.
JacobsonG. C. (2005). Polarized politics and the 2004 congressional and presidential elections. Political Science Quarterly, 120, 199-218.
25.
JacobsonG. C. (2008). A divider, not a uniter: George W. Bush and the American people. New York, NY: Pearson.
26.
KellyJ. M.SwindellD. (2002). A multiple-indicator approach to municipal service evaluation: Correlating performance measurement and citizen satisfaction across jurisdictions. Public Administration Review, 62, 610-621.
27.
KuklinskiJ. H.QuirkP. J.JeritJ.SchweiderD.RichR. F. (2000). Misinformation and the currency of democratic citizenship. The Journal of Politics, 62, 790-816.
28.
LavineH.JohnstonC.SteenbergenM. (2012). The ambivalent partisan: How critical loyalty promotes democracy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
29.
LaymanG.CarseyT. M. (2002). Party polarization and “conflict extension” in the American electorate. American Journal of Political Science, 46, 786-802.
30.
LenzG. (2012). Follow the leader? How voters respond to politicians’ performance and policies. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
31.
LeggeJ. S.RaineyH. G. (2003). Privatization and public opinion in Germany. Public Organization Review, 3, 127-149.
32.
LermanA. E.SadinM.TrachtmanS. (2017). Policy uptake as political behavior: Evidence from the affordable care act. American Political Science Review, 111, 755-770.
33.
LermanA. E. (forthcoming). Good enough for government work: The public reputation crisis in America (and what we can do to fix it). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
34.
LodgeM.TaberC. S. (2000). Three steps toward a theory of motivated political reasoning. In LupiaA.McCubbinsM. D.PopkinS. L. (Eds.), Elements of reason (pp. 183-213). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
35.
LoweryD. (1998). Consumer sovereignty and quasi-market failure. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8, 137-172.
36.
LoweryD. (2000). A transactions costs model of metropolitan governance: Allocation versus redistribution in urban America. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10, 49-78.
37.
McCartyN.PooleK. T.RosenthalH. (2006). Polarized America: The dance of ideology and unequal riches. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
38.
MettlerS. (2011). The submerged state: How invisible government policies undermine American democracy. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
39.
MolyneuxG.TeixeiraR. (2010). Better, not smaller: What Americans want from their federal government. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.
40.
NicholsonS. P. (2012). Polarizing cues. American Journal of Political Science, 56, 52-56.
41.
NiemiR. G.JenningsM. K. (1991). Issues and inheritance in the formation of party identification. American Journal of Political Science, 35, 970-988.
42.
NyhanB. (2010). Why the “death panel” myth wouldn’t die: Misinformation in the health care reform debate. The Forum, 8(1), Article 5.
43.
NyhanB.ReiflerJ. (2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32, 303-330.
Pew Research Center. (2012). Trends in American values: 1987-2012. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
46.
PooleK. T.RosenthalH. (1984). The polarization of American politics. TheJournal of Politics, 46, 1061-1079.
47.
PooleK. T.RosenthalH. (2007). Ideology and congress. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
48.
PopescuG. H. (2013). Partisan differences in evaluations of the economy. Economics, Management, and Financial Markets1:130-135.
49.
RohdeD. W. (1991). Parties and leaders in the postreform house. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
50.
SlothuusR.de VreeseC. H. (2010). Political parties, motivated reasoning, and issue framing effects. The Journal of Politics, 72, 630-645.
51.
SmithJ. R.TerryD. J.CrosierT. R.DuckJ. M. (2005). The importance of the relevance of the issue to the group in voting intentions. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 27, 163-170.
52.
SoodA. M. (2013). Motivated cognition in legal judgments—An analytic review. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 9, 307-325.
53.
TaberC. S.LodgeM. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 755-769.
54.
ThompsonL.EllingR. C. (2000). Mapping patterns of support for privatization in the mass public: The case of Michigan. Public Administration Review, 60, 338-348.
55.
WarnerM.HefetzA. (2004). Pragmatism over politics: Alternative service delivery in local government, 1992-2002. In ICMA municipal year book (pp. 8-16), Washington, DC: International City/County Management Association.
56.
ZallerJ. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Supplementary Material
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.
