Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-59df476f6b-6b5bh Total loading time: 0.379 Render date: 2021-05-18T04:40:22.406Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

The Impact of In-group Favoritism on Trade Preferences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 November 2017

Get access

Abstract

Using a population-based survey experiment, this study evaluates the role of in-group favoritism in influencing American attitudes toward international trade. By systematically altering which countries gain or lose from a given trade policy (Americans and/or people in trading partner countries), we vary the role that in-group favoritism should play in influencing preferences.

Our results provide evidence of two distinct forms of in-group favoritism. The first, and least surprising, is that Americans value the well-being of other Americans more than that of people outside their own country. Rather than maximize total gains, Americans choose policies that maximize in-group well-being. This tendency is exacerbated by a sense of national superiority; Americans favor their national in-group to a greater extent if they perceive Americans to be more deserving.

Second, high levels of perceived intergroup competition lead some Americans to prefer trade policies that benefit the in-group and hurt the out-group over policies that help both their own country and the trading partner country. For a policy to elicit support, it is important not only that the US benefits, but also that the trading partner country loses so that the US achieves a greater relative advantage. We discuss the implications of these findings for understanding bipartisan public opposition to trade.

Type
Research Notes
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Aaroe, Lene, and Petersen, Michael Bang. 2014. Crowding Out Culture: Scandinavians and Americans Agree on Social Welfare in the Face of Deservingness Cues. The Journal of Politics 76 (3):684–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartlett, Donald L., and Steele, James B.. 2012. The Betrayal of the American Dream. New York: Public Affairs.Google Scholar
Brown, Rupert. 2000. Social Identity Theory: Past Achievements, Current Problems and Future Challenges. European Journal of Social Psychology 30 (6): 775–78.3.0.CO;2-O>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fordham, Benjamin O., and Kleinberg, Katja B.. 2012. How Can Economic Interests Influence Support for Free Trade? International Organization 66 (2):311–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeland, Chrystia. 2011. The Rise of the New Global Elite. The Atlantic, January/February, 4455.Google Scholar
Gilens, Martin. 1999. Why Americans Hate Welfare: Race, Media, and the Politics of Antipoverty Policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Andrew F., and Matthes, Jörg. 2009. Computational Procedures for Probing Interactions in OLS and Logistic Regression: SPSS and SAS Implementations. Behavior Research Methods 41 (3):924–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hiscox, Michael J. 2006. Through a Glass and Darkly: Attitudes Toward International Trade and the Curious Effect of Issue Framing. International Organization 60 (3):755–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, Michael E.S. 2004. Politico-Economic Determinants of American Trade Policy Attitudes. Unpublished manuscript, Norte Dame, South Bend, INGoogle Scholar
Hogg, Michael A., and Abrams, Dominic. 1990. Social Motivation, Self-Esteem and Social Identity. In Social Identity Theory: Constructive and Critical Advances, edited by Abrams, Dominic and Hogg, Michael A., 2847. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
Hogg, Michael A., Fielding, Karen S., and Darley, John. 2005. Fringe Dwellers: Processes of Deviance and Marginalization in Groups. The Social Psychology of Inclusion and Exclusion. In Social Psychology of Inclusion and Exclusion edited by Abrams, Dominic, Hogg, Michael A., and Marques, José M., 191210. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Huddy, Leonie. 2001. From Social to Political Identity: A Critical Examination of Social Identity Theory. Political Psychology 22 (1):127–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddy, Leonie, and Khatib, Nadia. 2007. American Patriotism, National Identity, and Political Involvement. American Journal of Political Science 51 (1):6477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ip, Greg. 2016. The Rise of Zero-Sum Economics. Wall Street Journal, 20 July. Available at <http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-rise-of-zero-sum-economics-1469033016>. Accessed 6 September 2016.Google Scholar
Irwin, Douglas A. 1996. Against the Tide: An Intellectual History of Free Trade. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Johnston, Christopher D. 2013. Dispositional Sources of Economic Protectionism. Public Opinion Quarterly 77 (2):574–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jost, John T., Federico, Christopher M., and Napier, Jamie L.. 2009. Political Ideology: Its Structure, Functions, and Elective Affinities. Annual Review of Psychology 60:307–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kinder, Donald R., and Kam, Cindy D. 2010. Us Against Them: Ethnocentric Foundations for American Opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kinder, Donald R., and Kiewiet, D. Roderick. 1981. Sociotropic Politics: The American Case. British Journal of Political Science 11 (2):129–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lan, Xiaohuan, and Li, Ben. 2011. Nationalism and International Trade: Theory and Evidence. Working Paper 36412. Munich: Munich Personal RePEc Archive. Available at <http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/36412/>. Accessed 6 September 2016..+Accessed+6+September+2016.>Google Scholar
Long, J. Scott, and Freese, Jeremy. 2014. Regression Models for Categorical Dependent Variables Using Stata, 3rd ed. College Station, TX: Stata Press.Google Scholar
