Journal of Public Economics · 2023 · Andrea Robbett、Lily Colón、Peter Hans Matthews
中文摘要
当前美国政治的一个突出特征是,人们对于原本可以验证的事实存在两极分化的信念;这种病态现象常被归因于“回音室”对志同道合的党派人士所产生的影响。党派人士可能出于工具性原因而寻求志同道合者的观点,即认为同党派成员掌握更多信息;也可能出于表达性原因这样做,即为了了解或确认“与党派立场契合”的信念。我们开展了一项在线实验,以刻画人们对有关政治信念的社会信息的需求及其使用方式。我们发现,参与者对同党派成员和混合党派群体提供的线索均有反应,但较不愿意咨询对立党派人士或采纳其信念。然而,当可靠的外部信息来源变得可用时,参与者寻求任何类型社会信息的可能性都会大幅降低,这与工具性动机而非表达性动机相一致。简言之,党派之间虽然存在不信任,但人们也愿意通过咨询社会信息来追求“正确信念”。进一步来看,咨询同伴的人并没有更频繁地作出正确判断,这凸显了可靠的私人信息作为屏障、抵御回音室某些有害影响的重要性。
Abstract
American politics is currently characterized by polarized beliefs about otherwise verifiable realities, a pathology often ascribed to the influence of “echo chambers” on like-minded partisans. Partisans may seek out the views of like-minded individuals for either instrumental reasons, that is, because co-partisans are presumed to know more, or for expressive reasons, to learn or confirm “partisan congenial” beliefs. We conduct an online experiment to characterize the demand for, and use of, social information about political beliefs. We find that participants are responsive to the cues of both co-partisans and mixed partisan groups, but are less disposed to consult opposing partisans or to follow their beliefs. However, when a reliable source of outside information becomes available, participants are much less likely to seek social information of any kind, consistent with an instrumental rather than expressive motive. In short, there is mistrust across partisan lines but also a willingness to consult social information in pursuit of “correct beliefs.” The further observation that those who do consult peers are not correct more often underscores the importance of reliable private information as a bulwark against some of the pernicious effects of echo chambers.