SearcharxivSearch

arXiv subjects

Guglielmo Briscese

Publications and source records attributed to Guglielmo Briscese.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Crises and Political Polarization: Towards a Better Understanding of the Timing and Impact of Shocks and Media

We investigate how crises alter societies by analyzing the timing and channels of change using a longitudinal multi-wave survey of a representative sample of Americans throughout 2020. This methodology allows us to overcome some of the limitations of previous studies and uncover novel insights: (1) individuals with a negative personal experience during a crisis become more pro-welfare spending, in particular for policies they perceive will benefit them personally, and they become less trusting of institutions; (2) indirect shocks or the mere exposure to the crisis doesn't have a similar effect; (3) policy preferences and institutional trust can change quickly after a negative experience; and (4) consuming partisan media can mitigate or exacerbate these effects by distorting perceptions of reality. In an experiment, we find that exposing individuals to the same information can recalibrate distorted perceptions with lasting effects. Using a machine learning model to test for heterogeneous treatment effects, we find a negative personal experience did not make individuals more responsive to the information treatment, suggesting that lived and perceived experiences play an equally important role in changing preferences during a crisis.

econ.GN

Reducing Polarization on Abortion, Guns and Immigration: An Experimental Study

We study individuals' willingness to engage with others who hold opposite views on polarizing policies. A representative sample of 2,507 Americans are given the opportunity to listen to recordings of fellow countrymen and women expressing their views on immigration, abortion laws and gun ownership laws. We find that most Americans (more than two-thirds) are willing to listen to a view opposite to theirs, and a fraction (ten percent) reports changing their views as a result. We also test whether emphasizing having common grounds with those who think differently helps bridging views. We identify principles the vast majority of people agree upon: (1) a set of fundamental human rights, and (2) a set of simple behavioral etiquette rules. A random subsample of people are made explicitly aware they share common views, either on human rights (one-third of the sample) or etiquette rules (another one-third of the sample), before they have the opportunity to listen to different views. We find that the treatments induce people to adjust their views towards the center on abortion and immigration, relative to a control group, thus reducing polarization.

econ.GN