Working Paper: CEPR ID: DP17005
Authors: Leonardo Bursztyn; Ingar Haaland; Georgy Egorov; Aakaash Rao; Christopher Roth
Abstract: Dissent plays an important role in any society, but dissenters are often silenced through social sanctions. Beyond their persuasive effects, rationales providing arguments supporting dissenters' causes can increase the public expression of dissent by providing a "social cover" for voicing otherwise-stigmatized positions. Motivated by a simple theoretical framework, we experimentally show that liberals are more willing to post a Tweet opposing the movement to defund the police, are seen as less prejudiced, and face lower social sanctions when their Tweet implies they had first read scientific evidence supporting their position. Analogous experiments with conservatives demonstrate that the same mechanisms facilitate anti-immigrant expression. Our findings highlight both the power of rationales and their limitations in enabling dissent and shed light on phenomena such as social movements, political correctness, propaganda, and anti-minority behavior.
Keywords: No keywords provided
JEL Codes: D83; D91; P16; J15
Edges that are evidenced by causal inference methods are in orange, and the rest are in light blue.
| Cause | Effect |
|---|---|
| availability of social cover (G52) | likelihood of posting dissenting tweets (D72) |
| availability of rationales (D45) | expression of dissent (Y40) |
| perception of social cover (Z13) | likelihood of facing social sanctions (Z13) |
| availability of rationales (D45) | belief that dissenters are less prejudiced (J15) |
| availability of social cover (G52) | likelihood of conservatives posting supportive tweets (D79) |