Does Contributing to a Political Campaign Make You Irrational?

A few months ago, I blogged about the phenomenon of cognitive dissonance in politics, where individuals may makes changes in their attitudes or actions in order to make the two consistent. The driving force behind this is that individuals do not be inconsistent. Santosh over at Brown Man's Burden talks about cognitive dissonance in the context of basketball.

I had my own experience with cognitive dissonance a few days back. Several weeks ago, I made my first ever campaign contribution, throwing a token or two over to the "Straight Talk Express." A few days back, I watched the Republican Debate. Intellectually, it was quite clear to me that Gov. Romney won the day, with Senator McCain sounding a bit confused, even defensive, on several policy issues.

However, when I spoke to a friend of mine afterwards who made this point, I debated him vociferously, offering excuses for McCain's tactics and performance. I obviously knew my friend was right, but I didn't want to believe it because I wanted my mouth to be where my money was (or vice versa).

Campaign contributions are salient very early in political contests: funds are important both in getting campaigns started and sustaining them through the grueling primary and general election season. Given this, I wonder how much "stickiness" there is in political support among those who donate money to political campaigns. Obviously, if you are willing to part with money, you are likely more invested in your candidate than others are. However, controlling for intensity of support, I wonder if those who donate to a candidate are more likely to stick with that candidate even when less than flattering information is revealed about him/her during the course of the campaign. This question is similar in spirit to, but ultimately distinct from, that explored in the Mullainathan and Washington paper linked in my previous post.