The Consequences of a Broken Social Contract

Study 2

1 Purpose

The purpose of this study is two-fold: (1) provide a conceptual replication of the findings in Study 1; and (2) clarify the overarching values behind the social contract. The second goal, specifically, will serve as a first step in outlining what might eventually look like a rewriting of the social contract. To be clear, we are losing some of the precision we had in Study 1, but we are gaining much more clarity, for us and for participants, in mapping out the overarching values that will guide the state’s institutions.

2 Method

Participants completed the following blocks in a random order: (1) Value priorities and ratings and (2) randomly ordered attitude scales (anti-establishment, confidence in democratic institutions, and support for change). Then, they indicated their ideologies and completed a demographic questionnaire.

In the priorities block, they first indicated their perceived priorities of the US on paper (like the constitution). Then, they indicated their own priorities if they were to design a country from scratch (and be randomly born into it). And then, for each value, they indicated on a 0-100 scale the extent to which they believe the US provides this value (regardless of party).

The eight overarching values that participants were asked to weigh were: Capitalism, Compassion, Equality, Freedom, Happiness, National Pride, Progress, and Security. We arrived at these values by conducting a cluster analysis of the network of the 48 values of Study 1. The strength of the links in that network was operationalized as the cosine similarities between each pair of values’ GloVe-driven vectors. Then, we clustered the values together in that network and arrive at eight semantic clusters, each representing an overarching value.

In the scales block, participants just completed some randomly ordered likert scales.

3 Demographics

Race

race	N	Perc
asian	30	7.50
black	48	12.00
hispanic	23	5.75
multiracial	21	5.25
white	272	68.00
NA	6	1.50

Gender

gender	N	Perc
man	231	57.75
woman	168	42.00
NA	1	0.25

Education

edu	N	Perc
GED	113	28.25
2yearColl	44	11.00
4yearColl	179	44.75
MA	43	10.75
PHD	14	3.50
NA	7	1.75

Income

Age

m	sd
36.85	10.22

Political ideology

Participants were asked to rate their endorsement of the following ideologies, with the option of selecting Not Applicable if they were not sure what the ideology stands for: (1) Conservatism; (2) Liberalism; (3) Democratic Socialism; (4) Libertarianism; (5) Progressivism; and (6) Right-Wing Nationalism.

*Right-Wing Nationalism was removed from the visualization below because it was heavily right-skewed and therefore distorted the interpretability of the rest of the ideologies.

County-level data

We also asked them which county they live in. And then, with census data, we got their county’s GINI coefficient, median income, and population density.

GINI

Median income

Population density

4 Measures

US on paper

Participants were shown the following prompt:

First, we want you to think of the United States.

Since its independence and onwards, the formation of the US as a sovereign country was based on a number of values, all of which were inscribed in the constitution. This document, importantly, has evolved since its inception.

ON PAPER (in the constitution), what are the values that the US stands for? We want you to indicate the United State’s priorities ON PAPER.

To that end, you have a sum of 100 points. Please allocate those points to the following values based on how important you think they are to the US ON PAPER.

The values, presented in alphabetical order, are: Capitalism, Compassion, Equality, Freedom, Happiness, National Pride, Progress, and Security.

So, If you think a certain value is more important than another value, then the first value would get more points than the second. If you think a certain value is not important at all, it would get zero points. Must total 100 points.

value	mean_weight
capitalism	13.72
compassion	8.00
equality	15.31
freedom	24.42
happiness	10.21
nationalpride	8.24
progress	8.26
security	11.84

By ideology

I’ll categorize anyone who is over 50 on a certain ideology as part of that ideological group.

value	con	demsoc	lbrtn	lib	prog	rwn
capitalism	13.49	13.50	16.53	12.79	14.20	13.50
compassion	8.06	8.03	8.21	8.39	8.35	9.05
equality	13.42	16.45	13.53	16.55	14.34	11.86
freedom	24.68	23.31	21.08	23.62	22.63	23.43
happiness	10.66	10.12	10.44	10.21	9.84	11.40
nationalpride	9.33	8.35	9.08	8.65	9.08	9.55
progress	8.24	8.75	8.50	8.88	9.93	8.88
security	12.13	11.49	12.64	10.92	11.63	12.33

Ideal

Participants were shown the following prompt:

Now, we want you to imagine your ideal country.

Importantly, imagine this ideal state as if you are randomly born into its population. You can end up in any level of its citizenry.

So, if you could design a country completely from scratch and write its constitution, what would be its guiding values?

To that end, you have a sum of 100 points. Please allocate those points to the following values based on how important they are TO YOU.

The values, presented in alphabetical order, are: Capitalism, Compassion, Equality, Freedom, Happiness, National Pride, Progress, and Security.

So, If you think a certain value is more important than another value, then the first value would get more points than the second. If you think a certain value is not important at all, it would get zero points. Must total 100 points.

value	mean_weight
capitalism	6.70
compassion	12.48
equality	18.10
freedom	20.99
happiness	14.28
nationalpride	5.02
progress	10.77
security	11.67

By ideology

value	con	demsoc	lbrtn	lib	prog	rwn
capitalism	11.64	4.09	10.30	4.87	4.89	11.69
compassion	9.91	14.53	11.11	14.71	13.57	8.07
equality	12.38	22.34	14.74	21.13	21.09	11.62
freedom	22.84	17.67	21.91	18.24	17.98	22.26
happiness	12.98	15.11	13.70	14.89	15.24	13.45
nationalpride	7.95	3.73	7.21	4.15	4.33	10.02
progress	8.92	12.73	9.67	11.84	12.89	9.00
security	13.38	9.80	11.36	10.17	10.01	13.88

US in Practice

We then asked participants to indicate the extent to which they think the US provides each of these values. They were shown the following prompt:

Now, please indicate the extent to which the US government, regardless of party, is providing each of these values, IN PRACTICE.

In the scale below, 0 means that the US does not provide what this value stands for at all (it cannot get any worse) and 100 means that the US does provide what this value stands for to a great extent (it cannot get any better).

By ideology

value	con	demsoc	lbrtn	lib	prog	rwn
capitalism	62.69	73.20	67.91	71.99	72.62	56.40
compassion	38.91	25.98	36.44	26.38	26.86	44.45
equality	49.06	30.89	40.94	31.83	32.04	49.76
freedom	57.82	49.21	54.82	51.48	50.67	53.55
happiness	46.46	27.66	43.58	30.62	31.68	47.38
nationalpride	48.92	52.02	52.50	53.03	53.08	47.14
progress	50.40	36.79	47.67	39.20	38.28	51.36
security	60.83	55.53	62.97	56.58	56.02	55.40

Anti-establishment

A combination of items from ISPP international surveys (used here: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/viewFile/3949/3949) and a recent IPSOS survey (https://www.ipsos.com/en/broken-system-sentiment-2022).

Participants indicated their agreement (1-7) with the following statements:

1. The US’s economy is rigged to advantage the rich and powerful
2. Traditional politicians and parties don’t care about people like me
3. Experts in this country don’t understand the lives of people like me
4. Most of the time we can trust people in the government to do what is right (R)

R indicates a reverse-scored item

Cronbach’s alpha = 0.788

Confidence in Democratic Institutions

These items were taken from the World Values Survey.

Participants indicated how confident they are (1-5) in the following institutions:

1. Justice System / Courts
2. The Government
3. Congress

Cronbach’s alpha = 0.89

Support for change

Items used here (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/epub/10.1177/0032321719874362), but also appears, in various forms, in other surveys (including the WVS).

Participants indicated their agreement (1-7) with the following items:

change_rad: The way this country works needs to be radically changed.
change_grad: Our society must be gradually improved by reforms.
change_def: Our present society must be valiantly defended against all subversive forces.

“Values Met” scores

With participants’ indication of priorities for the US on paper, their own ideal priorities, and the extent to which they believe the US provides each of the values, we can create a weighted “values met” score per participant per perspective.

What we’ll do is weigh every US In Practice score by the weight the participant assigned to it and then take that weighted mean. So, for each perspective, we’ll have a score of 0-100 that takes into account what they believe they should get and what they believe they do get.

5 Analysis

Correlation plot

Let’s start with some correlations.
valuesMet_US: The perceived extent to which the government is living up to its own perceived promise
valuesMet_IDEAL: The perceived extent to which the government is living up to the participant’s ideal values
antiest: Anti-establishment sentiment
confindeminst: Confidence in democratic institutions
change_rad: The way this country works needs to be radically changed
change_grad: Our society must be gradually improved by reforms
change_def: Our present society must be valiantly defended against all subversive forces

Model 1

Does the perceived extent to which the government is living up to its promise predict anti-establishment sentiment?

Model 1A

No Controls

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-28)

Predictor	\(b\)	95% CI	\(t\)	\(\mathit{df}\)	\(p\)
Intercept	0.00	[-0.09, 0.09]	0.00	398	> .999
ScalevaluesMet US	-0.35	[-0.44, -0.25]	-7.34	398	< .001

Model 1B

Controlling for ideology (conservatism) and party ID

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-29)

Predictor	\(b\)	95% CI	\(t\)	\(\mathit{df}\)	\(p\)
Intercept	-0.17	[-0.32, -0.02]	-2.18	359	.030
ScalevaluesMet US	-0.27	[-0.36, -0.17]	-5.48	359	< .001
Scaleideo con	-0.27	[-0.41, -0.14]	-3.90	359	< .001
Party idIndependent	0.37	[0.13, 0.61]	3.02	359	.003
Party idRepublican	0.29	[-0.05, 0.63]	1.69	359	.091

Model 1C

Controlling for ideology (conservatism), party ID, age, gender, education, income, race, county inequality, county median income, and county density.

