Political partisanship stems from the fundamental process of categorizing one’s social world and influences important behavioral outcomes, such information processing. The present study examines the role of political partisanship in risky decision making as assessed with the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT), a common ecologically valid behavioral task. Participants (N = 881) were randomly assigned to modified IGT conditions: one in which the advantageous card decks were labeled with the same political affiliation as the participant and one in which the advantageous card decks were labeled with the opposite political affiliation. We demonstrate that partisan heuristics can enhance or inhibit good decision making. We found partisan heuristics enhanced decision making if a partisans’ identity was congruent with clearly advantageous options. However, when the options are more ambiguous, partisan bias interferes with partisans’ ability to make advantageous decisions. Partisan bias has limits though, as partisans reject unambiguously bad options, even if those options carry their party label.
AchenC. H.BartelsL. M. (2017). Democracy for realists: Why elections do not produce responsive government. Princeton University Press.
2.
AmiraK.WrightJ. C.Goya-TocchettoD. (2021). In-group love versus out-group hate: Which is more important to partisans and when?Political Behavior, 43(2), 473–494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-019-09557-6
3.
BakkerB. N.LelkesY.MalkaA. (2020). Understanding partisan cue receptivity: Tests of predictions from the bounded rationality and expressive utility perspectives. Journal of Politics, 82(3), 1061–1077. https://doi.org/10.1086/707616
4.
BarnhartW. R.BuelowM. T. (In press). The performance of college students on the Iowa Gambling Task: Differences between scoring approaches. Sage
5.
BecharaA. (2007). Iowa gambling task professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.
6.
BecharaA.DamasioH. (2002). Decision-making and addiction (part I): Impaired activation of somatic states in substance dependent individuals when pondering decisions with negative future consequences. Neuropsychologia, 40(10), 1675–1689. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0028-3932(02)00015-5
7.
BecharaA.DamasioA. R.DamasioH.AndersonS. W. (1994 Apr-Jun). Insensitivity to future consequences following damage to human prefrontal cortex. Cognition, 50(1–3), 7–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(94)90018-3
8.
BecharaA.DolanS.DenburgN.HindesA.AndersonS. W.NathanP. E. (2001). Decision-making deficits, linked to a dysfunctional ventromedial prefrontal cortex, revealed in alcohol and stimulant abusers. Neuropsychologia, 39(4), 376–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0028-3932(00)00136-6
9.
BecharaA.DolanS.HindesA. (2002). Decision-making and addiction (part II): Myopia for the future or hypersensitivity to reward?Neuropsychologia, 40(10), 1690–1705. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0028-3932(02)00016-7
10.
BerinskyA. J.HuberG. A.LenzG. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20(3), 351–368. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpr057
11.
BeulowM. T.OkdieB. M.BlaineA. L. (2013). Seeing the forest through the trees: Improving decision making on the Iowa gambling task by shifting focus from short- to long-term outcomes. Frontiers in Decision Neuroscience, 4(773). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00773
12.
BrandM.RecknorE. C.GrabenhorstF.BecharaA. (2007). Decisions under ambiguity and decisions under risk: Correlations with executive functions and comparisons of two different gambling tasks with implicit and explicit rules. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 29(1), 86–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803390500507196
13.
BrewerM. B.PierceK. P. (2005). Social identity complexity and outgroup tolerance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(3), 428–437. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204271710
14.
BroockmanD. E.ButlerD. M. (2017). The causal effects of elite position-taking on voter attitudes: Field experiments with elite communication. American Journal of Political Science, 61(1), 208–221. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12243
15.
BuelowM. T. (2020). Risky decision making in psychological disorders. Elsevier.
16.
BuelowM. T.SuhrJ. A. (2013). Personality characteristics and state mood influence individual deck selections on the Iowa gambling task. Personality and Individual Differences, 54(5), 593–597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.11.019
17.
BuhrmesterM.KwangT.GoslingS. (2011). Amazon’s mechanical turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality data?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393980
18.
BusemeyerJ. R.TownsendJ. T. (1993). Decision field theory: A dynamic-cognitive approach to decision making in an uncertain environment. Psychological Review, 100(3), 432–459. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.100.3.432
19.
