pith. sign in

arxiv: 2411.11186 · v3 · submitted 2024-11-17 · 💰 econ.GN · q-fin.EC

Disagreement Spillovers

Giampaolo Bonomi This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 16:44 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💰 econ.GN q-fin.EC
keywords bundlingpersuasionsurvey experimentsidentitypolitical communicationspilloverseconomic policysocial policy
0
0 comments X

The pith

Bundling economic policies with opposing social stances reduces support for the economic policy by 13-20 percentage points among disagreers.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper examines how political messages that combine economic arguments with moral social positions affect persuasion on the economic part. Experiments with about 6500 U.S. adults show that when recipients disagree with the bundled social stance, their support for the economic policy falls sharply compared with receiving the economic message by itself. The drop can push support below pre-message levels. Bundling an aligned social stance produces no corresponding increase in persuasion. The pattern holds across policy pairs, is not explained by party cues, and runs mainly from social disagreement to economic views.

Core claim

Survey experiments reveal that bundling an economic policy with a social stance respondents disagree with reduces support for the economic policy by 13-20 percentage points relative to the unbundled economic message, sometimes moving support below baseline levels; bundling aligned social stances yields no gain in persuasion.

What carries the argument

Identity-based distancing, the process by which disagreement on the social issue leads respondents to reject the entire bundled package including the economic policy.

If this is right

  • Campaigns bundling economic and social positions may lose net persuasion on the economic side among those who reject the social position.
  • The effect operates in one direction, so disagreement on social issues can spill over to reduce economic support but agreement on social issues does not symmetrically boost it.
  • The pattern generalizes across different economic-social policy pairs and is not driven by explicit party cues.
  • Models of political persuasion must account for cross-issue identity effects rather than treating issues as independent.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the effect scales to real-world messaging, bundling strategies could contribute to lower overall policy support in polarized environments.
  • The one-directional nature suggests that separating economic and social messaging might preserve more economic persuasion than current bundling practices allow.
  • Testing whether the distancing response changes when the economic policy is framed as separable from the social stance could clarify the mechanism.

Load-bearing premise

The survey randomization and question wording isolate the causal effect of bundling the social stance from other factors such as general message negativity or respondent inattention.

What would settle it

A replication experiment that finds no 13-20 point drop in economic policy support when the message is bundled with a disagreeable social stance, using the same randomization and wording, would falsify the central result.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.11186 by Giampaolo Bonomi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Change in Political Advertising by Topic: 2006 – 2018 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Adding Social Policy Content to an Economic Policy Message [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Correlation between Pro-Choice and Pro-CPTPP views by Treatment [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p057_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Political messages increasingly bundle economic policy arguments with moral social policy stances. Using survey experiments with roughly 6,500 U.S. adults, I show that such bundling sharply weakens economic persuasion among respondents who disagree with the social stance: support falls by 13-20 percentage points relative to when the same economic message is sent alone, sometimes moving below pre-message levels. Bundling an aligned social stance does not increase persuasion. The main results are not driven by party cues, generalize across policy pairs, and are largely one-directional from social to economic issues, consistent with the predictions of a model of identity-based distancing.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper uses survey experiments with approximately 6,500 U.S. adults to claim that bundling economic policy arguments with disagreed moral social stances reduces support for the economic policy by 13-20 percentage points relative to the economic message alone (sometimes below baseline), while aligned social stances do not increase persuasion. The effect is reported as robust to party cues, generalizing across policy pairs, and one-directional from social to economic issues, interpreted via an identity-based distancing model.

Significance. If the design isolates bundling from confounds, the result would contribute to political economy by documenting asymmetric spillovers from social to economic attitudes. The large sample, multiple policy pairs, and reported robustness to party cues are strengths. The paper does not ship machine-checked proofs or code but provides falsifiable predictions from the model that are tested empirically.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3] §3 (Experimental Design): The manuscript does not report whether bundled and standalone messages are equated on word count, number of arguments, or Flesch readability. Without this, the 13-20pp drop cannot be attributed specifically to identity-based distancing rather than cognitive load or message complexity, which is load-bearing for the central causal claim.
  2. [Table 1] Table 1 and associated text (Main Results): No attention checks, negativity manipulation checks, or perceived-message-length measures are reported. This leaves open whether the effect reflects general aversion to longer/negative messages rather than disagreement with the social stance, directly affecting interpretation of the headline percentages.
  3. [§4.2] §4.2 (Robustness): The checks address party cues but do not include tests equating total argument count or valence across conditions; the claim that results 'generalize across policy pairs' therefore rests on unverified design equivalence.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: Sample construction details (recruitment platform, screening criteria) and exact question wording are omitted; adding one sentence would improve transparency without lengthening the abstract.
  2. [Figure 1] Figure 1: Axis labels and legend could clarify whether bars represent percentage-point changes from baseline or absolute support levels.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for these constructive comments on design equivalence and potential confounds. We address each point below and indicate where revisions will be made to improve transparency and rule out alternative interpretations.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §3 (Experimental Design): The manuscript does not report whether bundled and standalone messages are equated on word count, number of arguments, or Flesch readability. Without this, the 13-20pp drop cannot be attributed specifically to identity-based distancing rather than cognitive load or message complexity, which is load-bearing for the central causal claim.

