Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T15:47:15.564Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Flight to Safety: COVID-Induced Changes in the Intensity of Status Quo Preference and Voting Behavior

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2021

JAMES BISBEE Open the ORCID record for JAMES BISBEE [Opens in a new window]  and
DAN HONIG Open the ORCID record for DAN HONIG [Opens in a new window]
JAMES BISBEE*
Affiliation:
NYU, United States
DAN HONIG*
Affiliation:
University College London, United Kingdom
*
James Bisbee, Postdoctoral Fellow, NYU Center for Social Media and Politics, NYU, United States, jhb362@nyu.edu.
Dan Honig, Associate Professor of Public Policy, School of Public Policy and Department of Political Science, University College London, United Kingdom, dan.honig@ucl.ac.uk.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The relationship between anxiety and investor behavior is well known enough to warrant its own aphorism: a “flight to safety.” We posit that anxiety alters the intensity of voters’ preference for the status quo, inducing a political flight to safety toward establishment candidates. Leveraging the outbreak of the novel coronavirus during the Democratic primary election of 2020, we identify a causal effect of the outbreak on voting, with Biden benefiting between 7 and 15 percentage points at Sanders’s expense. A survey experiment in which participants exposed to an anxiety-inducing prompt choose the less disruptive hypothetical candidate provides further evidence of our theorized flight to safety among US-based respondents. Evidence from 2020 French municipal and US House primary elections suggests a COVID-induced flight to safety generalizes to benefit mainstream candidates across a variety of settings. Our findings suggest an as-yet underappreciated preference for “safe” candidates in times of anxiety.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 116 , Issue 1 , February 2022 , pp. 70 - 86
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Abramson, Paul R., Aldrich, John H., Paolino, Phil, and Rohde, David W.. 1992. “‘Sophisticated” Voting in the 1988 Presidential Primaries.” American Political Science Review 86 (1): 55–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adrian, Tobias, Crump, Richard K., and Vogt, Erik. 2019. “Nonlinearity and Flight-to-Safety in the Risk-Return Trade-Off for Stocks and Bonds.” The Journal of Finance 74 (4): 1931–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albertson, Bethany, and Gadarian, Shana Kushner. 2015. Anxious Politics: Democratic Citizenship in a Threatening World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, and Snyder, James M.. 2000. “Valence Politics and Equilibrium in Spatial Election Models.” Public Choice 103 (3–4): 327–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Azevedo, Flávio, Jost, John T., and Rothmund, Tobias. 2017. “‘Making America Great Again’: System Justification in the US Presidential Election of 2016.” Translational Issues in Psychological Science 3 (3): 231–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berinsky, Adam J., and Lewis, Jeffrey B.. 2007. “An Estimate of Risk Aversion in the US Electorate.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 2 (2): 139–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bisbee, James, and Honig, James. 2021. “Replication Data for: Flight to Safety: COVID-Induced Changes in the Intensity of Status Quo Preference and Voting Behavior.” Harvard Dataverse. Dataset. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/S5YMS7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callen, Michael. 2015. “Catastrophes and Time Preference: Evidence from the Indian Ocean Earthquake.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 118: 199–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callen, Michael, Isaqzadeh, Mohammad, Long, James D., and Sprenger, Charles. 2014. “Violence and Risk Preference: Experimental Evidence from Afghanistan.” American Economic Review 104 (1): 123–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, Lisa, and Shah, Manisha. 2015. “Risk-Taking Behavior in the Wake of Natural Disasters.” Journal of Human Resources 50 (2): 484–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campante, Filipe R., Depetris-Chauvin, Emilio, and Durante, Ruben. 2020. “The Virus of Fear: The Political Impact of Ebola in the US.” NBER Working Paper Working Paper 26897.Google Scholar
Carroll, Royce, Lewis, Jeffrey B., Lo, James, Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 2013. “The Structure of Utility in Spatial Models of Voting.” American Journal of Political Science 57 (4): 1008–28.Google Scholar