CalvilloD. P.RossB. J.GarciaR. J. B.SmelterT. J.RutchickA. M. (2020). Political ideology predicts perceptions of the threat of COVID-19 (and susceptibility to fake news about it). Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(8), 1119–1128. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550620940539
20.
CampbellA.ConverseP. E.MillerW. E.StokesD. E. (1960). The American voter. University of Chicago Press.
21.
CasseseE. C. (2020). Straying from the flock? A look at how Americans’ gender and religious identities cross-pressure partisanship. Political Research Quarterly, 73(1), 169–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912919889681
22.
ChiuY. C.LinC. H. (2007). Is deck C an advantageous deck in the Iowa gambling task?Behavior and Brain Functions, 3(37), 37–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1744-9081-3-37
23.
de VriesM.HollandR. W.WittemanC. L. M. (2008). The winning mood: Affect in the Iowa gambling task. Judgment and Decision Making, 3(1), 42–50.
24.
FilippinA.GualaF. (2017). Group identity as a social heuristic: An experiment with reaction times. Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics, 10(4), 153–166. https://doi.org/10.1037/npe0000078
25.
GainesB. J.KuklinskiJ. H.QuirkP. J.PeytonB.VerkuilenJ. (2007). Same facts, different interpretations: Partisan motivation and opinion on Iraq. Journal of Politics, 69(4), 957–974. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00601.x
26.
GerberA. S.HuberG. A. (2010). Partisanship, political control, and economic assessments. American Journal of Political Science, 54(1), 153–173. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00424.x
27.
GreenD.PalmquistB.SchicklerE. (2003). Partisan hearts and minds: Political parties and the social identities of voters. Yale University Press.
28.
HappaneyK.ZelazoP. D.StussD. T. (2004). Development of orbitofrontal function: Current themes and future directions. Brain and Cognition, 55(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2004.01.001
29.
HeilmanR. M.CrisanL. G.HouserD.MicleaM.MiuA. C. (2010). Emotion regulation and decision making under risk and uncertainty. Emotion, 10(2), 257–265. https://doi:10.1037/a0018489
30.
HetheringtonM. J.RudolphT. J. (2015). Why Washington won’t work: Polarization, political trust, and the governing crisis. University of Chicago Press.
31.
HofstetterC. R.BarkerD.SmithJ. T.ZariG. M.IngrassiaT. A. (1999). Information, misinformation, and political talk radio. Political Research Quarterly, 52(2), 353–369. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591299905200205
32.
IyengarS.LelkesY.LevenduskyM.MalhotraN.WestwoodS. J. (2019). The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science, 22, 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034
33.
IyengarS.SoodG.LelkesY. (2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(3), 405–431. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfs038
34.
IyengarS.WestwoodS. J. (2015). Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 690–707. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12152
35.
JeritJ.BarabasJ. (2012). Partisan perceptual bias and the information environment. The Journal of Politics, 74(3), 672–684. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022381612000187
36.
KahnemanD. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Penguin Books.
37.
KeithB. E.MaglebyD. B.NelsonC. J.OrrE.WestlyeM. C.WolfingerR. E. (1986). The partisan affinities of independent ‘leaners’. British Journal of Political Science, 16(2), 155–185. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007123400003872
38.
KhanemanD.TverskyA. (1973). On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review, 80(4), 237–251. http://doi.org/10.1037/h0034747
39.
KlarS.KrupnikovY. (2016). Independent politics: How American disdain for parties leads to political inaction. Cambridge University Press.
40.
LauR. R.RedlawskD. P. (2001). Advantages and disadvantages of cognitive heuristics in political decision making. American Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 951–971. https://doi.org/10.2307/2669334
41.
LelkesY.WestwoodS. J. (2017). The limits of partisan prejudice. Journal of Politics, 79(2), 485–501. https://doi.org/10.1086/688223
42.
LevD.HershkovitzE.YechiamE. (2008). Decision making and personality in traffic offenders: A study of Israeli driversAccident Analysis & Prevention, 40(1), 223–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2007.05.009
43.
LinC. H.ChiuY. C.LeeP. L.HsiehJ. C. (2007). Is deck B a disadvantageous deck in the Iowa gambling task?Behavioral and Brain Functions, 3(16), 16–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1744-9081-3-16
44.
