IMO this is the most striking finding in this terrific paper—
Gun owners (LFAO, red circles) are much less worried about their gun being used to hurt their children or others (Question B)
Check out the full paper and survey here: socialeconomicslab.org/research/wor...
#EconTwitter [19/19]
Overall, Americans share a common goal — safety — yet disagree about the means. Although these disagreements appear entrenched, people remain receptive to alternatives that might command broader agreement. [18/19]
One key insight from this work is disagreement stems in part from different beliefs about the safety frontier (what can create safety), not fundamentally different goals (most want safety). Beliefs can potentially be shifted, while preferences might be harder to move. [17/19]
(Very) rough back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest promoting NLFAs could prevent up to 8% of school shootings & 7% of child firearm-related suicides & accidental deaths, through shifts in storage behavior & substitution. [16/19]
Owners relinquishing firearms voluntarily appears unrealistic given the underlying quest for safety and concerns. The more tractable margins (that still matter a lot)? Safe storage & non-lethal substitution for additional purchases. [15/19]
Adding a Sean Hannity endorsement to the NLFA info produces larger & more persistent effects, including increased support for rules for buying lethal firearms & for safe storage policies. An endorsement by someone who owns and talks about firearms seems to matter [14/19]
Our non-lethal firearm treatment — showing gun owners one non-lethal firearm (brand: Byrna) — raises belief that NLFAs are good replacements, interest in purchasing one & willingness to store lethal guns safely. [13/19]
Our Private Costs treatment — on legal & health risks of guns — increases concern about liability & boosts support for safe storage among both owners & non-owners. [12/19]
Our descriptive evidence points to beliefs about the frontier as a key driver of disagreement. Our experiments aim to shift this perceived SPF — by informing people about private costs of guns & about non-lethal alternatives. [11/19]
We organize these patterns through a framework that emphasizes the "Safety Possibilities Frontier" (SPF) — the safety outcomes achievable with different tools. Our descriptive analysis shows owners & non-owners perceive this frontier very differently. [10/19]
Importantly, there is widespread unawareness of non-lethal alternatives. Only 4% of owners have one & only 20% had heard of a specific one. Yet 43% say they would prefer a firearm that incapacitates rather than kills. ⬇️ [9/19]
Groups also diverge on social costs: non-owners are far more likely to believe gun ownership increases crime, murders, suicides & school shootings. Owners are the least likely to hold these views. [8/19]
How does owning a gun make you feel? Owners report safety, confidence & responsibility. Uninterested non-owners? Nervousness, fear & feeling unsafe. Same goal, opposite perceptions. [7/19]
What stops some people from owning guns? Perceived costs differ markedly. Only 27% of owners worry about children accessing their gun vs. 70% of uninterested non-owners. [6/19]
Both owners & uninterested non-owners feel similarly safe in daily life (~80%). But interested non-owners feel much less safe (58%) & trust police slightly less — they have an unmet demand for safety. [5/19]
Strikingly, demand is asymmetric: 1/3 of non-owners are interested in acquiring a gun, but only 7% of owners would consider reducing their holdings even with a non-lethal alternative. 62% are considering acquiring more. [4/19]1
**Safety** is THE overriding motivation. >80% of gun owners cite protecting their family or themselves as the main reason for ownership. Among interested non-owners, 56% cite family protection & 34% self-protection. ⬇️ [3/19]
We survey 5,400+ US respondents, gun owners & non-owners, combined with randomized experiments. Within non-owners, we distinguish those interested in acquiring a gun (1/3 of them!) from those not interested. [2/19]
Why do Americans disagree so fiercely about guns? New paper with @marcellaalsan.bsky.social and Josh Schwartzstein shows owners & non-owners share a common goal — safety — but disagree sharply on whether guns achieve it 🧵 socialeconomicslab.org/research/wor... [1/19]
What do people think causes #inflation? @s-stantcheva.bsky.social's surveys reveal the gulf between how economists & the public understand inflation. Learn more in this Economist in Action video: youtu.be/orXTKWsP74o?... Made possible by @uolondon.bsky.social & the Convocation Trust.
So glad this is useful!
Thank you @tylercowen.bsky.social for linking to our new work on emotions and policy views on @marginalrev.blogsky.venki.dev
marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevo...
"To understand America today, study the zero-sum mindset." My piece in @theeconomistevents.bsky.social this week on how zero-sum thinking arises and why it matters so much for policy and politics. Based on our research at the Social Economics Lab. www.economist.com/by-invitatio...
Join us in sending huge congratulations to @harvard.edu professor @s-stantcheva.bsky.social on this accomplishment! 🎉🙌
Stefanie was also one of the first #EGgrantee(s), and her EG-funded research on the effects of taxation on innovation is referenced as a major contribution to the field.
#EconSky
Just seeing this now -- thank you so much Marina!!
Thank you so much!
👏 Big congratulations to @s-stantcheva.bsky.social for being named the 2025 Clark Medalist!
Her research bridges theory, data, and public opinion—shaping the future of economic policy.
#ClarkMedal #Economics #PolicyResearch #Harvard #econsky
🔗Read more: inomics.com/news/stefani...
Thank you so much!
Did you know that @qjeharvard.bsky.social is edited by an award-winning economist? 🥇
We're thrilled to share some of @s-stantcheva.bsky.social's expert research with you on the back of this prestigious award.
Dive in and let us know what you learn: academic.oup.com/qje/article-...