A new IZA Discussion Paper by Christoph Feldhaus, Lukas Reinhardt and Matthias Sutter investigates how political polarization affects individuals’ willingness to adhere to rules imposed by others. The researchers conducted an experiment involving 1,300 supporters and opponents of Donald Trump to explore the impact of group identity on compliance with restrictions.
Experiment with Trump supporters and opponents
Participants were asked to make decisions in three contexts: prosociality (e.g., altruism), risk preferences, and time preferences. Each participant was presented with a choice restriction imposed by an “interventionist” who either shared or opposed their political views on Trump. For example, in the altruism context, participants decided how to split a sum of money under restrictions such as being required to share at least a certain amount. In the risk context, participants chose between lotteries with differing probabilities and outcomes, some of which were restricted. In the time preference context, choices between immediate and delayed payouts were limited by the interventionist.
Participants could pay a small cost to lift the restrictions, allowing researchers to measure the extent to which compliance depended on the political alignment of the interventionist. Importantly, the restrictions themselves were identical across treatments, ensuring that only the perceived identity of the interventionist varied.
Outgroup members are perceived as more malevolent
The study found that participants were significantly more likely to pay to lift restrictions when they were imposed by someone from the opposing political group (outgroup) than when they came from someone with similar views (ingroup). This effect was consistent across all decision-making contexts but was strongest in prosocial and time preference tasks.
Further analysis revealed the mechanism behind this behavior: participants perceived restrictions imposed by outgroup members as more malevolent. They believed outgroup members were more likely motivated by a desire to harm or exert power rather than to protect or assist. When controlling for these perceptions, the difference in compliance between ingroup and outgroup interventions disappeared, emphasizing the role of perceived intent in driving resistance.
Factual arguments may have limited effectiveness
The research sheds light on the challenges of maintaining compliance and rule-following behavior in polarized societies. Resistance to identical rules based on the identity of the enforcer suggests that factual arguments or compromises on policy content may have limited effectiveness in bridging divides. Instead, fostering shared or overarching group identities could improve acceptance of rules and policies, regardless of political affiliation.