Cassar, Alessandra, Healy, Andrew, and Kessler, Carl Von. 2017. “Trust, Risk, and Time Preferences after a Natural Disaster: Experimental Evidence from Thailand.” World Development 94: 90–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clifford, Scott, and Jerit, Jennifer. 2018. “Disgust, Anxiety, and Political Learning in the Face of Threat.” American Journal of Political Science 62 (2): 266–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Marty, Karol, David, Noel, Hans, and Zaller, John. 2009. The Party Decides: Presidential Nominations before and after Reform. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cohn, Alain, Engelmann, Jan, Fehr, Ernst, and Maréchal, Michel André. 2015. “Evidence for Countercyclical Risk Aversion: An Experiment with Financial Professionals.” American Economic Review 105 (2): 860–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Debenedetti, Gabriel. 2020. “Biden Is Planning an FDR-Size Presidency.” Intelligencer, May, 11. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/05/joe-biden-presidential-plans.html.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Brothers.Google Scholar
Drezner, Daniel. 2020. “Perspective—Can the Democratic Party Still Decide?” Washington Post, March 3. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/03/03/can-democratic-party-still-decide/.Google Scholar
Eckel, Catherine C., El-Gamal, Mahmoud A., and Wilson, Rick K.. 2009. “Risk Loving after the Storm: A Bayesian-Network Study of Hurricane Katrina Evacuees.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 69 (2): 110–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckles, David L., Kam, Cindy D., Maestas, Cherie L., and Schaffner, Brian F.. 2014. “Risk Attitudes and the Incumbency Advantage.” Political Behavior 36 (4): 731–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrlich, Sean Cherie Maestas. 2010. “Risk Orientation, Risk Exposure, and Policy Opinions: The Case of Free Trade.” Political Psychology 31 (5): 657–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eilperin, Juliet. 2020. “Bernie Sanders’s Climate Record in Congress: Lots of Advocacy, No Compromise.” Washington Post, March 12. https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/bernie-sanderss-climate-record-in-congress-lots-of-advocacy-no-compromise/2020/03/12/7aa2772a-5fd7-11ea-b29b-9db42f7803a7_story.html.Google Scholar
Fegenheimer, Matt, and Glueck, Katie. 2020. “Joe Biden Had a Big Night. He Needs Another in 72 Hours.” New York Times, February 29. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/29/us/politics/joe-biden-super-tuesday.html.Google Scholar
FiveThirtyEight. 2020. “Who Will Win the 2020 Democratic Primary?” FiveThirtyEight.com. updated April 7, 2020, at 7:48 a.m. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/?cid=rrpromo.Google Scholar
Getmansky, Anna, and Zeitzoff, Thomas. 2014. “Terrorism and Voting: The Effect of Rocket Threat on Voting in Israeli Elections.” American Political Science Review 108 (3): 588–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanaoka, Chie, Shigeoka, Hitoshi, and Watanabe, Yasutora. 2018. “Do Risk Preferences Change? Evidence from the Great East Japan Earthquake.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 10 (2): 298–330.Google Scholar
Hazlett, Chad, and Xu, Yiqing. 2018. “Trajectory Balancing: A General Reweighting Approach to Causal Inference with Time-Series Cross-Sectional Data.” SSRN Working Paper 3214231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holman, Mirya R., Merolla, Jennifer L., and Zechmeister, Elizabeth J.. 2016. “Terrorist Threat, Male Stereotypes, and Candidate Evaluations.” Political Research Quarterly 69 (1): 134–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holman, Mirya R., Merolla, Jennifer L., Zechmeister, Elizabeth J., and Wang, Ding. 2019. “Terrorism, Gender, and the 2016 US Presidential Election.” Electoral Studies 61: 102033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imai, Kosuke, and Ratkovic, Marc. 2014. “Covariate Balancing Propensity Score.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology) 76 (1): 243–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inghelbrecht, Koen, Bekaert, Geert, Baele, Lieven Wei, Min. 2013. “Flights to Safety.” NBER Working Paper Series 19095: 1–51.Google Scholar
Jost, John, and Hunyady, Orsolya. 2003. “The Psychology of System Justification and the Palliative Function of Ideology.” European Review of Social Psychology 13(1): 111–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jost, John T. 2019. “A Quarter Century of System Justification Theory: Questions, Answers, Criticisms, and Societal Applications.” British Journal of Social Psychology 58 (2): 263–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jost, John T., Glaser, Jack, Kruglanski, Arie W., and Sulloway, Frank J.. 2003. “Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition.” Psychological Bulletin 129 (3): 339–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kahsay, Goytom Abraha, and Osberghaus, Daniel. 2016. “Extreme Weather and Risk Preference: Panel Evidence from Germany.” ZEW Discussion Papers 16.Google Scholar
Kalla, Joshua L., and Broockman, David E.. 2018. “The Minimal Persuasive Effects of Campaign Contact in General Elections: Evidence from 49 Field Experiments.” American Political Science Review 112 (1): 148–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kam, Cindy D., and Simas, Elizabeth N.. 2010. “Risk Orientations and Policy Frames.” The Journal of Politics 72 (2): 381–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kam, Cindy D., and Simas, Elizabeth N.. 2012. “Risk Attitudes, Candidate Characteristics, and Vote Choice.” Public Opinion Quarterly 76 (4): 747–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 1998. Pivotal Politics: A Theory of US Lawmaking. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKuen, Michael, Marcus, George E., Neuman, W. Russell, and Keele, Luke. 2007. “The Third Way: The Theory of Affective Intelligence and American Democracy.” In The Affect Effect: Dynamics Of Emotion in Political Thinking and Behavior, eds. Neuman, W. Russell, Marcus, George E., Crigler, Ann N., and MacKuen, Michael, 124–51. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marcus, George E., Neuman, W. Russell, and MacKuen, Michael. 2000. Affective Intelligence and Political Judgment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Merolla, Jennifer L., and Zechmeister, Elizabeth J.. 2009. “Terrorist Threat, Leadership, and the Vote: Evidence from Three Experiments.” Political Behavior 31 (4): 575–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgenstern, Scott, and Zechmeister, Elizabeth. 2001. “Better the Devil You Know Than the Saint You Don’t? Risk Propensity and Vote Choice in Mexico.” Journal of Politics 63 (1): 93–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paterson, Janice M., and Cary, Jane. 2002. “Organizational Justice, Change Anxiety, and Acceptance of Downsizing: Preliminary Tests of an AET-Based Model.” Motivation and Emotion 26 (1): 83–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rickershauser, Jill, and Aldrich, John H.. 2007. “‘It’s the Electability, Stupid’—Or Maybe Not? Electability, Substance, and Strategic Voting in Presidential Primaries.” Electoral Studies 26 (2): 371–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roose, Kevin, and Gabriel, J. X. Dance. 2020. “The Coronavirus Revives Facebook as a News Powerhouse.” New York Times, March 23. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/23/technology/coronavirus-facebook-news.html.Google Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth A. 1972. “The Strategy of Ambiguity: Uncertainty and Electoral Competition.” American Political Science Review 66 (2): 555–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simas, Elizabeth N. 2017. “The Effects of Electability on US Primary Voters.” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 27 (3): 274–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stenner, Karen. 2005. The Authoritarian Dynamic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, Cameron. 2020. “Now it’s Bernie v Biden.” The Australian. https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/super-tuesday-now-its-bernie-v-biden/news-story/11aff0ef309b7ce6be787d4457ab9510.Google Scholar
Stuart, Elizabeth A. 2010. “Matching Methods for Causal Inference: A Review and a Look Forward.” Statistical Science: A Review Journal of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics 25 (1): 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tausanovitch, Chris, and Vavreck, Lynn. 2020. “Democracy Fund + UCLA Nationscape.” October 10-17, 2019 (version 20200814). Retrieved from [https://www.voterstudygroup.org/downloads?key=e6ce64ec-a5d0-4a7b-a916-370dc017e713]Google Scholar
Van der Toorn, Jojanneke, Feinberg, Matthew, Jost, John T., Kay, Aaron C., Tyler, Tom R., Willer, Robb, and Wilmuth, Caroline. 2015. “A Sense of Powerlessness Fosters System Justification: Implications for the Legitimation of Authority, Hierarchy, and Government.” Political Psychology 36 (1): 93–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voors, Maarten J., Eleonora, E. M. Nillesen, Verwimp, Philip, Bulte, Erwin H., Lensink, Robert, and Soest, Daan P. Van. 2012. “Violent Conflict and Behavior: A Field Experiment in Burundi.” American Economic Review 102 (2): 941–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yglesias, Matthew, and Beauchamp, Zack. 2020. “4 winners and 3 losers on Super Tuesday.” Vox.com, March 3. https://www.vox.com/2020/3/3/21163826/super-tuesday-winners-losers-biden-sanders.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Bisbee and Honig supplementary material

Bisbee and Honig supplementary material

Download Bisbee and Honig supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 1.6 MB
Supplementary material: Link

Bisbee and Honig Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/S5YMS7
Link