Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Losing Hurts: The Happiness Impact of Partisan Electoral Loss

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 October 2015

Lamar Pierce
Affiliation:
Olin Business School, Washington University in St. Louis, One Brookings Drive Box 1133, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA, e-mail: pierce@wustl.edu
Todd Rogers
Affiliation:
Harvard Kennedy School, Mailbox 124, 79 JFK Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA
Jason A. Snyder
Affiliation:
Anderson School of Management, UCLA, 110 Westwood Plaza, Cornell Hall, Suite D506, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

Partisan identity shapes social, mental, economic, and physical life. Using a novel dataset, we study the consequences of partisan identity by examining the immediate impact of electoral loss and victory on happiness and sadness. Employing a quasi-experimental regression discontinuity model we present two primary findings. First, elections strongly affect the immediate happiness/sadness of partisan losers, but minimally impact partisan winners. This effect is consistent with psychological research on the good-bad hedonic asymmetry, but appears to dissipate within a week after the election. Second, the immediate happiness consequences to partisan losers are relatively strong. To illustrate, we show that partisans are affected two times more by their party losing the 2012 U.S. Presidential Election than both respondents with children were to the Newtown shootings and respondents living in Boston were to the Boston Marathon bombings. We discuss implications regarding the centrality of partisan identity to the self and its well-being.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Experimental Research Section of the American Political Science Association 2015 

