Non-economists suffer from anti-foreign bias, a tendency to underestimate the benefits of interacting with foreigners. But how stubborn is this bias? A well-crafted survey by Michael Hiscox has the answers. Everyone in his sample was asked “Do you favor or oppose increasing trade with other nations?” and “Is that strongly favor (oppose) or somewhat favor (oppose)?,” combined with one of the following introductions:

  • Pro-Trade Intro: Many people believe that increasing trade with other nations creates jobs and allows Americans to buy more types of goods at lower prices.
  • Anti-Trade Intro: Many people believe that increasing trade with other nations leads to job losses and exposes American producers to unfair competition.
  • Both Intros: Many people believe that increasing trade with other nations creates jobs and allows Americans to buy more types of goods at lower prices. Others believe that increasing trade with other nations leads to job losses and exposes American producers to unfair competition.
  • No Intro

Big results:

1. The Pro-Trade Intro had no effect; people who heard it were no more supportive of free trade than people who had No Intro.

2. Hearing either the Anti-Trade Intro OR Both Intros sharply reduced support for free trade. The Anti-Trade Intro reduced support by 17 percentage-points; Both Intros reduced support by 19 percentage-points!

Hiscox puts an optimistic spin on these results: People only seem to be protectionist due to framing effects. A more natural conclusion to draw, though, is that free debate favors protectionism. If both free-traders and protectionists get to voice their opinions, the public becomes more protectionist than if neither free-traders nor protectionists get to do so. And under democracy, of course, the former is precisely what happens.