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-30)

Predictor	\(b\)	95% CI	\(t\)	\(\mathit{df}\)	\(p\)
Intercept	-0.32	[-0.72, 0.09]	-1.53	310	.127
ScalevaluesMet US	-0.24	[-0.34, -0.14]	-4.62	310	< .001
Scaleideo con	-0.19	[-0.35, -0.04]	-2.52	310	.012
Party idIndependent	0.29	[0.03, 0.55]	2.18	310	.030
Party idRepublican	0.17	[-0.20, 0.54]	0.89	310	.375
Scaleage	0.00	[-0.11, 0.10]	-0.01	310	.996
Genderwoman	-0.02	[-0.23, 0.19]	-0.19	310	.850
Scaleedu num	-0.07	[-0.18, 0.04]	-1.26	310	.209
Scaleincome num	-0.20	[-0.32, -0.09]	-3.51	310	< .001
Raceblack	0.11	[-0.38, 0.61]	0.46	310	.645
Racehispanic	0.48	[-0.10, 1.07]	1.62	310	.106
Racemultiracial	0.39	[-0.17, 0.95]	1.37	310	.172
Racewhite	0.22	[-0.19, 0.64]	1.06	310	.290
Scalecounty gini	-0.01	[-0.14, 0.12]	-0.17	310	.866
Scalecounty medianincome	-0.04	[-0.15, 0.06]	-0.78	310	.434
Scalecounty density	0.04	[-0.09, 0.17]	0.58	310	.565

Model 2

Does similarity between perceived guiding values of the participant’s ideal and perceived guiding values of the US in practice predict anti-establishment sentiment?

Model 2A

No Controls

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-31)

Predictor	\(b\)	95% CI	\(t\)	\(\mathit{df}\)	\(p\)
Intercept	0.00	[-0.09, 0.09]	0.00	398	> .999
ScalevaluesMet IDEAL	-0.49	[-0.57, -0.40]	-11.08	398	< .001

Model 2B

Controlling for ideology (conservatism) and party ID

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-32)

Predictor	\(b\)	95% CI	\(t\)	\(\mathit{df}\)	\(p\)
Intercept	-0.14	[-0.28, 0.01]	-1.86	359	.064
ScalevaluesMet IDEAL	-0.41	[-0.51, -0.32]	-8.36	359	< .001
Scaleideo con	-0.15	[-0.29, -0.01]	-2.16	359	.031
Party idIndependent	0.29	[0.06, 0.51]	2.46	359	.014
Party idRepublican	0.24	[-0.09, 0.56]	1.43	359	.154

Model 2C

Controlling for ideology (conservatism), party ID, age, gender, education, income, race, county inequality, county median income, and county density.

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-33)

Predictor	\(b\)	95% CI	\(t\)	\(\mathit{df}\)	\(p\)
Intercept	-0.25	[-0.64, 0.14]	-1.26	310	.207
ScalevaluesMet IDEAL	-0.39	[-0.50, -0.29]	-7.30	310	< .001
Scaleideo con	-0.08	[-0.23, 0.07]	-1.08	310	.281
Party idIndependent	0.21	[-0.04, 0.46]	1.68	310	.094
Party idRepublican	0.13	[-0.22, 0.48]	0.72	310	.472
Scaleage	0.00	[-0.10, 0.10]	-0.01	310	.994
Genderwoman	-0.06	[-0.26, 0.14]	-0.56	310	.578
Scaleedu num	-0.03	[-0.13, 0.08]	-0.52	310	.603
Scaleincome num	-0.21	[-0.32, -0.10]	-3.85	310	< .001
Raceblack	0.02	[-0.45, 0.48]	0.07	310	.945
Racehispanic	0.46	[-0.09, 1.02]	1.63	310	.103
Racemultiracial	0.39	[-0.15, 0.92]	1.43	310	.153
Racewhite	0.20	[-0.20, 0.60]	0.99	310	.323
Scalecounty gini	-0.01	[-0.13, 0.12]	-0.13	310	.895
Scalecounty medianincome	-0.03	[-0.13, 0.07]	-0.59	310	.556
Scalecounty density	0.04	[-0.08, 0.17]	0.66	310	.507

6 Visualization

Figure 1

Figure 1: The perceived priorities of the US on paper (in light blue) and the perceived extent to which the government is living up to each of these values (shaded area).

Figure 2

Figure 2: The desired priorities of participants if they could design their own ideal country (in light red) and the perceived extent to which the government is living up to each of these values (shaded area).