Access options

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

References

Alesina, A., Di Tella, R., and MacCulloch, R.. 2004. “Inequality and Happiness: Are Europeans and Americans Different?Journal of Public Economics 88 (9): 2009–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Argyle, M. 2003. Causes and Correlates of Happiness. Well-Being: The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology, ch. 18, p. 353. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., and Vohs, K. D.. 2001. “Bad is Stronger than Good.” Review of General Psychology 5 (4): 323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busse, M., Silva-Risso, J., and Zettelmeyer, F.. 2006. “$1000 Cash Back: The Pass-Through of Auto Manufacturer Promotions.” American Economic Review 96 (4): 1253–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E. and, Donald, E. Stokes. 1960. The American Voter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Card, D., and Dahl, G.. 2011. “Family Violence and Football: The Effect of Unexpected Emotional Cues on Violent Behavior.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 126 (1): 103–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caruso, E., Mead, N., and Balcetis, E.. 2009. “Political Partisanship Influences Perception of Biracial Candidates’ Skin Tone.” Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences 106 (48): 20168–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, G. L. 2003. “Party over Policy: The Dominating Impact of Group Influence on Political Beliefs.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85 (5): 808–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dal Bó, E., Dal Bó, P., and Snyder, J.. 2009. “Political Dynasties.” The Review of Economic Studies 76 (1): 115–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Tella, R. D., MacCulloch, R. J., and Oswald, A. J.. 2003. “The Macroeconomics of Happiness.” Review of Economics and Statistics 85 (4): 809–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Easterlin, R. A. 2003. “Explaining Happiness.” PNAS: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100 (19): 11176–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Easterlin, R. A. 2006. “Life Cycle Happiness and its Sources: Intersections of Psychology, Economics, and Demography.” Journal of Economic Psychology 27 (4): 463–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gentzkow, M. and Shapiro, J. M.. 2011. “Ideological Segregation Online and Offline.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 126 (4): 1799–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, A. S. and Huber, G. A.. 2009. “Partisanship and Economic Behavior: Do Partisan Differences in Economic Forecasts Predict Real Economic Behavior?American Political Science Review 103 (3): 407–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, A. S., Kessler, D. P., and Meredith, M.. 2011. The Persuasive Effects of Direct Mail: A Regression Discontinuity based Approach.” Journal of Politics 73 (1): 140–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, D. T., Lieberman, M. D., Morewedge, C. K., and Wilson, T. D.. 2004. “The Peculiar Longevity of Things not so Bad.” Psychological Science 15 (1): 1419.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gillis, J. R. ed. 1996. Commemorations: The Politics of National Identity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gimpel, J. G. and Schuknecht, J. E.. 2004. Patchwork Nation: Sectionalism and Political Change in American Politics. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Glaeser, E. L. and Ward, B. A.. 2006. “Myths and Realities of American Political Geography.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 20 (2): 119–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granberg, D. and Brent, E.. 1983. “When Prophecy Bends: The Preference–Expectation Link in US Presidential Elections, 1952–1980.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45 (3): 477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, D., Palmquist, B., and Schickler, E.. 2002. Partisan Hearts and Minds: Political Parties and the Social Identities of Voters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Hersh, E. 2014. “The Long-Term Effect of September 11 on the Political behavior of Victims’ Families and Neighbors.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110 (52): 20959–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Imbens, G. W. and Lemieux, T.. 2008. “Regression Discontinuity Designs: A Guide to Practice.” Journal of Econometrics 142 (2): 615–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jost, J. T., Federico, C. M., and Napier, J. L.. 2009. “Political Ideology: Its Structure, Functions, and Elective Affinities.” Annual Review of Psychology 60: 307–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kahneman, D. and Deaton, A.. 2010. “High Income Improves Evaluation of Life but not Emotional Well-Being.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107 (38): 16489–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D., Diener, E., and Schwarz, N.. 2003. Well-Being: The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. and Krueger, A.. 2006. “Developments in the Measurement of Subjective Well-Being.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 20 (1): 324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A.. 1979. “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk.” Econometrica 47 (2): 263–91.Google Scholar
Kermer, D. A., Driver-Linn, E., Wilson, T. D., and Gilbert, D. T.. 2006. “Loss Aversion is an Affective Forecasting Error.” Psychological Science 17 (8): 649–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krizan, Z., Miller, J. C., and Johar, O.. 2010. “Wishful Thinking in the 2008 US Presidential Election.” Psychological Science 21 (1): 140–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langford, D. J., Crager, S. E., Shehzad, Z., Smith, S. B., Sotocinal, S. G., Levenstadt, J. S., Chanda, M. L., Levitin, D. J., and Mogil, J. S.. 2006. “Social Modulation of Pain as Evidence for Empathy in Mice.” Science 312 (5782): 1967–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McDermott, R. 2004. “Prospect Theory in Political Science: Gains and Losses from the First Decade.” Political Psychology 25 (2): 289312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierce, L., Dahl, M. S., and Nielsen, J.. 2013. “In Sickness and in Wealth: Psychological and Sexual Costs of Income Comparison in Marriage.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 39 (3): 359–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pierce, L. and Snyder, J. A.. 2012. “Discretion and Manipulation by Experts: Evidence from a Vehicle Emissions Policy Change.” B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy 13 (3): 1–30.Google Scholar
Preston, S. D. and De Waal, F. B.. 2002. “Empathy: Its Ultimate and Proximate bases.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (1): 171.Google Scholar
Prior, M. 2007. Post-Broadcast Democracy: How Media Choice Increases Inequality in Political Involvement and Polarizes Elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rand, D., Pfeiffer, T., Dreber, A., Sheketoff, R., Wernerfelt, N., and Benkler, Y.. 2009. “Dynamic Remodeling of In-Group Bias during the 2008 Presidential Election.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106 (15): 6187–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rozin, P. and Royzman, E. B.. 2001. “Negativity Bias, Negativity Dominance, and Contagion.” Personality and Social Psychology Review 5 (4): 296320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Settles, I. H. 2004. “When Multiple Identities Interfere: The Role of Identity Centrality.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 30 (4): 487500.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shadish, W. R, Cook, T. D., and Campbell, D. T.. 2002. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Singer, T., Seymour, B., O’Doherty, J., Kaube, H., Dolan, R. J., and Frith, C. D.. 2004. “Empathy for Pain Involves the Affective but not Sensory Components of Pain.” Science 303 (5661): 1157–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Snyder, J. 2010. “Gaming the Liver Transplant Market.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 26 (3): 546–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, S. G. 2009. “Alternatives to Randomized Experiments.” Current Directions in Psychological Science 18 (5): 299304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pierce supplementary material

Appendix

File 90 KB

Pierce supplementary material

Tables

File 382 KB

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 35
Total number of PDF views: 300 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 25th January 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Hostname: page-component-898fc554b-pkmq7 Total loading time: 0.406 Render date: 2021-01-25T18:21:34.455Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "0", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false }

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.

Losing Hurts: The Happiness Impact of Partisan Electoral Loss
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.

Losing Hurts: The Happiness Impact of Partisan Electoral Loss
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.

Losing Hurts: The Happiness Impact of Partisan Electoral Loss
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *