Study Finds Bias in 2008 Campaign -- Among Men Only

Maybe there weren't that many "P.U.M.A.s" after all.

A new Harvard study reports that male voters displayed "in-group" bias for people who shared their candidate preference in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary, while women voters did not.

The tendency to favor fellow Obama or Clinton supporters was measured through a generosity exercise, the "dictator game," which found that male voters chose to be more generous to others who supported their preferred candidate, be it Clinton or Obama. Women voters did not exhibit that tendency. "In-group favoritism existed in male Democrats after Clinton's concession in June," reports the study, and "persisted into August."

What about all those unity gestures during the Democratic Convention?

Researchers say that they worked -- male in-group bias plummeted after the convention. "The public performance of reconciliation seemed to have an immediate effect," said Yochai Benkler, a Harvard professor known for research into technology's effect on politics and media.
Benkler added that the demonstrations of unity appeared to have a larger impact than the cessation of the primary, or the awareness that Democrats faced a "common adversary" in the general election against John McCain.

The research was conducted among 395 Democratic voters in Cambridge, MA, so researchers cautioned that the findings may not represent voters around the country, nor impact how people vote. "It is not clear that this lack of in-group bias translated into voting patterns in the 2008 general election," the study noted, "or that our observations were representative of Democrats outside of Cambridge, MA."

The study, officially titled "Dynamic remodeling of in-group bias during the 2008 presidential election," will appear in a forthcoming issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science Early Edition. I received an embargoed copy from Harvard's Berkman Center, which runs an interdisciplinary research group on cooperation, and this is the first publication to emerge from that group.

--
Ari Melber writes for The Nation.

Comments

[AnnfromCA]

Interesting hypothesis. I suppose it says that men are less open-minded than women.

[kempis]

Maybe the sample is too small, but the findings support what I experienced. I lost a long-time male friend who totally hated Hillary and anyone who supported her--to the point of insanity. After the convention, he mellowed, but it was too late to save our friendship. His attacks on anyone who preferred Hillary to Obama were merciless and more than a little unhinged. I knew he was something of a control freak who obsessed on people who disagreed with him, but I never thought he'd viciously rip into me for supporting a different Democratic candidate. I was wrong.

[Freesia2]

No there weren't that many PUMAs. Oh there were women who went through a grief period, but PUMAs per se? After you sifted through the Republicans pretending to be disgruntled women online, there weren't many PUMAs.

I followed every piece of information I could find during the election because I couldn't believe that there were women who would go from a Hillary to a Sarah. You don't go from bright to dim with any logic. And there were tons of little tells: a blogger who infilterated the PUMA "convention" made up of about 60 people sharing Whoppers at a Burger King (and among them were some Republican men and known racists). There were women leaving PUMA sites who became aware that their donations didn't seem to deliver the promised goods such as buses that were supposed to take them to protest in Denver. And there were Republicans who boasted of going online to pretend because it was fun..... After awhile real Hillary supporters knew that they were being played by Republicans and threw their support to Obama. That left about a pawful of genuine PUMAs.

Greg Mitchell wrote a piece about the effect of the PUMAs. It seems the real reward was that McCain overestimated them and made decision based on their perceived "threat" to Obama. Such as picking Sarah Palin. Possibly one of the worst moves in political history.

Their strength was in their myth. Some people believed in the hype. Some people got very fooled.

[Lemeritus]

"After you sifted through the Republicans pretending to be disgruntled women online, there weren't many PUMAs."

Too bad McCain bet the farm on the PUMAs. Now they're an endangered species. Who will save the PUMAs?

[kathy001]

This is something that I had suspected but never dug into. Funny, the Republicans who participated in this little charade thought they were sabatoging Obama's campaign when, in reality, they were actually helping McCain sabotage his own campaign. Sometimes you get luck and what goes around really does come around. LOL!

[Freesia2]

Exactly. :-) I wonder if McCain regrets that big meeting he took with them in Washington. 75 people I think it was.Which I think may have been the entire membership or real PUMAs.

The so called leaders of the PUMAs were more or less outed on tv. David Schuster I believe did the interview. Turned out they had donated to McCain in the past - but they weren't Republicans. Really they weren't. ( ;-) ) And one of them, Will Bower, actually quit his job to run the PUMA organization full time. Unless he's independently wealthy, who was paying his bills? I think we can guess. But say he was using the donations - they were for PUMA activism, not to pay his rent. The whole thing was a ruse of one kind or another. I can't prove it of course, amateur detective that I am, but I'd bet the farm on it. And McCain bet his candidacy on it.

Anyway, McCain listened to the PUMAs. And made his bad choice in reaction. And I'm so glad he did. I now have a President Obama and I couldn't be happier. We should write them a thank you note. I'm thinking a pretty card with a kitten on it. :-)

[dadw5boys]

Harvard Medical School research showed that only 1 of 14 people who have a medical malpractice law suit ever hire a lawyer.

So they have shown that Insurance Company's have been lairs about how much Insurance cost have risen because of law suits.

[jhamm1]

I wouldn't trust a "Harvard study" that provided me with the time of day.

For, as some of us are becoming increasingly aware, Harvard's supposed status as the epicenter for academic excellence has been blown completely out of proportion, and if you examine the feedback from the real experts of the academic community toward Harvard graduates and professors in History, political science, sociology, and similar fields of study, you'll notice a peculiar pattern of criticism, citing the fact that HArvard students and professors far too often use limited scopes for case examples, make snap judgements with little or no corroborating evidence, and base far too heavy a realiance on syllogism as a means of performing academic studies.

[reggieb]

Where is your corroborating evidence? You just typed a long winded "some people say" which is a faux news technique to give an unsourced opinion.

[lisakaz2]

That's funny because from my standpoint (a PhD trying to get a permanent job) the ones getting the jobs are Harvard PhDs. Having that degree is seen as a big advantage imo. I don't know who is telling you it isn't. I've seen many faculty lists of prominent places typically include at least one Harvard PhD.