MacKuenM. B.EriksonR. S.StimsonJ. A. (1992). Peasants or bankers? The American electorate and the U.S. economy”. American Political Science Review, 86(3), 597–611. https://doi.org/10.2307/1964124
45.
MasonL. (2018). Uncivil agreement. University of Chicago Press.
46.
MasonL.WronskiJ. (2018). One tribe to bind them all: How our social group attachments strengthen partisanship. Political Psychology, 39(S1), 257–277. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12485
47.
McCabeK. T. (2016). Attitude responsiveness and partisan bias: direct experience with the affordable care act. Political Behavior, 38(4), 861–882. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-016-9337-9
48.
McConnellC.MargalitY.MalhotraN.LevenduskyM. (2018). The economic consequences of partisanship in a polarized era. American Journal of Political Science, 62(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12330
49.
MillsK., (2021, Jan). Why people believe in conspiracy theories, with Karen Douglas, PhD. In Speaking of psychology: Why people believe in conspiracy theories, with karen douglas, PhDAmerican Psychological Association.
50.
PaolacciG.ChandlerJ. (2014). Inside the turk: Understanding mechanical turk as a participant pool. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(3), 184–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414531598
51.
PayneJ. W.BettmanJ. R.JohnsonE. J. (1988). Adaptive strategy selection in decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14(3), 534–552. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.14.3.534
52.
PittigA.BrandM.PawlikowskiM.AlpersG. W. (2014a). The cost of fear: Avoidant decision making in a spider gambling task. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 28(3), 326–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2014.03.001
53.
PittigA.PawlikowskiM.CraskeM. G.AlpersG. W. (2014b). Avoidant decision making in social anxiety: The interaction of angry faces and emotional responses. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1050. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01050
54.
ReynoldsB. W.BassoM. R.MillerA. K.WhitesideD. M.CombsD. (2019). Executive function, impulsivity, and risky behaviors in young adults. Neuropsychology, 33(2), 212–221. https://doi.org/10.1037/neu0000510
SchaffnerB. F.StrebM. J. (2002). The partisan heuristic in low-information election. Public Opinion Quarterly, 66(4), 559–581. https://doi.org/10.1086/343755
57.
SchmitzFKunina-HabenichtOHildebrandtAOberauerKWilhelmO (2020). Psychometrics of the Iowa and berlin gambling tasks: Unresolved issues with reliability and validity for risk taking. Assessment, 27(2), 232–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191117750470
58.
SidesJ.TeslerM.VavreckL. (2018). Identity crisis: The 2016 presidential campaign and the battle for the meaning of America. Princeton University Press.
59.
SidesJ.VavreckL. (2012). The gamble: Choice and change in the 2012 presidential election. Princeton University Press.
60.
StroudN.J. (2011). Niche news: The politics of news choice. Oxford University Press.
61.
SuhrJ. A.TsanadisJ. (2007). Affect and personality correlates of the Iowa gambling task. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(1), 27–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.11.004
TurnbullO.BowmanC.ShankerS.DaviesJ. (2014). Emotion-based learning: Insights from the Iowa Gambling Task. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 162.
65.
Verdejo-GarciaA.BecharaA.RecknorE. C.Perez-GarciaM. (2006). Decision-making and the Iowa gambling task: Ecological validity in individuals with substance dependence. Psychologica Belgica, 46(1–2), 55–78. https://doi.org/10.5334/pb-46-1-2-55
66.
Verdejo-GarciaA.BenbrookA.FunderburkF.DavidP.CadetJ. L.BollaK. I. (2007). The differential relationship between cocaine use and marijuana use on decision-making performance over repeat testing with the Iowa gambling task. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 90(1), 2–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2007.02.004
67.
WatsonD.ClarkL. A.TellegenA. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.54.6.1063
68.
XiaoL.BecharaA.GongQ.HuangX.LiX.XueG.WongS.LuZ. L.PalmerP.WeiY.JiaY.JohnsonC. A. (2013). Abnormal affective decision making revealed in adolescent binge drinkers using a functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 27(2), 443–454. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027892
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.
