INSTITUTIONAL SIGNALING AND ITS EFFECTS ON THE ATTITUDES, NORM PERCEPTIONS, AND BEHAVIOR OF THE PUBLIC

Abstract

When a prominent institution makes a decision on an important social issue, does the impact go beyond the material consequences of its actions to shape the public’s attitudes, perceptions of norms, or behavior? In the present dissertation, I use a mix of quasi-experimental and experimental methods in online and field settings to evaluate the effects and underlying mechanisms of institutional signaling. Across two experiments using large original panel data, I show that the US Supreme Court Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022) ruling on abortion and the Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (2023) ruling on affirmative action were associated with changes in the public’s social norm perceptions regarding abortion and affirmative action, respectively. Using objective and subject measures of the public’s reactions to these rulings, I argue that Supreme Court rulings shape individuals’ norm perceptions indirectly, by triggering observable reactions of the media and close others. I also show that in some cases, Supreme Court rulings can shape the public’s attitudes: after the Court ruling on affirmative action, white Republican and white Democrat respondents’ personal attitudes toward affirmative action, racism, and diversity politically polarized. I further test the behavioral effects of institutional signaling using a field experiment in a different domain: a private institution signaling information about its identity. I show that a small business signaling the racial identity of its ownership can have heterogeneous effects on customer spending based on customer race. Together, these studies show how institutions can shape the way people think and behave relative to important social issues as well as their perceptions of where society stands on these topics.