Martin Gilens is Chair of the Department of Public Policy. He also is a Professor of Public Policy, Political Science, and Social Welfare at UCLA. His research examines representation, public opinion, and mass media, especially in relation to inequality and public policy. Professor Gilens is the author of Affluence & Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in America, and Why Americans Hate Welfare: Race, Media and the Politics of Antipoverty Policy, and coauthor (with Benjamin I. Page) of Democracy in America?: What Has Gone Wrong and What We Can Do about It. He has published widely on political inequality, mass media, race, gender, and welfare politics. He earned a Ph.D. in sociology at the University of California Berkeley, and has held fellowships at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford, and the Russell Sage Foundation. Professor Gilens is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and taught at Yale and Princeton universities before joining the Luskin School at UCLA in 2018.
The datasets constructed for my project on economic inequality and political power are available at the Russell Sage Foundation’s website at:
On Inequality and Political Power
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, Comedy Central, interview on April 4, 2014.
Consider This, Al Jazeera America, interview on April 25, 2014.
Brian Lehrer, CUNY TV, interview on April 23, 2014.
Quarks & Co, German Public Television, September 30, 2014.
10 to 10, Swiss Public Television, interview on October 21, 2014.
The Rachel Maddow Show. Interview on July 23, 2012.
Boston Review forum, July/August 2012 Essay in (with responses from Larry Bartels, Matthew Yglesias, Kay Lehman Schlozman, Mark Schmitt, Nancy L. Rosenblum, John Ferejohn, Barbara Sinclair, Russ Feingold, Archon Fung, and Michael Gecan)
Huffington Post. Review of Affluence & Influence, August 28, 2012.
Pacific Standard. Review of Affluence & Influence, September 9, 2012.
Princeton Alumni Weekly. Interview, September 19, 2012.
Reuters. Review of Affluence & Influence, September 11, 2012.
Italian State Radio. “Pagine in frequenza,” Rai GrParlamento,Interview on September 1, 2012.
CSPAN. Russell Sage Foundation, discussion of political inequality, August 31, 2008.
Princeton Alumni Weekly. Interview, May 12, 2004.
On Racial Attitudes, Anti-Poverty Policy, and the Mass Media
NPR, All Things Considered. Interview on August 22, 2012.
CSPAN. Eisenhower Foundation, Conference on Media, Poverty, and Race, December 12, 2006.
Fox News, The O’Reilly Factor. Interview on November 11, 1999.
CNN, Reliable Sources with Bernard Kalb. August 24, 1997.
Fox News, The O’Reilly Report. Interview on August 26, 1997.
WNYW News, NYC. Interview on October 2, 1997.
Inequality and Political Power
The ability of citizens to influence government policy is at the heart of democracy. But citizens are quite unequal in their ability to shape government policy to their liking. In this project I examine the association between what Americans say they want the federal government to do (based on national surveys) and what government does (based on detailed coding of public policy). I find a moderately strong relationship between public preferences and public policy, albeit with a strong bias toward the status quo. But I also find that when Americans with different income levels differ in their policy preferences, actual policy outcomes strongly reflect the preferences of the most affluent but bear virtually no relationship to the preferences of poor or middle income Americans. This vast discrepancy in government responsiveness to citizens with different incomes stands in stark contrast to the ideal of political equality that Americans hold dear. Although perfect political equality is an unrealistic goal, representational biases of this magnitude call into question the very democratic character of our society. This research can be found in:
Gilens, Martin and Benjamin I. Page. 2017. Democracy in America?: What Has Gone Wrong and What We Can Do About It. University of Chicago Press.
Gilens, Martin. 2012. Affluence and Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in America. Princeton University Press and Russell Sage.
Gilens, Martin and Benjamin I. Page. 2014. “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens.” Perspectives on Politics 12(3):564-581.
Gilens, Martin. 2016. “Simulating Representation: The Devil’s in the Detail.” Research & Politics (June).
Gilens, Martin. 2015. “The Insufficiency of ‘Democracy by Coincidence: A Response to Peter K. Enns.” Perspectives on Politics 13(4):1065-1071.
Gilens, Martin. 2011. “Policy Consequences of Representational Inequality.” In Who Gets Represented, ed. Peter K. Enns and Christopher Wlezien. Russell Sage.
