This paper asks whether voters’ affect toward groups made salient by housing policy explains opposition to new development and reforms. Drawing on symbolic politics theory, the authors test whether dislike of developers, investors, government approvers, or incoming residents helps account for anti-development preferences—especially for policies that are not tied to a specific local project. The contribution is experimental and causal: the authors report evidence from survey experiments and short-form video manipulations that link affect toward these actors to policy judgments.
Data and methods
The authors rely on experiments described in the abstract to test their argument. They contrast traditional explanations such as homeowners’ self-interest and NIMBYism with a symbolic-politics account, and they use survey experiments and short-form video treatments to manipulate affect toward target groups named in housing debates.
Main findings
Experiments reported in the abstract indicate that affect toward developers, investors, government actors who approve housing, and residents who move in helps explain anti-development preferences when policies make those groups salient. The abstract also states that short-form videos that manipulate affect toward developers produce "meaningful downstream effects on support for new development and permitting reforms," which the authors present as causal evidence.
Bold takeaways: symbolic politics framework, experimental evidence, affect toward developers affects policy support
- Opposition to development is linked to dislike of groups made salient by housing policies, not only to NIMBYism or homeowner self-interest.
- Short video manipulations of affect toward developers change support for development and permitting reforms, presented as causal evidence.
