Iwv payfair summary analysis 4

A fool, Mr. Edgeworth, is one who has never made an experiment.

— Erasmus Darwin

Paycheck Fairness Act & the “War on Women” The impact of Progressive and Center-Right messages on women and the workplace

Overview The Independent Women’s Voice (IWV) commissioned Evolving Strategies to test the effectiveness of messages related to the Paycheck Fairness Act and the “War on Women” narrative.

Will the “War on Women” campaign work? Is the PFA an effective weapon to use against Republicans? These questions are impossible to answer with traditional surveys.

To answer these questions, Evolving Strategies executed a PocketTrial online message experiment testing the impact of PFA messages from Progressive Democratic Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the Independent Women’s Voice (IWV). Our PocketTrial quantifies the true impact of a message using a customized, double-blind, and fully controlled experimental design. It’s like your own small-scale clinical drug trial, but it’s your message we’re testing.

Respondents were randomly assigned to one of five conditions in a true experiment – four treatment groups and a control. All treatment conditions included the Progressive message; three treatment conditions also included IWV messages on the PFA. We surveyed only pure independents and weak partisans – no strong Republicans or Democrats were included (a non-probability, opt-in respondent sample of 1,006 registered independent and weak partisans fielded May 24-29th). Statistical analyses were then performed to identify significant treatment impacts.

Summary Analysis When women hear both sides of the PFA argument, overall support for the PFA plummets and weakens dramatically. PFA support declines most when it is reframed in economic terms. Most surprisingly, we find that debate on the PFA actually hurts President Obama substantially with the Independents and weak partisan women who traditionally supported him and helped put him in the White House.

•

The vast majority of women (74 percent) agree at least somewhat that workplace discrimination is a serious problem; but this doesn’t necessarily translate into PFA support.

•

Support for the PFA dramatically decreases when respondents read both the Progressive message about the PFA and IWV’s message highlighting the illeconomic effects of burdensome regulation like the PFA.

•

Strong support for the bill drops 35 points to a mere 10 percent when respondents read IWV’s Economic PFA message in addition to the Progressive message.

•

The results indicate that a message focused solely on arguing that the “wage gap” is a myth is risky, possibly because it fights the PFA within the terms put forth by feminist groups on the left.

•

The “War on Women” narrative falls flat; only 34 percent of women across all conditions agree there is a Republican “War on Women”.

•

The debate over the PFA reduces support for President Obama among women who voted for him in 2008 by 12-points, from 87 to 75 percent.

•

The debate over the PFA also reduces support for ObamaCare and positive perceptions of Obama’s economic plans.

1

Experiment and Survey Design In order to test the effectiveness of competing messages on the Paycheck Fairness Act, respondents were randomly assigned to one of five conditions in a true experiment – four treatment groups and a control: 1. Control Condition Respondents read and rated Progressive and IWV messages on the PFA after the primary policy questions were answered, and otherwise recieved the same survey questions as other respondents.

2. Progressive Condition (Progressive-Only Message) Respondents read the core arguments from a recent article by Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

3. IWV “Choice” Condition (Choice+Progressive Messages) Respondents read 1) an argument focused on why the PFA is not necessary because women are already protected from wage discrimination, the wage gap is a myth, and differences are caused by women’s choices AND 2) read the Progressive message on the PFA. 4. IWV “Economy” Condition (Economy+Progressive Messages) Respondents read 1) an argument focused on why the PFA would be bad for business, job creation and the economy AND 2) read the Progressive message on the PFA. 5. IWV “Comprehensive” Condition (Economy+Choice+Progressive Messages) Respondents read 1) IWV’s “Choice” message, 2) IWV’s “Economy” message, AND 3) the Progressive message on the PFA. All respondents otherwise answered the same survey questions in an identical survey instrument.

The order in which the messages were presented respondents in each condition was randomized, as were other questions and responses where appropriate.

This means we can see how each message and combination of messages impact opinion compared to the control. Using statistical analysis, we can determine which messages are effective and which aren’t.

Respondents in the control group were not exposed to a "treatment." Rather in the survey we simply asked respondents if they found each argument "convincing" or "unconvincing" (the way they would in a standard poll to test the effectiveness of a message).

In this case, the Progressive messages were seen as very convincing; and the IWV arguments were less convincing. Our experimental results demonstrate that what people SAY is convincing/ unconvincing doesn't necessarily translate into how a message will actually impact their relevant opinions or behavior.

2

Support for the Paycheck Fairness Act The overwhelming majority of the public has never heard of the Paycheck Fairness Act (61 percent, with just 13 percent knowing a little or a lot about the PFA). In fact, about two-thirds of women (66 percent) have never heard of the law.

We found that the vast majority of women (74 percent) agree at least somewhat that workplace discrimination is a serious problem; but this doesn’t necessarily mean they want more government regulation to “solve” the problem.

Support for and opposition to the PFA is easily shifted and weak when both sides of the argument are heard.

The Progressive message on the PFA shifts opinion substantially in favor of the PFA, but IWV’s economic message, that the PFA would be bad for business and the economy, shifts it back towards balance.

Surprisingly, a message focused on popping the myth of the wage gap and emphasizing the choices women make is relatively ineffective at blunting the pro-PFA argument.

Women move most when IWV highlights the ill-economic effects of burdensome regulation like the PFA.