    Authors: The economic argument text is held fixed and identical across bundled and standalone conditions; the bundled version adds only one additional sentence stating the social stance. We will add a supplementary table in the revision reporting exact word counts, sentence counts, and Flesch-Kincaid readability scores for every condition and policy pair. This will allow direct assessment of complexity differences. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Table 1 and associated text (Main Results): No attention checks, negativity manipulation checks, or perceived-message-length measures are reported. This leaves open whether the effect reflects general aversion to longer/negative messages rather than disagreement with the social stance, directly affecting interpretation of the headline percentages.

    Authors: The original instrument did not include attention checks or post-treatment perceived-length/negativity ratings. A post-treatment item measuring agreement with the social stance was included and is used to define the disagreer subsample. We will add a limitations paragraph discussing the absence of these checks and note that the large, consistent effect across policy pairs with varying baseline negativity makes a pure length-aversion account less likely. We cannot retroactively add the missing measures to the existing data. revision: partial

  3. Referee: §4.2 (Robustness): The checks address party cues but do not include tests equating total argument count or valence across conditions; the claim that results 'generalize across policy pairs' therefore rests on unverified design equivalence.

    Authors: The economic text is identical by construction, and the added social sentence is a single clause in every bundled condition. We will include new robustness specifications that interact the treatment with measured message length and with independent coder ratings of valence. The generalization claim is based on the same directional pattern appearing in four distinct policy pairs that differ in baseline valence and argument structure; we will report these auxiliary valence ratings in the revision. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical results from randomized survey experiments

full rationale

The paper's central claims are percentages (13-20pp drops) obtained directly from survey experiments with randomization across conditions. These are not derived from any model equations, fitted parameters, or self-citations that reduce to the inputs by construction. The identity-based distancing model is invoked only post-hoc for interpretation and consistency, not as the source of the reported treatment effects. No load-bearing step equates a prediction to a fitted input or renames a result via self-citation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of the experimental design and the interpretation that the pattern matches identity-based distancing; no free parameters or new entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Random assignment in the survey isolates the bundling treatment from confounding factors such as respondent fatigue or demand effects.
    Standard assumption required for causal interpretation of the 13-20 pp drop.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5614 in / 1069 out tokens · 19514 ms · 2026-05-23T16:44:53.953115+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Afrouzi, H., Arteaga, C., and Weisburst, E. (2024). Is it the message or the messenger? examining movement in immigration beliefs. Journal of Political Economy Microeconomics , 2(2):244--297

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    and Pope, J

    Barber, M. and Pope, J. C. (2019). Does party trump ideology? disentangling party and ideology in america. American Political Science Review , 113(1):38–54

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    and Persson, T

    Besley, T. and Persson, T. (2021). The rise of identity politics: Policy, political organization, and nationalist dynamics. Working Paper

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Bonomi, G. (2024). Divide and diverge: Polarization incentives. Working Paper

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Bonomi, G., Gennaioli, N., and Tabellini, G. (2021). Identity, Beliefs, and Political Conflict . The Quarterly Journal of Economics , 136(4):2371--2411

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Bordalo, P., Coffman, K., Gennaioli, N., and Shleifer, A. (2016). Stereotypes* . The Quarterly Journal of Economics , 131(4):1753--1794

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Branscombe, N., Ellemers, N., Spears, R., and Doosje, E. (1999). The context and content of social identity threat. Sepsis , pages 35--55

    work page 1999

  8. [8]

    Callander, S. (2005). Electoral competition in heterogeneous districts. Journal of Political Economy , 113(5):1116--1145

    work page 2005

  9. [9]

    Cohen, G. L. (2003). Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. Journal of personality and social psychology , 85(5):808

    work page 2003

  10. [10]

    stability in competition

    d'Aspremont, C., Gabszewicz, J. J., and Thisse, J.-F. (1979). On hotelling's "stability in competition". Econometrica , 47(5):1145--1150

    work page 1979

  11. [11]

    Desmet, K., Ortuño-Ortín, I., and Wacziarg, R. (2024). Endogenous partitions! Working Paper

    work page 2024

  12. [12]

    Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy . Harper and Row, New York

    work page 1957

  13. [13]

    Druckman, J. N. (2022). A framework for the study of persuasion. Annual Review of Political Science , 25(Volume 25, 2022):65--88

    work page 2022

  14. [14]

    Enke, B. (2020). Moral values and voting. Journal of Political Economy , 128(10):3679--3729

    work page 2020

  15. [15]

    Enke, B. (2024). Moral boundaries. Annual Review of Economics , 16(Volume 16, 2024):133--157

    work page 2024

  16. [16]

