Messaging and its Implications: Investigating Public Attitudes Towards Social Security Reform

Abstract

This thesis investigates the American public’s attitudes towards Social Security in the context of its impending insolvency crisis, and how these attitudes are shaped by values-laden messaging. First, it examines the causes and implications of Social Security’s insolvency crisis, and the popular reforms meant to address it. Next, it assesses the political and pragmatic barriers that have prevented substantive reform, and how these barriers are reflected in contemporary political messaging. This paper argues that a major barrier to substantive Social Security reform is elected representatives’ strong incentive to maximize electoral popularity while minimizing electoral risks. Following an analysis of the values which underly Social Security’s popularity, it identifies individualism and collectivism as particularly important values that might influence American voters’ preferences with respect to Social Security reform. To test this theory, I conduct a framing experiment which utilizes original survey data to assess the causal effect of individualist and collectivist policy messaging on Americans’ Social Security preferences. Results from this experiment suggest that while the individualist and collectivist frames used had no effect on voters’ preferences, Americans’ preferences are significantly correlated with measures relevant to how they perceive themselves to be impacted by reform. This paper contributes to existing literature on Social Security’s insolvency crisis by analyzing voters’ preferences through a behavioral lens, and testing the role of individualist and collectivist framing in shaping the policy environment surrounding Social Security.