What explains ideological splits over which political problems deserve attention? A large survey experiment compares how respondents in the United Kingdom and the United States judge 41 political problems across three distinct dimensions.
🧪 How the Survey Was Designed:
- A large survey experiment fielded in the United Kingdom and the United States.
- A new measurement approach that asks respondents to evaluate 41 political problems on three separate dimensions:
- individual badness (how bad the outcome is for an individual),
- social severity (how widespread or prevalent the problem is), and
- priority for government action (whether government should address it).
🔍 What the Data Show:
- Large ideological divergences appear in beliefs about social severity and in judgments of priority for government action.
- No large ideological divergence is observed in beliefs about individual problem badness.
- These patterns are observed in the United States but not in the United Kingdom.
💡 Why It Matters:
- The findings indicate that perceptions of problem prevalence (social severity) — and how that shapes views of government responsibility — are a key source of polarization over problem prioritization in the United States.
- This distinction between perceived prevalence and perceived harm helps explain when and why partisans disagree about what problems should be addressed by government.
