Home > News > Good to Know: What is sociotropic voting?
209 views 17 min 0 Comment

Good to Know: What is sociotropic voting?

Why the national economy matters more than voters’ pocketbooks.

Alexander Kustov - August 13, 2024

With the 2024 U.S. presidential election on the horizon, the economy has taken center stage. In particular, former President Trump is actively stoking economic anxiety, hoping to blunt the momentum that Kamala Harris’ campaign has built since she replaced Joe Biden as the Democratic Party nominee. In one sense, this strategy is understandable, as a significant number of Americans have expressed concern about the broader economy.

But in another sense, this tactic might seem puzzling. That’s because polling data shows that many Americans actually feel pretty good about their financial situation. The disconnect is evident in Pew Research data, which found earlier this year that 41% of Americans rate their personal finances positively, yet just 23% say the same about the national economy. 

Why the perception gap?

This gap between personal and national perceptions of the U.S. economy presents a critical challenge for Democrats. And this also gives Republicans a potential opportunity. To understand this phenomenon and its potential electoral impact, we need to explore a seemingly obscure – but insightful – academic concept: “sociotropic voting.” In short, this refers to the tendency of voters to prioritize their perception of the national economy over their personal financial situation when making electoral decisions. 

Conventional wisdom often suggests that people vote based on their own personal economic situation. Ronald Reagan’s famous 1980 campaign question – “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?” – perfectly encapsulates this idea of “pocketbook voting.” But what if voters are actually looking beyond their own financial circumstances when they cast their ballots? Over the past few decades, political scientists have uncovered surprising evidence about voting behavior that challenges long-held assumptions about self-interested voters.

Yes, voters look beyond their own wallets

In the early 1980s, researchers Donald Kinder and D. Roderick Kiewiet set out to explain why objective economic indicators like unemployment rates seemed to predict election outcomes at the national level, but individual voters’ personal economic situation didn’t correlate strongly with their voting choices. Using the best available longitudinal surveys at the time, they made an intriguing discovery: Voters tend to prioritize their perceptions of the national economy over their personal financial circumstances when making voting decisions. They called this phenomenon “sociotropic” voting, in contrast to “egotropic” voting based solely on personal finances.

For example, a voter might have received a raise and feel financially secure. But if they believe the national economy is struggling, they’re more likely to vote against the party that is currently in charge. Conversely, voters facing personal financial challenges still tend to support the incumbent if they think the overall economy is improving.

Since then, researchers have replicated these trends many times across different countries and elections, using various types of data and economic assessments. While personal finances certainly still play a role, studies consistently show that voters’ views on the overall state of the economy have a much bigger impact on their voting decisions. This pattern holds true across diverse political contexts and demographic groups, establishing the idea of sociotropic concerns as a key concept in understanding political behavior.

Why do people think this way?

Researchers have explored several reasons why voters might prioritize the national economy over their own wallets. First, some voters might care about their country’s well-being beyond their immediate material self-interest. A sense of genuine altruism or patriotism might drive their voting choices. There is some evidence for this common “prosocial” interpretation, but it is not the only possible one.

An important alternative interpretation is that some people might use the national economic snapshot as a shortcut to judge how policies affect them personally. They might reason that if the country is doing well economically, their own households are likely to benefit in the long run, even if they’re not seeing immediate personal gains. Additionally, it might be easier to form an opinion about the national economy than to figure out how specific policies impact one’s own finances. The national media routinely report national economic indicators. But understanding the actual personal financial impacts of your vote choice often requires more complex analysis.

In reality, people probably incorporate a mix of all these factors when they decide to vote sociotropically. As D. Roderick Kiewiet and Michael Lewis-Beck acknowledge, “virtually all people value their own welfare as well as the welfare of their friends, neighbors, co-workers, and fellow citizens.”

Next: How sociotropic concerns affect policy views

This sociotropic thinking doesn’t just affect how people vote – it also shapes their views on specific policies. An individual’s political views can also reflect noneconomic considerations related to culture and social cohesion. When it comes to immigration, for instance, people’s opinions are generally more influenced by how they think immigration affects the country as a whole, vs. any personal impact from immigration. They might support or oppose immigration policies based on their perception of how these policies affect the national job market or the country’s cultural identity, rather than their own job security.

