« Assorted links | Main | How financial economics should evolve, from this point onwards »
Department of I just don't believe this
Remember the debates on whether/why conservatives are happier than liberals? Here is a new contribution, from Jamie Napier and John Jost::
In this research, we drew on system-justification theory and the notion that conservative ideology serves a palliative function to explain why conservatives are happier than liberals. Specifically, in three studies using nationally representative data from the United States and nine additional countries, we found that right-wing (vs. left-wing) orientation is indeed associated with greater subjective well-being and that the relation between political orientation and subjective well-being is mediated by the rationalization of inequality. In our third study, we found that increasing economic inequality (as measured by the Gini index) from 1974 to 2004 has exacerbated the happiness gap between liberals and conservatives, apparently because conservatives (more than liberals) possess an ideological buffer against the negative hedonic effects of economic inequality.
I am not at all committed to the view that conservatives are truly happier than liberals, whether adjusting for relevant demographics or not. But to think that if liberals are less happy, it is because of they suffer under a greater awareness of economic inequality...that to me is dubious. We're simply being told that conservatives are more happy because they enjoy living with evil. You'll notice that the paper does not provide a single piece of causal evidence for this claim. (And do you recall the results that conservatives give more to charity?) A simple alternative model (but not the only one) is that people have a certain amount of unhappiness in them and they channel their political discontents to fill that unhappiness.
This paper is drawn from a long list of new papers devoted to attacking markets, linked to a Harvard Law conference, and I thank Daniel Klein for the pointer.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on January 30, 2009 at 02:19 PM in Political Science | Permalink
Comments
Because we all know that the main reason people are unhappy is due to their inability to cope with economic inequality, rather than divorce, drugs, fatherlessness, selfishness, poverty, etc.
Posted by: Matthias at Jan 30, 2009 2:26:36 PM
It might be anecdotal evidence but why, if conservative people are happier, is it that liberal "gods" (MLK, John Lennon, RFK, JFK) are assassinated at a far higher rate than their conservative counterparts. Reagan was wounded, if that counts.
A man who would really love this is the comedian Bill Hicks. Tonight, 15 years after his death, Letterman is finally showing a performace Bill had on the Late Show. It was censored by Letterman and the Late Show producers and tonight will be the first time it has been shown on TV.
Posted by: Nick G at Jan 30, 2009 2:37:25 PM
...Or that a person's objective economic conditions create a propensity to have a certain political view, i.e. where they perceive the maintenance of their well being, or change of circumstance is best championed.
Although I don't think it's SO outrageous to state the right wing ideology - i.e. individualistic ideology - would allow one to feel less implicated in the social conditions of others...
Posted by: Simon at Jan 30, 2009 2:41:42 PM
this reminds me of an ancient study about the preference of people not to earn more than the year before but to earn more than the colleague.
may be some people prefer inequality.
Posted by: Kerub at Jan 30, 2009 2:50:38 PM
Another alternative: conservatives are less likely to try and change the system that causes inequalities.
Posted by: Michael F. Martin at Jan 30, 2009 2:51:46 PM
I am not sure who's writing is the smaller serif font under the quote from the paper, but I wanted to address this particular portion:
"[T]o think that if liberals are less happy, it is because they suffer under a greater awareness of economic inequality...that to me is dubious. We're simply being told that conservatives are more happy because they enjoy living with evil."
Besides the strident normative language, this seems a misinterpretation of the work. The paper says nothing about how aware of inequality liberals are versus conservatives. It simply posits that the conservative principles (individualism, personal responsibility) could mean that conservatives feel less jealous when they are poor, and feel less guilty when they are rich. No wonder they're happier.
Posted by: Neil at Jan 30, 2009 2:59:05 PM
Clearly if this were true, liberals should be much happier today than yesterday after Obama signed the (highly) symbolic Lily Ledbetter Act. Likewise, conservatives should be much less happy.
I think this shows that a relative measure of well being (Gini) should not be regressed on a subjective measure of happiness. Conclusions should also not be drawn.
Posted by: stanfo at Jan 30, 2009 2:59:47 PM
A rather simple answer follows with (A) and (B) being true statements that result in the same statistics without the rediculious "conservatives are happy with evil" result that the study got.
1)
A) Women are much more likely to self report depression and unhappiness than men are.
B) Men are more conservative than women.
2)
A) Divorced/unmarried women are on average more liberal than married women
B) Married people are happier.
3)
A) Conservatives are more likely to attend church regularly
B) People who attend church regularly are found to be happier and healthier than those who don't (on average).
4)
A) Liberals feel guilty for their own success.
B) Conservatives don't feel guilty for their own success.
Posted by: DocMerlin at Jan 30, 2009 3:03:23 PM
In general but not in total, conservative or right-wing ideology is generally focused less on radical changes and more on maintaining the status quo and incremental improvement (reduce public sector, deregulate, etc). People who would be attracted to this would probably be happy with their lives.
On the other hand, left wing ideology in general but not in total often stands for radical change. Large expansions in public programs. It often, at least in America, finds every marginalized, improvised, or oppressed group and champions their causes. Many a poor person will happily hang up their ideology for government hand outs. Ideology doesn't feed you. People less happy with their situation are more likely to be proponents of radical change.
Maybe? I think my comment is muddled but I don't have time to refine it.
Posted by: Jason at Jan 30, 2009 3:05:36 PM
Like simon, I don't find, a priori, the notion that properties of environment differentially impact people depending on their political orientation. Indeed, I take that to be utterly uncontroversial.