3

PFA Strong Support & the “War on Women” When respondents read about the economic ramifications of the bill (in addition to Progressive arguments), support dramatically decreases. “Strong” support for the bill drops 35-points to a mere 10 percent.

Even the Choice condition, which does not decrease total support significantly, is effective in significantly decreasing the strength of support for the PFA. This is simply not a burning issue, even for women who voted Democratic in ’08.

In general, neither men nor women believe that there is a Republican “War on Women.” The Progressive message on the PFA does not increase agreement that there is a WoW. The IWV Economy message on the economy appears somewhat effective at decreasing agreement and increasing disagreement among women that there is a WoW. The Progressive and IWV messages shift opinion on discrimination only a small amount. These views seem much more rooted, most likely because its formed through direct experience and the experience of friends and families.

4

Presidential Vote, ObamaCare & Economic Plans It has been suggested that Progressive politicians and the Obama campaign seem to think playing gender politics will help boost their vote among women in November, but our results suggest the opposite.

Surprisingly, the Progressive message in favor of the PFA is not effective at increasing support.

In fact, the debate over the PFA reduces support for President Obama among women who already voted for him in 2008 by 12points, from 87-75 percent.

Romney’s support jumps 12-points from 13 percent to 25 percent.

This negative impact on Obama’s standing is visible in our analysis of the policy questions as well.

For instance, the IWV Economic argument significantly increases opposition to ObamaCare among all Obama ’08 voters and among female Obama voters. It also significantly increases the perception that Obama’s economic plans will not work among female Obama voters.

In short, the PFA debate appears to be a potentially serious problem for Progressives in 2012.

5

Views on Fairness & the PFA We asked respondents to fill out a series of measures about fairness and “distributive justice,” an important dimension of people’s moral framework. The measures are a subset of those used by Ravi Iyer, one of the researchers working in the same nexus as Jonathan Haidt, an academic psychologist who recently released a popular book on politics and moral frameworks.

We asked respondents how morally wrong they thought certain situations were that violated the values of proportionality (someone getting what they deserve), equality (getting an equal outcome), and need (getting what they need).

We found that a woman’s perception of fairness based on equal outcomes, the extent to which she considers equal outcomes relevant to morality, is extremely important in driving support for and opposition to the PFA. The greater moral weight a woman gives to “equal outcomes,” the more likely she is to support the PFA. Furthermore, support for Fairness as Equal Outcomes becomes relevant only when women are engaged with arguments for and against the PFA. In other words, the arguments are working; women are using their individual moral frameworks on Fairness to assess the arguments, and their opinion moves in response.

The impact of support for Fairness as Equal Outcomes is larger and more consistent on a woman’s opinion than being a Republican, a Democrat, a Social Liberal/Conservative, or an Economic Liberal/ Conservative.

In other words, perceptions of Fairness as Equal Outcomes cuts across Party identification and even political ideology.

The best guide to who will support or oppose the PFA is not Party or ideology, but perceptions of Fairness.

6

Treatment Details Progressive Treatment Support the PFA There is still more that must be done to address the wage gap facing American women. On average, women earn 77 cents for every dollar a man earns for doing the same job. The Paycheck Fairness Act would give women the legal tools they need to close the wage gap and it would close loopholes that have been used to get around the Equal Pay Act. Too often, women cannot address gender discrimination in the workplace because they cannot access the information they need to determine whether or not this discrimination is occurring. The PFA would give women the legal tools and safeguards they need to address this very problem. It would toughen the requirements for employers to demonstrate a legitimate business reason for a wage gap between its male and female employees and would prohibit retaliation against employees who sought information on how their pay compared to that of their co-workers.

When women make less, it hurts our economy, our communities and our families. It means less money in take-home pay that can be spent on goods and services. It's also unfair to our mothers, sisters, and daughters. They earn the right to equal pay each and every day by punching in and doing their jobs as well as anyone, and their compensation should reflect their talent, commitment, and creativity.

Equal pay for women is critical to families' economic security and our nation's economic recovery. Ensuring basic fairness in our economy is a central tenet of creating an economy that's built to last.

IWV “Choice” Treatment Oppose the PFA There are already two federal laws in place to protect employees from gender-based wage discrimination—the Civil Rights Act (1964) and the Equal Pay Act (1963).

Moreover, the PFA is premised on the myth of the so-called “wage gap,” that women earn 77 cents for every dollar a man earns.

However, if you control for variables like education, college major, or time spent out of the workforce this gap largely disappears.

The differences in pay between men and women come down to choices. Choices women—and men—make have consequences.

More women than men choose to take time off to raise a family, and therefore have less experience and earn less later on. Some women may choose to accept a lower salary if it means they have the ability to work part-time, flexible hours, or work from home.

The fact is women outperform men in college-graduation rates, advanced degrees, purchasing power, and earnings in some areas.

Differences between men and women are the result of freedom and choices, not discrimination.

IWV “Economy” Treatment Oppose the PFA The PFA would tightly regulate how employers can pay their employees. This law will not create "equal" pay; it will expand the definition of "wage discrimination," make it easier to file class-action lawsuits, and open businesses up to greater litigation and uncertainty.

It would make it nearly impossible for employers to tie compensation to work quality, productivity and experience, reduce flexibility in the workplace, and make it far easier to file frivolous lawsuits. Ultimately, this bill will hurt all workers, especially women, who will become far more costly to employ.

Democrats want to do this at a time when government should back off and allow businesses to make hiring decisions that make the most sense. All of this would be devastating to job creation.

7