This pattern extends to other policy areas as well. Perceptions of national impact – not personal circumstances – tend to shape people’s views on international trade, environmental regulations, and even education policy. A factory worker might support free trade agreements, or a childless voter might back increased education funding, not because of personal benefit, but because they believe it’s good for the country overall. In each case, sociotropic concerns about the nation’s economic competitiveness, long-term sustainability, or future prospects often outweigh immediate self-interest implications.

Not everyone agrees: the chicken-and-egg problem 

It’s worth noting that not all social scientists are convinced by the idea of sociotropic voting. Self-interest is clearly something that shapes most people’s choices, including all-important choices in politics. As a result, some researchers suggest that personal finances might still be better at explaining voting patterns – if we measure these patterns properly.

More importantly, others worry that people’s political views might shape their national economic perceptions, rather than the other way around. For instance, people who support the incumbent party might be more likely to view the economy positively, while those who oppose the incumbents might view it more negatively, regardless of actual economic conditions. Similarly, when someone is already opposed to immigration or trade due to their personal convictions, it’s also easier for them to believe or say that these policies are also bad for the country.

Why personal and national views diverge

Regardless of what one believes about the origin of sociotropic perceptions, the overwhelming fact is that people’s views of their own financial situation often differ from how they see the national economy. Right now in the U.S., for instance, many people feel okay about their own finances but are pessimistic about the country’s economic health.

This perception gap reflects several factors. Most obviously, people have more direct information about their own finances, but likely less of an understanding about the national economy. Sometimes, an individual’s situation is really different from the broader economic picture. Research also suggests that negative media coverage of particular economic indicators like gas prices or inflation can easily sway people’s perceptions about the national economy.

Furthermore, partisan bias plays a significant role in shaping economic perceptions. In an election year, when the party controlling the White House might change, partisans tend to think the national economy is doing well. Voters who support the opposing party, in contrast, tend to have a dim view of the national economy. While people’s views of their own finances are usually more anchored in reality, their assessments of the national economy are more – though not at all entirely – susceptible to partisan influence.

So what does this mean for the 2024 U.S. election? 

The unusually large gap between perceptions about personal finances and the national economic outlook presents both challenges and opportunities this election year. If voters’ views of the national economy improve to match their personal optimism, expect to see a significant boost in support for the Democratic presidential ticket. However, if the gap persists, Republicans could maintain a wedge to focus on broader economic concerns, even in the face of positive objective economic indicators.

The sociotropic perspective suggests that shifts in how people view the national economy – not shifts in how voters see their own financial situation – could have a bigger impact on the election. This means that how parties and candidates manage to frame the national economic narrative could be crucial. Democrats might need to convince voters that the economy is strong overall, even if some voters are struggling personally. Republicans, on the other hand, might focus on pockets of economic hardship to shape a narrative of national economic struggle, even if many voters feel personally secure. 

Some analysts suggest that the change of the Democratic presidential nominee from Biden to Harris may help Democrats shed the perception that the incumbent party is responsible for rising prices. In fact, the August FT Michigan Ross poll suggested that more Americans trust Harris to lead the U.S. economy than they trust Donald Trump. That’s the first time in a while the Democrats have come out on top in this survey series. Of course, the economy is not static, and it remains to be seen if this turnaround will last until November.

As we approach Election Day, understanding sociotropic thinking is crucial for anyone trying to make sense of public opinion and voting behavior. These trends remind us that in politics, perceptions of the collective good often outweigh narrow self-interest. And the research also suggests that appealing solely to voters’ personal considerations may be less effective than crafting or framing policies in terms of how these moves will benefit the nation as a whole.

Related Good Authority posts:

Further reading:

Alex Kustov is a 2024-2025 Good Authority fellow.

This post is part of our Good to Know explainer series. Do you have a proposal for an explainer, either one you want to read, or one you would write? Send us your suggestions or proposals using this form! Please note that we will review all proposals but not all will be published. Anyone can request an explainer; potential authors must hold a PhD in political science.

Stay up to date on all things politics and political science. Sign up for Good Authority’s weekly newsletter by entering your email address in the box below.

* indicates required