I think that arguing about causal relations is the principle vocation of social scientists. In many cases, truth is often that there are reciprocal causal connections. So, I would have no difficulty believing both emotional traits might push one in particular directions politically *and* that holding some political beliefs will pick out different salient properties in one's environment. The argument then comes down to attempting to identify mediators, etc.
By convention in my field, I take the authors statement to read more along the lines that they suggest that there are paths from political beliefs to emotion that are mediated by particular rationalization processes. I would be surprised if they would actually claim this to be the sole relationship accounting for the data.
Posted by: Glockenspieler at Jan 30, 2009 3:09:21 PM
"We're simply being told that conservatives are more happy because they enjoy living with evil."
By George! I think he's GOT it!
Posted by: carpingdemon at Jan 30, 2009 3:41:59 PM
Napier and Jost wouldn't happen to be liberals, would they?
Posted by: ostap at Jan 30, 2009 3:52:13 PM
I wonder if the symbolic nature of presidential ideology has any impact. That is, is it possible that liberals have been less happy than conservatives during the era of George W. Bush? Similarly, will conservatives find that Obama's supreme court appointments, foreign policy, etc. is getting their goat and become less happy for the next 4 or 8 years? Maybe nothing there, but it just crossed my mind.
Posted by: liberalarts at Jan 30, 2009 4:33:43 PM
I don't see how we can debate this seriously without a very precise definition of "right-wing". It's such a generic description that it could mean almost anything.
David Frum is not Ann Coulter. Using the standard caricature is just intellectual sloppiness/laziness.
Posted by: In Check at Jan 30, 2009 4:34:58 PM
Nice post, Tyler.
But I cry that you must enter into the degraded, corrupt, impoverished, and impoverishing "liberal v. conservative" semantics. Doing so, is, in a way, surrendering everything.
Oh, the terrible dilemmas of success!
Posted by: Daniel Klein at Jan 30, 2009 4:40:57 PM
you've got a glaring non-sequitur as the critical hinge of your post -- you just assume income inequality is evil. um, why? isn't that a good candidate for the engine of progress? so maybe conservatives see income inequality as necessary for the greater good, even as they try to ameliorate its harsher effects (via charity). am i missing irony in your response? otherwise, seems a little silly (even interpreted broadly, rejecting, e.g., pieinsky idealism in place of pragmatism similarly doesn't seem evil, but rather prudent).
Posted by: dj superflat at Jan 30, 2009 4:42:16 PM
Do you know if they have any plans to translate that paper into english?
Posted by: Brad Hansen at Jan 30, 2009 4:50:41 PM
From my own circle of friends, I've found a vague pattern amongst people that suggests to me that political attitudes are a reflection of personal characteristics.
It would make sense for more charitable, self-sacrificing people to believe in an economic system where individuals would voluntarily help one another instead of a central government doing so, particularly if they are using their own personalities as a rough measuring stick for all human beings.
Likewise, it could make that people with certain, shall we say 'charitable deficiencies', would prefer a system that takes into account the selfishness of humans and places more responsibility in a central planner for equitable distribution of wealth. Again, if they are using their own personalities as a rough measuring stick for all human beings.
Posted by: Andrew at Jan 30, 2009 4:54:29 PM
Economic inequality is evil? You'll never be happy.
Posted by: Vanya at Jan 30, 2009 4:59:17 PM
The authors make the implicit claim that conservatism causes rationalization of income inequality, which in turn causes life satisfaction. They haven't shown causation, of course. The Sobel test they use is capable of ruling out a hypothesised causative mechanism, but it can't prove that one exists. Their data could just as easily be interpreted as follows: some people are genetically or environmentally predisposed to having lower levels of empathy for strangers. These people rationalize inequality, and are happier simply because they have less that they worry about. Now, would these people become liberals? I don't see why they would. Thus, they'll tend to adopt more conservative views. Does adopting conservative views have any power to make you less empathetic, in this analysis?
Posted by: Nathan Cook at Jan 30, 2009 5:18:36 PM
How could anyone but an evil person be happy with evil? Why not condense the sentence and say “ I think conservatives are evil?” I am conservative and I say reality is potentially adverse. That is not necessarily anyone’s fault. i.e. not necessarily evil.
Posted by: Dave at Jan 30, 2009 5:28:44 PM
How could anyone but an evil person be happy with evil? Why not condense the sentence and say “ I think conservatives are evil?” I am conservative and I say reality is potentially adverse. That is not necessarily anyone’s fault. i.e. not necessarily evil.
Posted by: Dave at Jan 30, 2009 5:29:56 PM
apparently because conservatives (more than liberals) possess an ideological buffer against the negative hedonic effects of economic inequality.
This appears to translate to "conservatives are less envious".
Posted by: Brian 2 at Jan 30, 2009 5:41:28 PM
Isn't the issue that too MUCH and too LITTLE economic inequity is "evil" or at the very least horrible for the long term economic prospects of a country. Sometimes the result is painfully slow economic growth (i.e. 50 years ago Brazil and Canada had pretty much the same GDP). Sometimes the result is bubbles followed by painfully slow growth (i.e. the USA and Japan both saw economic inequity accelerate before their bubbles).
Posted by: SusAno at Jan 30, 2009 5:45:02 PM
it's because conservatives read freakonomics and liberals read krugman
Posted by: babar at Jan 30, 2009 6:24:07 PM