    Enke, B., Polborn, M., and Wu, A. (2022a). Values as luxury goods and political polarization. Working Paper 30001, National Bureau of Economic Research

    work page

  17. [17]

    Enke, B., Rodríguez-Padilla, R., and Zimmermann, F. (2022b). Moral Universalism and the Structure of Ideology . The Review of Economic Studies , 90(4):1934--1962

    work page 1934

  18. [18]

    and Adams, J

    Feddersen, A. and Adams, J. F. (2022). Public opinion backlash in response to party messages: A case for party press releases. Electoral Studies , 80:102532

    work page 2022

  19. [19]

    Fukuyama, F. (2018). Against identity politics: The new tribalism and the crisis of democracy. Foreign Affairs , 97(5):90--114

    work page 2018

  20. [20]

    and Tabellini, G

    Gennaioli, N. and Tabellini, G. (2023). Identity Politics . Working Paper

    work page 2023

  21. [21]

    Gentzkow, M. (2016). Polarization in 2016. Working Paper

    work page 2016

  22. [22]

    and Shapiro, J

    Gentzkow, M. and Shapiro, J. M. (2006). Media bias and reputation. Journal of Political Economy , 114(2):280--316

    work page 2006

  23. [23]

    M., and Stone, D

    Gentzkow, M., Shapiro, J. M., and Stone, D. F. (2015). Chapter 14 - media bias in the marketplace: Theory. In Anderson, S. P., Waldfogel, J., and Strömberg, D., editors, Handbook of Media Economics , volume 1 of Handbook of Media Economics , pages 623--645. North-Holland

    work page 2015

  24. [24]

    Gentzkow, M., Wong, M. B. T., and Zhang, A. (2024). Ideological bias and trust in information sources. AEJ: Microeconomics (forthcoming)

    work page 2024

  25. [25]

    Gethin, A., Martínez-Toledano, C., and Piketty, T. (2021). Brahmin Left Versus Merchant Right: Changing Political Cleavages in 21 Western Democracies, 1948–2020* . The Quarterly Journal of Economics , 137(1):1--48

    work page 2021

  26. [26]

    L., Ponzetto, G

    Glaeser, E. L., Ponzetto, G. A. M., and Shapiro, J. M. (2005). Strategic extremism: Why republicans and democrats divide on religious values. The Quarterly Journal of Economics , 120(4):1283--1330

    work page 2005

  27. [27]

    Greenaway, K. H. and Cruwys, T. (2018). The source model of group threat: Responding to internal and external threats

    work page 2018

  28. [28]

    Gupta, N., Rigotti, L., and Wilson, A. (2021). The experimenters' dilemma: Inferential preferences over populations

    work page 2021

  29. [29]

    Jansen, M., Martinez, A., Ozkan, B., Rey-Biel, P., and Roldan-Mones, A. (2024). Ideological alignment and evidence-based policy adoption. Working Paper

    work page 2024

  30. [30]

    Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological bulletin , 108 3:480--98

    work page 1990

  31. [31]

    and Weibull, J

    Lindbeck, A. and Weibull, J. (1993). A model of political equilibrium in a representative democracy. Journal of Public Economics , 51(2):195--209

    work page 1993

  32. [32]

    and Shleifer, A

    Mullainathan, S. and Shleifer, A. (2005). The market for news. American Economic Review , 95(4):1031–1053

    work page 2005

  33. [33]

    Nash, J. F. (1950). Equilibrium points in \ n\ -person games. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America , 36(48-49)

    work page 1950

  34. [34]

    and Inglehart, R

    Norris, P. and Inglehart, R. (2019). Cultural Backlash: Trump, Brexit, and Authoritarian Populism . Cambridge University Press

    work page 2019

  35. [35]

    Oakes, P. J. (1987). The salience of social categories. In Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., J. Reicher, S., and Wetherell, M. J., editors, Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory . Oxford: Blackwell

    work page 1987

  36. [36]

    not just ingroup ``love

    Parker, M. and Janoff-Bulman, R. (2013). Lessons from morality-based social identity: The power of outgroup ``hate," not just ingroup ``love". Social Justice Research , 26:81--96

    work page 2013

  37. [37]

    and Tabellini, G

    Persson, T. and Tabellini, G. (2002). Political Economics: Explaining Economic Policy , volume 1 of MIT Press Books . The MIT Press

    work page 2002

  38. [38]

    Roemer, J., Woojin, L., and Van der Straeten, K. (2007). Racism, xenophobia, and distribution: Multi-issue politics in advanced democracies. Post-print, HAL

    work page 2007

  39. [39]

    and Sunderam, A

    Schwartzstein, J. and Sunderam, A. (2021). Using models to persuade. American Economic Review , 111(1):276–323

    work page 2021

  40. [40]

    and Turner, J

    Tajfel, H. and Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations , 33(47):74

    work page 1979

  41. [41]

    and Wilkes, A

    Tajfel, H. and Wilkes, A. L. (1963). Classification and quantitative judgement. British Journal of Psychology , 54(2):101--114

    work page 1963