Gilens, Martin. 2009. “Preference Gaps and Inequality in Representation.” PS: Political Science and Politics 42(2):335-341.
Altruism and Mass Political Preferences
Political scientists (as well as economists, sociologists, and other social scientists) have tended to focus on individual or in-group self-interest as a motive in shaping both political and non-political behaviors. But most people also appear to care for the well-being of others, and at times these altruistic inclinations appear strong enough to overcome self-interested concerns in determining political preferences. For example, most Americans, including a majority of those at the top of the income distribution, favor increasing the minimum wage. And despite a broad tendency to favor one’s own racial or ethnic group in all sorts of contexts, many racially liberal white Americans express greater support for black political candidates than for otherwise identical white candidates (a tendency which was evident in patterns of support for Obama in 2008). Some of these sorts of preferences might be explained by enlightened self-interest, or by other factors unrelated to altruism. In this project I use the tools of behavioral economics and the insights of social psychology to explore the operation of altruism in shaping political behavior.
The Mass Media and American Elections, 1952-2000
In this project, Lynn Vavreck and I are exploring changing patterns of media use and the changing content of the mass media as they relate to presidential and congressional elections. We’re especially interested in how these changes in media content and consumption have affected what citizens know about political candidates, how engaged they are with elections, and what sorts of considerations they use in choosing among candidates. To assess these changes, we combine National Election Study data collected over the past half-century with original content coding of news coverage and campaign advertising.
The first component of this project looks at presidential elections. We find that the amount of policy-oriented information in news coverage of presidential campaigns has declined and the level of news consumption has fallen since the 1950s. Yet, over this period of time Americans have just as much to say about the major-party presidential candidates, what they have to say is more policy oriented, the association of vote choice with policy considerations has strengthened while the association with character considerations has weakened, and factual knowledge about the presidential candidates’ issue positions has not declined. We assess the role of education, party polarization, and paid advertising in explaining trends in Americans’ political knowledge and engagement, finding that the public’s steady level of information and increased focus on policy in presidential politics reflects the high level of policy content in paid ads, which have compensated for the shift of news coverage toward candidate character, scandal, and the horserace. We are currently extending this work to examine elections for the U.S. Congress.
Our findings on presidential elections can be found in:
Gilens, Martin, Lynn Vavreck, and Martin Cohen. 2007. “Mass Media and Public Perceptions of Presidential Candidates, 1952-2000”, The Journal of Politics.
The Psychology of Political Attitude Formation
Within this general area, my research has addressed the role of policy-specific information, informational shortcuts (or “cues”), and adult political socialization in shaping citizens’ political attitudes. The question that unites these different inquiries is how ordinary citizens, who have demonstrably little information about political issues, nevertheless manage to form reasonably stable and often strongly-felt preferences, at least on some issues some of the time.
Gilens, Martin. 2011. “Two-thirds full? Citizen Competence and Democratic Governance.” In New Directions in Public Opinion, ed., Adam Berinsky. Routledge.
Gilens, Martin, and Naomi Murakawa. 2002. “Elite Cues and Political Decision-Making.” In Research in Micropolitics, vol. 6, ed. Michael X. Delli Carpini, Leonie Huddy, and Robert Y. Shapiro, pp. 15-50. Elsevier.
Gilens, Martin. 2001. “Political Ignorance and Collective Policy Preferences.”American Political Science Review 95(2):379-396.
Glaser, James M. and Martin Gilens. 1997. “Inter-Regional Migration and Political Resocialization: A Study of Racial Attitudes Under Pressure.” Public Opinion Quarterly 61(1):72-86.
Racial Attitudes, Anti-Poverty Policy, and the Mass Media
I have conducted a variety of research on Americans’ racial attitudes, the consequences of racial stereotypes for anti-poverty policy, and the role of the mass media in generating and perpetuating racial stereotypes and misperceptions. My work shows, for example, that Americans grossly exaggerate the proportion of the country’s poor who are black and that among white Americans, this misperception is strongly associated with opposition to welfare. I also show that the news media too exaggerate the degree to which poor people in America are black and consistently associate images of blacks with the least sympathetic stories about poverty. This and related research can be found in journal articles (see my curriculum vita) and in my first book:
Gilens, Martin. 1999. Why Americans Hate Welfare: Race, Media, and the Politics of Anti-Poverty Policy. University of Chicago Press.