Mansfield, Edward D., and Mutz, Diana C.. 2009. Support for Free Trade: Self-Interest, Sociotropic Politics, and Out-Group Anxiety. International Organization 63 (3):425–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansfield, Edward D., Mutz, Diana C., and Silver, Laura 2015. Men, Women, Trade, and Free Markets. International Studies Quarterly 59 (2):303–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Margalit, Yotam. 2012. Lost in Globalization: International Economic Integration and the Sources of Popular Discontent. International Studies Quarterly 56 (3):484500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayda, Anna Maria, and Rodrik, Dani. 2005. Why Are Some People (and Countries) More Protectionist than Others? European Economic Review 49 (6):1393–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merolla, Jennifer, Stephenson, Laura B., Wilson, Carole J., and Zechmeister, Elizabeth J.. 2005. Globalization, Globalización, Globalisation: Public Opinion and NAFTA. Law and Business Review of the Americas. 11 (3–4):573–96.Google Scholar
Miller, David. 2005. Reasonable Partiality Towards Compatriots. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 8 (1–2):6381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mutz, Diana C. 2014. Is Trade Perceived to Be Zero Sum? American Perceptions of the Impact of Trade on US and Trading Partner Countries. Paper presented to the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
O'Rourke, Kevin H., and Sinnott, Richard. 2001. The Determinants of Individual Trade Policy Preferences: International Survey Evidence. In Brookings Trade Forum, edited by Collins, Susan M. and Rodrik, Dani, 157206. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Pinto, Pablo M., and Le Foulon, Carmen M.. 2007. The Individual Sources of Economic Nationalism: Evidence from Survey Data. Unpublished manuscript, University of Houston, Houston, TX.Google Scholar
Plutarch, Lucius M. 1957. Moralia, Vol. 12. Translated by Cherniss, Harold. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pratto, Felicia, Çidam, Atilla, Stewart, Andrew L., Zeineddine, Fouad Bou, et al. 2013. Social Dominance in Context and in Individuals: Contextual Moderation of Robust Effects of Social Dominance Orientation in Fifteen Languages and Twenty Countries. Social Psychological and Personality Science 4 (5):587–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pratto, Felicia, Sidanius, James, Stallworth, Lisa M., and Malle, Bertram F.. 1994. Social Dominance Orientation: A Personality Variable Predicting Social and Political Attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67 (4):741–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rankin, David M. 2001. Identities, Interests, and Imports. Political Behavior 23 (4):351–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reich, Robert B. 1990. Do We Want US to Be Rich or Japan Poor? Wall Street Journal, 18 June, A10.Google Scholar
Rousseau, David L. 2002. Motivations for Choice: The Salience of Relative Gains in International Politics. The Journal of Conflict Resolution 46 (3):394426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rueda, David, and Stegmueller, Daniel. 2017. Who Wants What? Redistribution Preferences in Comparative Perspective. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Sabet, Shahrzad. 2013. What's in a Name? Isolating the Effect of Prejudice on Individual Trade Preferences. Paper presented at the American Political Science Association 2013 Annual Meeting. Available at SSRN <https://ssrn.com/abstract=2301118>..>Google Scholar
Sidanius, Jim, Haley, Hillary, Molina, Ludwin, and Pratto, Felicia. 2007. Vladimir's Choice and the Distribution of Social Resources: A Group Dominance Perspective. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations 10 (2):257–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidanius, Jim, and Pratto, Felicia. 1999. Social Dominance: An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slaughter, Matthew J. 1999. Globalisation and Wages: A Tale of Two Perspectives. The World Economy 22 (5):609–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slaughter, Matthew J. 2001. International Trade and Labor–Demand Elasticities. Journal of International Economics 54 (1):2756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stein, Arthur A. 1990. Why Nations Cooperate: Circumstance and Choice in International Relations. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Tajfel, Henry, and Turner, John C.. 1986. The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior. In Psychology of Intergroup Relations, edited by Worchel, Stephen and Austin, William G., 724. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.Google Scholar
Theiss-Morse, Elizabeth. 2009. Who Counts as an American? The Boundaries of National Identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trump, Donald. 2016. Declaring America's Economic Independence. Speech, Alumisource, Monessen, PA, 28 June. Available at <http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/full-transcript-trump-job-plan-speech-224891>. Accessed 6 September 2016..+Accessed+6+September+2016.>Google Scholar
Turner, John C. 1975. Social Comparison and Social Identity: Some Prospects for Intergroup Behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology 5 (1):134 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, John. C., Hogg, Michael A., Oakes, Penelope J., Reicher, Stephen D., and Wetherell, Margaret S.. 1987. Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory. New York: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tuschman, Avi. 2013. Our Political Nature: The Evolutionary Origins of What Divides Us. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Mutz and Kim supplementary material

Supplementary data

Download Mutz and Kim supplementary material(File)
File 681 KB

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The Impact of In-group Favoritism on Trade Preferences
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

The Impact of In-group Favoritism on Trade Preferences
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

The Impact of In-group Favoritism on Trade Preferences
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *