Personality Traits and the Propensity to Vote Strategically: An Experimental Inquiry. Delia Dumitrescu
|
|
- Cathleen Nicholson
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Personality Traits and the Propensity to Strategically: An Experimental Inquiry Delia Dumitrescu André lais Université de Montréal Department of Political Science Abstract: The paper examines whether the propensity to vote strategically is affected by one s personality through an original experiment in which college students participated in a series of five FPTP elections. We focus on the ig Five personality traits. We define a strategic vote as one based partly on one s preferences and partly on one s expectations about the likely outcome of the election, as when one is inclined not to support a party/candidate whose chances of winning are perceived to be nil or very weak. We find that some personality traits (in particular conscientiousness) do affect how people perceive parties chances in elections, and they have a direct impact on the decision for whom to vote. Paper prepared for presentation at the EPR Workshop Personality and Turnout, Münster, March 22-27, This is work in progress (please do not cite without permission). 1
2 The paper examines whether the propensity to vote strategically is affected by one s personality through an original experiment, described below, in which undergraduate students were invited to participate in a series of five elections held under first past the post (FPTP). We define a strategic vote as one that is at least partly based on the motivation to have one s vote count (ox 1997). More specifically, in the case of FPTP elections, a strategic vote is one based partly on one s preferences and partly on one s expectations about the likely outcome of the election, that is, one is inclined not to support a party/candidate whose chances of winning are perceived to be nil or very weak (Abramson et al., 2009). We look at the relationship between the ig Five personality traits and strategic voting. According to the ig Five approach, there are five basic personality traits: openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and emotional stability. These traits offer a concise approach to personality, in so far as they encompass characteristics of almost any personality construct (Funder, 2001, 200), and they have become the dominant typology in research on personality (John et al., 2008). A number of studies have recently showed correlations between personality traits and vote choice, ideological orientation or political engagement (Mondak and Halperin 2008; Gerber et al. 2008, 2009; Vecchione and aprara 2009; Mondak et al. 2010). Recent research has also identified a number of interactive effects between individuals personality traits and context affecting people s political engagement (Mondak et al. 2010). We propose to consider a particular type of political behavior: the decision to strategically desert one s preferred option if and when that option is perceived to be unviable. We conceive of the decision of how to vote as a function of the context in which one finds themselves, one s personality, and their interaction. Given the complexity implied by strategic voting (Abramson et al., 2009), this interaction is of particularly strong interest for our dependent variable, vote choice. Some contexts are more conducive to strategic voting than others, and the decision to vote strategically requires people explicitly to take these contexts under consideration. onsequently, we first approach the inquiry into personality and strategic voting from the angle of perceptions about the context: How does personality affect expectations under various electoral contexts? We then examine how personality affects how people act, given these perceptions. In a nutshell, we find that some personality traits (in particular conscientiousness) do affect how people perceive parties chances in elections, and they have a direct impact on the decision for whom to vote. The paper proceeds as follows. We lay out some expectations about strategic voting and personality. We then describe the experimental setting and present a number of descriptive results. The next section focuses on strategic voting in our sample, by examining the relationship between preferences, perceptions about the race and vote choice. We then look at the indirect impact of personality on the decision to vote strategically, by means of their effect on perceptions as a function of the characteristics of the race. The last section examines the direct impact of personality traits on vote choice in each context. 2
3 Personality and Political ehavior: Theoretical Premises and Expectations Research on personality has long recognized the importance of the interaction between contextual factors and individuals personality characteristics for behavioural responses (Funder 2008, p. 568). Mondak et al. (2010) make a strong argument for the importance of the interaction between personality and contextual factors in political participation decisions. In particular, they find that more conscientious people are more likely to participate the more important they perceive participation to be. Similarly, people with high scores on agreeableness appear to be more likely to shy political disagreements, no matter how big their discussion network, whereas less agreeable individuals are substantially more likely to be exposed to political disagreements the bigger the number of their discussion partners. Yet, as Mondak et al. (2010, 7) note, empirical studies focusing on this interaction have been relatively rare. We seek to add to this stream of research by experimentally creating a number of different electoral contexts in which people have to make a vote choice influencing the allocation of real resources to a cause, which we describe in the next section. Using this experimental design, we are able to look at how personality affects how people behave in various electoral contexts, more specifically whether some personality types react differently from others to variations in the competitiveness of the election. We advance minimal expectations at the outset with regard to which personality traits affect the decision to vote or not strategically. Previous research would indicate that particular attention should be given to three traits: conscientiousness, agreeableness and openness. According to John & Srivastava (1999, 121, cited by Gerber et al., 2009, 7) conscientiousness describes socially prescribed impulse control that facilitates task and goal directed behaviour such as thinking before acting, delaying gratification, following norms and rules, and planning, organizing and prioritizing tasks. Since strategic voting requires voters to undertake a more serious analysis of the context than just voting for one s preferred option, we expect conscientiousness to play a role in this process. Similarly, according to John & Srivastava (1999, 121), agreeableness * + includes traits such as altruism, tender-mindedness, trust & modesty. We therefore expect people who score higher on agreeableness to be more sensitive to situations when successful coordination among voters is critical to maintain their preferred electoral option in the race. Finally, openness has been linked to greater propensity towards liberalism (arney et al, 2008), leading us to expect it to be correlated to preferences for parties in the experiment, as we describe below. We specify these expectations further in the context of the experimental setting. The Strategic Voting Experiment Two hundred undergraduate students in the department of political science at the Université de Montréal were recruited to take part in a study on elections. The study took place over the internet. Participants were required to go at a specified address and vote in a series of elections, as well as answer some questions about their political preferences, interest, and, importantly for this study, personality. The study took about 15 minutes to complete. 3
4 The experimental setup involved putting the respondents in a context in which they would vote to allocate a sum of money ($600) to either an environmental NGO or to be distributed to the participants themselves. More specifically, participants had to choose between three parties, generically denoted as A,, or. The victory of each party entailed a different distribution of the sum: if Party A won the election, $500 would go to the NGO and $100 to participants (resulting in an additional gain of 50 cents per participant). If Party won the election, the sum would be split in the middle, with $300 going to the NGO and $300 to participants, and if Party won the election, the NGO would receive $100, with the remaining $500 being distributed to participants. The NGO was generally known to participants (only 7% of the sample said they had not heard of it before). The use of a real and well known NGO, as well as the choice of a salient political issue, the environment, was intended to encourage participants to consider the collective consequences of their vote, and increase the external validity of the study. Prior to each election, respondents were made aware that 9000 votes had already been cast, that two hundred more votes were to be cast by the participants (including themselves) and that the winner would be the party with the most support based on the cumulated 9200 votes. The distribution of these 9000 ballots varied by election and constituted the main experimental manipulation. To examine the propensity of casting a strategic vote as a function of a party s chances of winning, the experiment used a 2(Distance between A and : small v. large) x 2 (Distance between and : small vs. large) within subjects design. A fifth election placed Party A in a distant (impossible to win) third place. With the exception of the fifth election (which always came last), the order of the other four was randomized across individuals. Respondents were reminded that each election should be treated independently. The payoff for both the NGO and the participants would be the mean payoff across all five elections. The five 9000 vote distributions appear in Table 1. In essence the manipulation was intended to examine most particularly the strategic vote behavior of Party A supporters, and the manipulations are listed, in the order of the increased incentive for Party A supporters to consider defecting to Party. In condition lose A, lose (), there is a close contest between both A and and and, and so there is little reason for not voting sincerely for one s preferred party. In condition Far A, Far (FF), Party A has practically no chance of winning (this would require all 200 study participants to vote for that party and then that party to win the draw), and so party A supporters should be very tempted to vote for party. In condition lose A, Far (F), there is a close contest between A and for second place and in condition Far A, lose (F), there is a close contest between and for first place while the distance between A and is the same, relatively large though not huge. Finally, in the fifth election, party A is certain not to win, and so there seems to be no reason to stick with party A. [Table 1 here] Generally speaking, we expected perceptions of Party A s chances of winning to decrease as the number of votes required to ensure its victory increased. We also expected Party A supporters to be more likely to cast a strategic vote, the lower the chances of this party to win the election. In terms of personality, we had three expectations. First, we expected the more conscientious to give lower estimates for Party A s chances of winning the greater the strategic vote incentives. We also 4
5 expected them to be less likely to vote for Party A the greater the pressure on Party A supporters to defect to a less preferred option. Second, more open people should be more likely to prefer Party A to all others. Third, we expected people high on agreeableness to be more likely to stick with Party A in the F and FF election, where significant coordination among voters would be required to hand this party a victory, than those who score lower on this personality trait. Descriptive Findings: Election Results and Perceptions Table 2 presents the outcome of the five elections. In each of the five elections, Party gets the least votes among participants and Party A gets the most (except in the fifth). Party A gets its greatest support in the lose A, lose election and is weakest in the fifth; the reverse holds for Party. Support for Party A is the most variable across elections (range of 45) and support for Party is the most constant (range of 12). [Table 2 here] Party wins three of these elections, Party A and Party each one. The party that received the least support among participants, Party, wins most elections, because it was ahead to start with, considering the 9000 votes that had been cast. This suggests some lack of coordination among the participants, a point that we revisit below. The main contrast in the participants vote is between the first two elections and the last three. In the first two elections, and F, Party A gets more than twice as many votes as Party while the vote is almost evenly divided between these two parties in the F, FF and fifth elections. The first two elections are the only ones where there is only a small distance (in the 9000 votes already cast) between Party A and Party. This suggests that whether Party A is close or not to Party matters more than the distance between and A, or and. The other piece of evidence that is required is participants perceptions of each party s chances of winning. We asked participants to indicate how they rated those chances on a 0 to 10 scale, where 0 means no chance and 10 means certain to win. These ratings are standardized so that they add up to 1 for each individual. Table 3 shows the mean score given to A,, and in each of the five elections. With one exception (F and F, which we discuss further), the mean ratings for A are significantly different from each other (t>3.74, p<.000), indicating a significant treatment effect on perceived chances of victory for the most preferred party in the sample. The reverse applies to the perceived chances of Party, which increase from the first to the fifth elections. Interestingly, the perceived chances of Party hardly vary across elections. Finally, we note that many participants were unwilling to give a rating of 0 to Party A s chances in the fifth election even though they were objectively absolutely nil. [Table 3 here] These descriptive findings allow us to conclude that context had a significant effect on the vote, and that this effect is unequal across the sample. On the one hand, perceptions of Party A s chances of winning decrease, as we would expect, the farther behind this party is in the race. Nevertheless, some people 5
6 appear to cast a sincere vote for A in all contexts, and some people refuse to accept that in some contexts Party A had zero chances to win the race. To examine to what extent participants vote strategically, and how personality affects the strategic vote calculus, we conduct a series of multinomial estimations of vote choice. Measures: Personality and Preferences Personality. Our main interest in this paper concerns the relationship between personality traits and vote choice. As indicated above, we have decided to focus on the ig Five personality factors: openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and emotional stability. To that effect, we use the TIPI scale (Gosling et al. 2003). Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which pairs of adjectives associated with each trait describe them on a scale from 1 to 7. Table 4 presents the distribution of their responses. The advantage of the battery is its high degree of validation in multiple studies. In our case, however, the necessity to translate the scale into French might have affected its reliability, and this might have reflected into relatively lower correlations than usual for certain items in the scale. All the correlations are nevertheless significant, allowing us to use the two combined items for each personality trait as indications of participants personality characteristics. [Table 4 here] Preferences. Participants were asked at the outset on the study to rate their preference on a scale from 0 to 10 for each party winning the election. Unfortunately this allowed us to compute strong preference only for 70% of the sample, limiting significantly the utility of these measures for the study of strategic voting. We therefore use one of the votes as a proxy for party preferences, specifically, participants actual vote in the lose A lose election. We use the election as the reference election, because in this election, as can be seen in Table 3, each of the three parties is perceived to have some chance of winning. We assume that the vote in that election is sincere and that strategic considerations come into play only in the other elections, in which there is greater distance between at least two of the contenders. Strategic hoice across Elections Table 5 shows the relationship between vote choice in the election and the others. Readers should keep in mind that the first four elections were held in a random order. [Table 5 here] Table 5 indicates that indeed some of those who vote for party A move to another party, usually party, and that the propensity to desert increases from the second to the fifth, as the distance (among votes already cast) between Party A and Parties and increases. This is exactly as we would expect. The weakest Party A appears to be, the highest the likelihood of strategic desertion. Note, however, that even in the fifth election, where party A has absolutely no chance, 60% of its supporters stick with it. There is also some movement away from party or party, which suggests that something else is going on. Still, we find it reasonable to infer that most of the shift in vote choice between the first election and 6
7 the following ones is due to strategic considerations arising from differences in the distribution of the 9000 initial votes. Table 6 presents a multinomial estimation of vote choice in all but the first election which we use to infer the participants sincere preferences. This is a simple strategic vote choice model in which the decision to vote for party or rather than party A is assumed to depend on one s preference (measured by vote choice in the first election) and on the parties perceived chances of winning. As one would expect, those who like party A are less inclined to move to party or. What is more important for our purposes, however, is that we see that, even controlling for these preferences, vote choice is affected by perceptions of competitiveness, in accordance with the strategic vote model: the better party A s perceived chances of winning, the weaker the inclination to vote for party or. 7 [Table 6 here] The implications are illustrated in Figure 1. We focus here only on those who voted for party A in the election. The figure shows how the propensity to stick with party A is conditional on whether the party is perceived to be a viable option or not. More precisely, the predicted probability of voting for party A among its supporters is typically only about 47% when the party is perceived to have no chance at all and increases to over 70% in almost all elections when the perceived chances are over 30% (with the exception of FF and the fifth election when this probability decreases to about 60%). These results clearly support our strategic vote choice model. [Figure 1 here] The next step is to examine how personality may affect participants behavior in these elections. onsequent with our model, personality may affect participants preferences, their perceptions of the parties chances of winning, and their final decision. We examine each of these three possibilities. Preferences and Personality The first question that we examine is whether there is a relationship between personality and sincere preferences. Given the environmental theme of our experiment and its ideological implications, we would expect more open participants to side with Party A, as compared to those who are less open. As already noted, we use vote choice in the election, which we assume to be devoid of strategic considerations, as our measure of preference. [Table 7 here] Model 1 in Table 7 shows that those who score high on conscientiousness are more prone to vote for Party A while those high on agreeableness are more inclined to vote for Party. ontrary to our expectations, openness seems not to be related to party preference. This could well be an artifact of the relatively low correlation level for the openness scale. At the same time, an alternative explanation for this result lies in the sample itself: college students might be particularly pro-environmental irrespective of personality traits, as suggested by the fact that fully 60% of the sample votes for Party A in the election. One would assume that those who care the most about the environment are the most prone
8 to support party A, since more money would go the environmental group Equiterre if Party A wins the election. To check this assumption, we constructed a 10 point scale of pro-environmental attitudes (including individuals environmental policy positions and the emotional attachment to the environment). 1 The correlations between this environmental scale and personality traits are insignificant (under.07 for each trait). As expected however, we find indeed that 70% of those above the median on the environment scale vote for Party A, against 45% of those below the median. Moreover, environmental attitudes are a significant predictor of vote choice when we include them in the estimation of vote choice in Model 2. The strong pro-party A coefficient for conscientiousness is more unexpected. This coefficient stays significant even when we include environmental attitudes as a predictor for party preference in the election in our analysis. This indicates that support for Party A is very strong among those who are both conscientious and pro-environment. onsidering that conscientiousness has been linked to more conservative and sometimes authoritarian ideological orientations (see Gerber et al. 2009, for review), this result is surprising. Our interpretation is that conscientious individuals might be more sensitive to the practical consequences entailed by each party winning the election in the contest, where any result was possible. More specifically, a victory of Parties and would only increase participants gains by an insignificant amount (up to 2.5$), but would significantly limit the gain (and subsequently the practical use of the money) for the environmental NGO Equiterre. Mondak et al s (2010) results indicate that more agreeable people are more likely to avoid disagreements. In our case, they might be more reluctant to prefer a party which might be perceived as antagonizing, and this is one likely explanation accounting for the relationship between agreeableness and preference for Party, which stays significant even when controlling for environmental preferences. Shy of conflict, more agreeable people may feel more at ease with the middle position represented by Party, which ensures that neither participants, nor Equiterre receive any special treatment in the allocation of money. Perceived hances and Personality To what extent do personality traits influence perceptions? We start with simple correlations between perceptions of chances of A for each election and the five personality traits in the sample. We focus on Party A only, as this was consistently trailing the other two. These correlations are presented in Table 8. [Table 8 here] 1 The first environmental question was: There s a lot of talk about greenhouse gases nowadays. Some say that the 3% reduction target proposed by the anadian federal government is more than sufficient to prevent future global warming (these people are at one end of the scale below, at point 0 ). Others say that this 3% reduction target is totally insufficient if anada wants to fight global warming. (These people are at the other end of the scale below, at point 10). Of course that other people have opinions in between these points. Where would you place yourself on this scale?. The second question was: Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: When I think about the environment, I feel extremely emotional, with 0=Totally disagree, 10=Totally agree. 8
9 The results generally confirm our expectations with regard to the role of conscientiousness. People high on this trait are significantly more likely to estimate Party A s chances to the downside in three of the five elections. The fifth election is one of them, where Party A s chances were effectively nil. One election in which this correlation does not reach significance is the sincere one, where Party A could win, and indeed it did so easily. In the other election, Far A, Far, this correlation approaches significance (p=.06, one tailed). Two more traits exhibit significant correlations with perceptions: agreeableness and emotional stability. More agreeable participants are less likely to credit Party A with chances to win the election in the sincere vote and in the Far A, lose vote. In this latter election, greater emotional stability is also conducive to more conservative estimates of Party A s chances of winning. Interestingly, F is also the election when Party, which we presume to be the second option for most voters, has the highest objective chances of winning the election against Party. Yet, the correlation between agreeableness and perceived chances of winning for Party A in the F context runs contrary to our expectations, as it appears that more agreeable people are more distrustful of the success of a possible coordination among Party A supporters. In the next step of the analysis, we retain the three most important traits appearing to influence perceptions, and examine their joint influence on perceived chances of Party A s winning each election. Table 9 presents the OLS regression results, with and without party preference as a control. [Table 9 here] The impact of conscientiousness is robust when we consider the simultaneous impact of the three personality traits. Highly conscientious people are significantly more likely to rate Party A s chances lower in three out of four elections. The effect persists even when controlling for Party A support. oth emotional stability and agreeableness have the same negative effect on perceptions of Party A s chances in the F election, but agreeableness loses its significance. When we observe the joint impact of these three traits, agreeableness becomes positively associated with perceptions in two other elections: FF and the fifth. The FF one in particular places the highest demands for coordination on voters to ensure that Party A stays in the race, and goes in the direction of our expectations. The effect of this trait in the fifth election is more puzzling, as Party A has absolutely no chance of winning. Personality and Strategic Voting There is therefore ground to posit a weak albeit significant indirect impact of some personality traits on perceptions of Party A s chances of winning (with conscientiousness being the most robust of these effects). We now turn our attention to their direct impact. [Table 10 here] Table 10 presents the results of the multinomial estimation of vote choice with the three personality traits as direct predictors, and vote for Party A as the reference outcome. Two models are estimated: one including perceptions of Parties A and s chances, the other without. The models also control for 9
10 party preferences using the vote in the lose A, lose election. With the exception of the FF election, conscientiousness is significantly and positively related to defection from Party A. As we would expect, this result is more robust when perceptions are not included in the analysis. This result mirrors the previously found influence of this personality trait on perceptions of Party A s winning. While conscientious participants appear to act based on their perceptions of the context, it is also interesting to note that the direct influence of conscientiousness on defection from Party A does not necessarily result in strategic voting. In all elections, more conscientious people end up defecting to Party too. This result could be explained by the fact that about a third of the respondents in the sample did not have a strict order of preference between the three parties, and particularly did not express a strong preference between Party and Party. At the outset, we expected agreeableness to prevent people from defecting when voter coordination is critical to maintain their preferred party in the race (particularly in the Far A, lose and Far A, Far contexts). Despite their more conservative estimations of Party A s chances of winning, more agreeable individuals appear to be indeed more likely to stick with this party in the F election. Yet, agreeableness appears to no effect on defection in the FF election, despite previous results which indicated a propensity among more agreeable people to rate party A s chances of winning higher than the rest of the respondents. This would seem to indicate that perceptions of chances enter less in the vote calculus for more agreeable people. This is however only one of the likely explanations and more research would be needed to set light on this matter. onclusions This paper provides a first examination of the relationship between personality traits and strategic voting by means of an original experiment which asked participants to vote in a series of electoral contexts with various degrees of electoral competition. This research allows us to draw two preliminary, yet important conclusions. The first is related to the experimental design. y linking respondents decisions to a payoff to a real nongovernmental organization (which could potentially yield real policy consequences), and by asking them to behave as in a larger group, we believe that this design allows for an increase of the external validity of this experimental research. This design could potentially be applied to a host of voting related questions, and allows for great flexibility in manipulating voting contexts at relatively low costs. The second conclusion relates to the likely impact of personality traits on strategic voting. In particular, conscientiousness appears to have a consistent and significant impact on individuals decision to rate their preferred party s chances as lower, and defect to a less preferred party when their first choice appears to be out of the race. This is consistent with prior theoretical developments focusing on this trait and deserves further investigation. The problem of strategic voting might pose a challenge for those high on agreeableness too, and indicates the need for further theorizing and empirical analyses of the relationship between personality traits and this particular type of political behavior. 10
11 Works cited: Abramson, P.R., Aldrich J. H., lais, A., Diamond, M., Diskin, A., Indridason, I. H., Lee, D. & Levine, R..(2009). omparing Strategic Voting Under FPTP and PR Systems. omparative Political Studies, 43: arney, D. R., Jost, J. T., Gosling, S. D. & Potter, J.. (2008). The Secret Lives of Liberals and onservatives: Personality Profiles, Interaction Styles, and the Things They Leave ehind. Political Psychology 29: ox, G.W.. (1997). Making s ount: Strategic oordination in the World's Electoral Systems. ambridge: ambridge University Press. Funder, D... (2008). Persons, Situations, and Person-Situation Interactions. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (eds), Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research. New York: Guilford. Funder, D... (2001). Personality. Annual Review of Psychology 52: Gerber, A., Huber, G. A., Raso,. & Ha, S.. (2008). Personality and Personal ehavior. Unpublished manuscript, Yale University. Gerber, A., Huber, G. A., Doherty, D. & Dowling,. M.. (2009). Reassessing the Effects of Personality on Political Attitudes and ehaviors: Aggregate Relationships and Subgroup Differences. Unpublished manuscript, Yale University. John, O. P. & Srivastava, S. (1999). The ig Five Trait Taxonomy: History, Measurement, and Theoretical Perspectives. In L.A. Pervin & O.P. John (eds), Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research. New York: Guilford. John, O. P., Naumann, L. P. & Soto,. J.. (2008). The ig Five Trait Taxonomy: History, Measurement, and Theoretical Perspectives. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (eds), Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research. New York: Guilford. Mondak, J. J. & Halperin, K. D. (2008). A Framework for the Study of Personality and Political ehavior. ritish Journal of Political Science 38: Mondak, J. J., Hibbing, M. V., anache, D., Seligson, M. A. & Anderson, M. R. (2010). Personality and ivic Engagement: An Integrative Framework for the Study of Trait Effects on Political ehavior. American Political Science Review. Vecchione, M. & aprara, G. V. (2009). Personality Determinants of Political Participation: The ontribution of Traits and Self-Efficacy eliefs. Personality and Individual Differences 46:
12 Election Experimental condition Table 1. Experimental manipulation of parties chances of winning lose A, lose () lose A, Far (F) Far A, lose (F) Far A, Far (FF) 5TH Election Distribution of previous 9000 votes Party A Party Party Table 2. Elections Results lose A, lose () lose A, Far (F) Far A, lose (F) Far A, Far (FF) Participants 119 (59.5%) Total (9200) 3109 (33,79%) Participants 108 (54%) Total (9200) 3068 (33.34%) Participants 88 (44%) Total (9200) 3018 (32.80%) Participants 86 (43%) Total (9200) 2986 (32.45%) 5TH Election Participants 74 (37%) Total (9200) 2924 (31.78%) Party A Party Party Winner 50 (25%) 3050 (33,15%) 52 (26%) 3022 (32.84%) 81 (40.5%) 3111 (33.81%) 78 (39%) 3078 (33.45%) 83 (41.5%) 3108 (33.78%) 31 (15.5%) 3041 (33,06%) 40 (20%) 3110 (33.80%) 31 (15.5%) 3071 (33.38%) 36 (18%) 3136 (34.08%) 43 (21.5%) 3168 (34.43%) Party A Party Party Party Party 12
13 Election Table 3. Mean Perceived hances of Winning for Party A lose A, lose () lose A, Far (F) Far A, lose (F) Far A, Far (FF) Party A Party Party Table 4. Personality Scale 5TH Election Scale components Mean (Std. dev) Pearson r Sig. Openness Open to new experiences, omplex Not conventional, not uncreative 5.61 (1.27) 5.09 (1.44) onscientiousness Dependable, self-disciplined Not disorganized, not careless 5.77 (1.12) 5.19 (1.62) Agreeableness Sympathetic, Warm Not critical, Not quarrelsome 5.67 (1.19) 3.73 (1.75) Extraversion Extraverted, Enthusiastic Not reserved, not quiet 4.79 (1.55) 3.63 (1.79) Emotional stability alm, emotionally stable 4.82 (1.55) Not anxious, not easily upset (1.65)
14 Table 5. Party hoices across Elections (N=200) lose A Far hoice in lose A lose election Party A Party Party Party A Party Party Far A lose Party A Party Party Far A Far Party A Party Party Fifth election Party A Party Party
15 Table 6. Strategic Voting (Dependent Variable: hoice) lose A Far Far A lose Far A Far Fifth election Party A preference -3.21** (1.23) -5.87** (1.12) -2.81* (1.20) -6.47** (1.21) # (.92) -5.20** (.87) (972.7) (972.7) Party preference 1.40 (1.28) -3.06* (1.24) 2.13 (1.55) -3.84* (1.86) 2.18* (1.08) # (1.06) (972.7) (972.7) Party A Perceived chances of winning -7.45* (2.54) -9.14** (2.87) -4.92* (2.1) -8.47* (3.32) -5.47** (1.66) # (2.51) -6.14** (1.67) -9.84** (2.77) Party perceived chances of winning 8.10* (3.40) (3.08) 9.85** (3.22) -.41 (3.51) 6.68** (2.36) (2.68) 4.22 # (2.29).57 (2.81) onstant -.05 (.67) 5.51** (1.4) -.87 (1.72) 5.24** (1.68) -.63 (1.21) 3.99** (1.14) (972.7) Pseudo R N Multinomial logit regression results. ase outcome: Probability to vote for Party A. ** p<.01, * p<.05, # p< ** (1.05) 15
16 Far A, Far Election lose A, Far Election Perceptions of Party A's hances of Winning Probability to for Party A Probability to for Party Perceptions of A's hances of Winning Probability to for Party A Probability to for Party Far A, lose Election Fifth Election (Party A annot Win) Perceptions of Party A's hances of Winning Probability to for Party A Probability to for Party Perceptions of Party A's hances of Winning Probability to for Party A Probability to for Party Figure 1. Predicted Probabilities to for A and : Party A Supporters Only 16
17 Table 7: Personality Traits and Party Preferences Openness in lose A, lose Election Model 1 Model (.17) -.19 (.20) -.16 (.18) -.14 (.21) onscientiousness -.35* (.16) -.37 (.19) -.38* (.17) -.42* (.20) Extroversion -.03* (.12).11 (.14) -.02 (.12).12 (.15) Agreeableness.35* (.16) -.19 (.19).37* (.17) -.15 (.19) Emotional stability -.12 (.14).21 (.16) -.12 (.14).23 (.17) Environmental attitudes * (.09) -.39* (.10) onstant 1.07 (1.44) 1.13 (1.71) 3.41* (1.64) 3.66 # (1.91) Pseudo-R N Multinomial logit regression results. Standard errors in parentheses. *p<.05 # p<.10 17
18 Perceptions of hances of Winning of Party A Table 8. Personality traits and perceptions of party A s chances of winning: correlations Personality traits Openness onscientiousness Extroversion Agreeableness Emotional stability lose A lose lose A Far Far A lose * * * # -.19* Far A Far Fifth election N=200 *p<.05, # p< *
19 Table 9. Dependent Variable: Perceptions of hances of Winning of Party A lose A Far Far A lose Far A Far Fifth election Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 onscientiousness -.019* (.008) -.026* (.008) # (.009) -.022* (.009) (.009) # (.009) -.021* (.009) -.022* (.009) Agreeableness.000 (.007).002 (.008) (.008) (.008).017* (.008).017* (.008).014 # (.007).014 # (.007) Emotional stability.000 (.007).000 (.007) # (.009) -.017* (.008) (.008) (.008) (.007) (.007) Party A preference (Yes=1) -.076* (.018) -.079* (.02) -.02 (.02) -.07 (.02) onstant.34** (.07).32** (.06).41** (.07).39** (.07).22** (.07).21** (.07).23** (.06).23** (.06) R N OLS regression results. Robust standard errors in parentheses. **p<.01, *p<.05, # p<
20 Table 10. Impact of Personality on Strategic Voting Decisions (Dependent Variable: hoice) lose A Far Far A lose Far A Far Fifth election Without perceptions With Perceptions Without Perceptions With Perceptions Without Perceptions With Perceptions Without Perceptions With Perceptions onscientiousness.74* (.27).59* (.25).54* (.26).46 # (.27).19 (.20).75* (.38).08 (.24).65 (.40).07 (.18).14 (.27) -.05 (.19).10 (.29).28 (.19).65* (.25).19 (.22).56* (.28) Agreeableness -.21 (.25) -.23 (.29) -.20 (.22) -.19 (.25) -.28 # (.16) -.14 (.39) -.32 # (.18) -.04 (.42) -.11 (.17) 18 (.28) -.01 (.19).32 (.27) -.36* (.17).03 (.24) -.29 (.18).25 (.27) Emotional stability -.05 (.22).16 (.21) -.01 (.22).16 (.24).15 (.17).36 (.28).00 (.19).21 (.31) -.12 (.15) -.12 (.2) -.17 (.16) -.30 (.23).02 (.15) -.13 (.20) -.01 (.17) -.32 (.22) Pseudo-R N Multinomial logit results. ase outcome: Probability to vote for Party A. Other variables included in each model: for Party A in the election, for Party in the election. *p<.05; # p<
The political psychology of UKIP: Personality factors, authoritarianism and support for right-wing populist parties in Britain.
The political psychology of UKIP: Personality factors, authoritarianism and support for right-wing populist parties in Britain. Roland Kappe University College London r.kappe@ucl.ac.uk September 2015 Abstract:
More informationSupplementary Materials for Strategic Abstention in Proportional Representation Systems (Evidence from Multiple Countries)
Supplementary Materials for Strategic Abstention in Proportional Representation Systems (Evidence from Multiple Countries) Guillem Riambau July 15, 2018 1 1 Construction of variables and descriptive statistics.
More informationAttitudes toward Immigration: The Role of Personal Predispositions. Department of Political Science, University of Southern Denmark
Attitudes toward Immigration: The Role of Personal Predispositions Peter Thisted Dinesen (ptd@sam.sdu.dk) Robert Klemmensen (rkl@sam.sdu.dk) Asbjørn Sonne Nørgaard (ano@sam.sdu.dk) Department of Political
More informationPersonality & Emotion in Political Attitude Formation & Behavior
Syllabus Spring 2012 Personality & Emotion in Political Attitude Formation & Behavior Départment Science Politique et Relations Internationales Université de Genève PRACTICAL INFORMATION Meeting Time:
More informationExperiments in Election Reform: Voter Perceptions of Campaigns Under Preferential and Plurality Voting
Experiments in Election Reform: Voter Perceptions of Campaigns Under Preferential and Plurality Voting Caroline Tolbert, University of Iowa (caroline-tolbert@uiowa.edu) Collaborators: Todd Donovan, Western
More informationBELIEF IN A JUST WORLD AND PERCEPTIONS OF FAIR TREATMENT BY POLICE ANES PILOT STUDY REPORT: MODULES 4 and 22.
BELIEF IN A JUST WORLD AND PERCEPTIONS OF FAIR TREATMENT BY POLICE 2006 ANES PILOT STUDY REPORT: MODULES 4 and 22 September 6, 2007 Daniel Lempert, The Ohio State University PART I. REPORT ON MODULE 22
More informationSupporting Information Political Quid Pro Quo Agreements: An Experimental Study
Supporting Information Political Quid Pro Quo Agreements: An Experimental Study Jens Großer Florida State University and IAS, Princeton Ernesto Reuben Columbia University and IZA Agnieszka Tymula New York
More informationTo Vote Or To Abstain? An Experimental Study. of First Past the Post and PR Elections
To Vote Or To Abstain? An Experimental Study of First Past the Post and PR Elections André Blais, Université de Montréal Jean-Benoit Pilet, Université Libre de Bruxelles Karine van der Straeten, Toulouse
More informationCongruence in Political Parties
Descriptive Representation of Women and Ideological Congruence in Political Parties Georgia Kernell Northwestern University gkernell@northwestern.edu June 15, 2011 Abstract This paper examines the relationship
More informationPersonality traits and party identification over time
European Journal of Political Research 54: 197 215, 2015 197 doi: 10.1111/1475-6765.12070 Personality traits and party identification over time BERT N. BAKKER, 1 DAVID NICOLAS HOPMANN 2 & MIKAEL PERSSON
More informationPersonality Traits, Candidate Emergence, and Political Ambition: How Personality Affects Who Represents Us *
Personality Traits, Candidate Emergence, and Political Ambition: How Personality Affects Who Represents Us * Adam M. Dynes Brigham Young University adamdynes@byu.edu Hans J.G. Hassell Cornell College hhassell@cornellcollege.edu
More informationAppendix 1: Alternative Measures of Government Support
Appendix 1: Alternative Measures of Government Support The models in Table 3 focus on one specification of feeling represented in the incumbent: having voted for him or her. But there are other ways we
More informationCandidate Citizen Models
Candidate Citizen Models General setup Number of candidates is endogenous Candidates are unable to make binding campaign promises whoever wins office implements her ideal policy Citizens preferences are
More informationUnderstanding Taiwan Independence and Its Policy Implications
Understanding Taiwan Independence and Its Policy Implications January 30, 2004 Emerson M. S. Niou Department of Political Science Duke University niou@duke.edu 1. Introduction Ever since the establishment
More informationCSES Module 5 Pretest Report: Greece. August 31, 2016
CSES Module 5 Pretest Report: Greece August 31, 2016 1 Contents INTRODUCTION... 4 BACKGROUND... 4 METHODOLOGY... 4 Sample... 4 Representativeness... 4 DISTRIBUTIONS OF KEY VARIABLES... 7 ATTITUDES ABOUT
More informationVote Au Pluriel: How People Vote When Offered to Vote Under Different Rules? Karine Van der Straeten (Toulouse School of Economoics, France),
Vote Au Pluriel: How People Vote When Offered to Vote Under Different Rules? Karine Van der Straeten (Toulouse School of Economoics, France), Jean-François Laslier (Ecole Polytechnique, France) André Blais
More informationGeorg Lutz, Nicolas Pekari, Marina Shkapina. CSES Module 5 pre-test report, Switzerland
Georg Lutz, Nicolas Pekari, Marina Shkapina CSES Module 5 pre-test report, Switzerland Lausanne, 8.31.2016 1 Table of Contents 1 Introduction 3 1.1 Methodology 3 2 Distribution of key variables 7 2.1 Attitudes
More informationTurnout and Strength of Habits
Turnout and Strength of Habits John H. Aldrich Wendy Wood Jacob M. Montgomery Duke University I) Introduction Social scientists are much better at explaining for whom people vote than whether people vote
More informationWhat is The Probability Your Vote will Make a Difference?
Berkeley Law From the SelectedWorks of Aaron Edlin 2009 What is The Probability Your Vote will Make a Difference? Andrew Gelman, Columbia University Nate Silver Aaron S. Edlin, University of California,
More information1 Electoral Competition under Certainty
1 Electoral Competition under Certainty We begin with models of electoral competition. This chapter explores electoral competition when voting behavior is deterministic; the following chapter considers
More informationProblems with Group Decision Making
Problems with Group Decision Making There are two ways of evaluating political systems: 1. Consequentialist ethics evaluate actions, policies, or institutions in regard to the outcomes they produce. 2.
More informationPolitical Sophistication and Third-Party Voting in Recent Presidential Elections
Political Sophistication and Third-Party Voting in Recent Presidential Elections Christopher N. Lawrence Department of Political Science Duke University April 3, 2006 Overview During the 1990s, minor-party
More informationIt s Personal: The Big Five Personality Traits and Negative Partisan Affect
It s Personal: The Big Five Personality Traits and Negative Partisan Affect Steven W. Webster Emory University Abstract One of the most important developments within the American electorate in recent years
More informationPolitical Sophistication and Third-Party Voting in Recent Presidential Elections
Political Sophistication and Third-Party Voting in Recent Presidential Elections Christopher N. Lawrence Department of Political Science Duke University April 3, 2006 Overview During the 1990s, minor-party
More informationSorting Out Mechanical and Psychological Effects in Candidate Elections: An Appraisal with Experimental Data
12-296 Research Group: Behavioral and Experimental Economics April, 2012 Sorting Out Mechanical and Psychological Effects in Candidate Elections: An Appraisal with Experimental Data Karine VAN DER STRAETEN,
More informationIntroduction Why Don t Electoral Rules Have the Same Effects in All Countries?
Introduction Why Don t Electoral Rules Have the Same Effects in All Countries? In the early 1990s, Japan and Russia each adopted a very similar version of a mixed-member electoral system. In the form used
More informationElite Polarization and Mass Political Engagement: Information, Alienation, and Mobilization
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AND AREA STUDIES Volume 20, Number 1, 2013, pp.89-109 89 Elite Polarization and Mass Political Engagement: Information, Alienation, and Mobilization Jae Mook Lee Using the cumulative
More informationContiguous States, Stable Borders and the Peace between Democracies
Contiguous States, Stable Borders and the Peace between Democracies Douglas M. Gibler June 2013 Abstract Park and Colaresi argue that they could not replicate the results of my 2007 ISQ article, Bordering
More informationUvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository)
UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository) Stay loyal or exit the party? How openness to experience and extroversion explain vote switching Bakker, B.N.; Klemmensen, R.; Nørgaard, A.S.; Schumacher, G. Published
More informationChapter 6 Online Appendix. general these issues do not cause significant problems for our analysis in this chapter. One
Chapter 6 Online Appendix Potential shortcomings of SF-ratio analysis Using SF-ratios to understand strategic behavior is not without potential problems, but in general these issues do not cause significant
More informationPersonality Traits and Correct Voting
568551APRXXX10.1177/1532673X14568551American Politics ResearchHa and Lau research-article2015 Article Personality Traits and Correct Voting American Politics Research 2015, Vol. 43(6) 975 998 The Author(s)
More informationSupporting Information for Do Perceptions of Ballot Secrecy Influence Turnout? Results from a Field Experiment
Supporting Information for Do Perceptions of Ballot Secrecy Influence Turnout? Results from a Field Experiment Alan S. Gerber Yale University Professor Department of Political Science Institution for Social
More informationProblems with Group Decision Making
Problems with Group Decision Making There are two ways of evaluating political systems. 1. Consequentialist ethics evaluate actions, policies, or institutions in regard to the outcomes they produce. 2.
More informationThe role of Social Cultural and Political Factors in explaining Perceived Responsiveness of Representatives in Local Government.
The role of Social Cultural and Political Factors in explaining Perceived Responsiveness of Representatives in Local Government. Master Onderzoek 2012-2013 Family Name: Jelluma Given Name: Rinse Cornelis
More informationBehavioural Anomalies Explain Variation in Voter Turnout
Behavioural Anomalies Explain Variation in Voter Turnout Christopher Dawes Peter John Loewen January 10, 2012 Abstract Individuals regularly behave in ways inconsistent with expected utility theory. We
More informationAbandon Ship? A Preliminary Analysis of Strategic Voting Among Liberal Democrat Voters in the 2015 UK Election
Abandon Ship? A Preliminary Analysis of Strategic Voting Among Liberal Democrat Voters in the 2015 UK Election Isaac Hale * University of California, Davis March 29, 2017 Abstract The subject of strategic
More informationA Study of Approval voting on Large Poisson Games
A Study of Approval voting on Large Poisson Games Ecole Polytechnique Simposio de Analisis Económico December 2008 Matías Núñez () A Study of Approval voting on Large Poisson Games 1 / 15 A controversy
More informationA positive correlation between turnout and plurality does not refute the rational voter model
Quality & Quantity 26: 85-93, 1992. 85 O 1992 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands. Note A positive correlation between turnout and plurality does not refute the rational voter model
More informationExperimental Evidence about Whether (and Why) Electoral Closeness Affects Turnout
Experimental Evidence about Whether (and Why) Electoral Closeness Affects Turnout Daniel R. Biggers University of California, Riverside, Assistant Professor Department of Political Science 900 University
More informationAmericasBarometer Insights: 2010 (No. 37) * Trust in Elections
AmericasBarometer Insights: 2010 (No. 37) * By Matthew L. Layton Matthew.l.layton@vanderbilt.edu Vanderbilt University E lections are the keystone of representative democracy. While they may not be sufficient
More informationSocial Rankings in Human-Computer Committees
Social Rankings in Human-Computer Committees Moshe Bitan 1, Ya akov (Kobi) Gal 3 and Elad Dokow 4, and Sarit Kraus 1,2 1 Computer Science Department, Bar Ilan University, Israel 2 Institute for Advanced
More informationExposing Media Election Myths
Exposing Media Election Myths 1 There is no evidence of election fraud. 2 Bush 48% approval in 2004 does not indicate he stole the election. 3 Pre-election polls in 2004 did not match the exit polls. 4
More informationEvidence from Hungary
Strategic Voting, Mixed and Runoff Elections: Evidence from Hungary Daniel Prinz March 30, 2013 Abstract Iattempttoquantifystrategicvotingusingthemixed(proportional and plurality) dual ballot election
More informationWorking Paper: The Effect of Electronic Voting Machines on Change in Support for Bush in the 2004 Florida Elections
Working Paper: The Effect of Electronic Voting Machines on Change in Support for Bush in the 2004 Florida Elections Michael Hout, Laura Mangels, Jennifer Carlson, Rachel Best With the assistance of the
More informationUNDERSTANDING TAIWAN INDEPENDENCE AND ITS POLICY IMPLICATIONS
UNDERSTANDING TAIWAN INDEPENDENCE AND ITS POLICY IMPLICATIONS Emerson M. S. Niou Abstract Taiwan s democratization has placed Taiwan independence as one of the most important issues for its domestic politics
More informationIt s Personal: The Big Five Personality Traits and Negative Partisan Affect in Polarized U.S. Politics
756925ABSXXX10.1177/0002764218756925American Behavioral ScientistWebster research-article2018 Article It s Personal: The Big Five Personality Traits and Negative Partisan Affect in Polarized U.S. Politics
More informationSocio-demographics and Political Ideology: A Multinational Analysis. Surat Teerakapibal, Thammasat Business School, Thammasat University, Thailand
Socio-demographics and Political Ideology: A Multinational Analysis Surat Teerakapibal, Thammasat Business School, Thammasat University, Thailand The Asian Conference on Psychology & the Behavioral Sciences
More information1. The Relationship Between Party Control, Latino CVAP and the Passage of Bills Benefitting Immigrants
The Ideological and Electoral Determinants of Laws Targeting Undocumented Migrants in the U.S. States Online Appendix In this additional methodological appendix I present some alternative model specifications
More informationConstitutional Reform in California: The Surprising Divides
Constitutional Reform in California: The Surprising Divides Mike Binder Bill Lane Center for the American West, Stanford University University of California, San Diego Tammy M. Frisby Hoover Institution
More informationProposal for the 2016 ANES Time Series. Quantitative Predictions of State and National Election Outcomes
Proposal for the 2016 ANES Time Series Quantitative Predictions of State and National Election Outcomes Keywords: Election predictions, motivated reasoning, natural experiments, citizen competence, measurement
More informationInternational Cooperation, Parties and. Ideology - Very preliminary and incomplete
International Cooperation, Parties and Ideology - Very preliminary and incomplete Jan Klingelhöfer RWTH Aachen University February 15, 2015 Abstract I combine a model of international cooperation with
More informationPractice Questions for Exam #2
Fall 2007 Page 1 Practice Questions for Exam #2 1. Suppose that we have collected a stratified random sample of 1,000 Hispanic adults and 1,000 non-hispanic adults. These respondents are asked whether
More informationA Report on the Social Network Battery in the 1998 American National Election Study Pilot Study. Robert Huckfeldt Ronald Lake Indiana University
A Report on the Social Network Battery in the 1998 American National Election Study Pilot Study Robert Huckfeldt Ronald Lake Indiana University January 2000 The 1998 Pilot Study of the American National
More informationThe Effect of Political Trust on the Voter Turnout of the Lower Educated
The Effect of Political Trust on the Voter Turnout of the Lower Educated Jaap Meijer Inge van de Brug June 2013 Jaap Meijer (3412504) & Inge van de Brug (3588408) Bachelor Thesis Sociology Faculty of Social
More informationA Cost Benefit Analysis of Voting
MPRA Munich Personal RePEc Archive A Cost Benefit Analysis of Voting Richard Cebula and Richard McGrath and Chris Paul Jacksonville University, Armstrong Atlantic State University, Georgia Southern University
More informationIssue Importance and Performance Voting. *** Soumis à Political Behavior ***
Issue Importance and Performance Voting Patrick Fournier, André Blais, Richard Nadeau, Elisabeth Gidengil, and Neil Nevitte *** Soumis à Political Behavior *** Issue importance mediates the impact of public
More informationPaper prepared for the ECPR General Conference, September 2017 Oslo.
Can political parties trust themselves? Partisan EMBs and protests in Latin America Gabriela Tarouco Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Brazil FIRST DRAFT Abstract Why do political parties choose to reject
More informationElectoral System and Number of Candidates: Candidate Entry under Plurality and Majority Runoff
Electoral System and Number of Candidates: Candidate Entry under Plurality and Majority Runoff Damien Bol, André Blais, Jean-François Laslier, Antonin Macé To cite this version: Damien Bol, André Blais,
More informationThis journal is published by the American Political Science Association. All rights reserved.
Article: National Conditions, Strategic Politicians, and U.S. Congressional Elections: Using the Generic Vote to Forecast the 2006 House and Senate Elections Author: Alan I. Abramowitz Issue: October 2006
More informationHow Incivility in Partisan Media (De-)Polarizes. the Electorate
How Incivility in Partisan Media (De-)Polarizes the Electorate Ashley Lloyd MMSS Senior Thesis Advisor: Professor Druckman 1 Research Question: The aim of this study is to uncover how uncivil partisan
More informationVoting as a Right or a Duty: A social Psychological Analysis. Meredith Sprengel. Georgetown University
Voting as a Right or a Duty 1 Running Header: VOTING AS A RIGHT OR A DUTY Voting as a Right or a Duty: A social Psychological Analysis Meredith Sprengel Georgetown University Voting as a Right or a Duty
More informationThe literature on the relationship between electoral
Making Candidates Count: The Logic of Electoral AlliancesinTwo-RoundLegislativeElections André Blais Indridi H. Indridason Université de Montréal University of Iceland Electoral systems have been shown
More informationTitle: Personality Traits, Income and Economic Ideology
Running Head: Personality and Economic Ideology Title: Personality Traits, Income and Economic Ideology Abstract Dr. Bert N. Bakker Amsterdam School of Communication Research University of Amsterdam Nieuwe
More informationFollowing the Leader: The Impact of Presidential Campaign Visits on Legislative Support for the President's Policy Preferences
University of Colorado, Boulder CU Scholar Undergraduate Honors Theses Honors Program Spring 2011 Following the Leader: The Impact of Presidential Campaign Visits on Legislative Support for the President's
More informationWisconsin Economic Scorecard
RESEARCH PAPER> May 2012 Wisconsin Economic Scorecard Analysis: Determinants of Individual Opinion about the State Economy Joseph Cera Researcher Survey Center Manager The Wisconsin Economic Scorecard
More informationPublic Choice. Slide 1
Public Choice We investigate how people can come up with a group decision mechanism. Several aspects of our economy can not be handled by the competitive market. Whenever there is market failure, there
More informationCREST CENTRE FOR RESEARCH INTO ELECTIONS AND SOCIAL TRENDS
CREST CENTRE FOR RESEARCH INTO ELECTIONS AND SOCIAL TRENDS Working Paper Number 93 September 2001 Tactical Voting and Tactical Non-Voting By Stephen Fisher The Centre for Research into Elections and Social
More informationPart Three (continued): Electoral Systems & Linkage Institutions
Part Three (continued): Electoral Systems & Linkage Institutions Our political institutions work remarkably well. They are designed to clang against each other. The noise is democracy at work. -- Michael
More informationWhy People Vote: Estimating the Social Returns to Voting
Why People Vote: Estimating the Social Returns to Voting Alan S. Gerber Yale University Professor Department of Political Science Institution for Social and Policy Studies 77 Prospect Street, PO Box 208209
More information2017 CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORT
2017 CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORT PRINCIPAL AUTHORS: LONNA RAE ATKESON PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, DIRECTOR CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF VOTING, ELECTIONS AND DEMOCRACY, AND DIRECTOR INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH,
More informationGender preference and age at arrival among Asian immigrant women to the US
Gender preference and age at arrival among Asian immigrant women to the US Ben Ost a and Eva Dziadula b a Department of Economics, University of Illinois at Chicago, 601 South Morgan UH718 M/C144 Chicago,
More informationProf. Bryan Caplan Econ 854
Prof. Bryan Caplan bcaplan@gmu.edu http://www.bcaplan.com Econ 854 Week 6: Voter Motivation, III: Miscellaneous I. Religion, Party, and Ideology A. Many observers of modern American politics think that
More informationThe Ideological Foundations of Affective Polarization in the U.S. Electorate
703132APRXXX10.1177/1532673X17703132American Politics ResearchWebster and Abramowitz research-article2017 Article The Ideological Foundations of Affective Polarization in the U.S. Electorate American Politics
More informationRBS SAMPLING FOR EFFICIENT AND ACCURATE TARGETING OF TRUE VOTERS
Dish RBS SAMPLING FOR EFFICIENT AND ACCURATE TARGETING OF TRUE VOTERS Comcast Patrick Ruffini May 19, 2017 Netflix 1 HOW CAN WE USE VOTER FILES FOR ELECTION SURVEYS? Research Synthesis TRADITIONAL LIKELY
More informationPolitical ignorance & policy preference. Eric Crampton University of Canterbury
Political ignorance & policy preference Eric Crampton University of Canterbury What do we know? Know US House majority party 69% know it Can name their member of Congress 46% know it Know term of House
More informationNon-Voted Ballots and Discrimination in Florida
Non-Voted Ballots and Discrimination in Florida John R. Lott, Jr. School of Law Yale University 127 Wall Street New Haven, CT 06511 (203) 432-2366 john.lott@yale.edu revised July 15, 2001 * This paper
More informationRobert H. Prisuta, American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) 601 E Street, N.W., Washington, D.C
A POST-ELECTION BANDWAGON EFFECT? COMPARING NATIONAL EXIT POLL DATA WITH A GENERAL POPULATION SURVEY Robert H. Prisuta, American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) 601 E Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
More informationCross-District Variation in Split-Ticket Voting
Cross-District Variation in Split-Ticket Voting Daniel J. Lee Robert Lupton Department of Political Science Michigan State University January 10, 2014 Abstract We test hypotheses on split-ticket voting
More informationNegative Partisanship: Why Americans Dislike Parties But Behave Like Rabid Partisans
bs_bs_banner Advances in Political Psychology, Vol. 39, Suppl. 1, 2018 doi: 10.1111/pops.12479 Negative Partisanship: Why Americans Dislike Parties But Behave Like Rabid Partisans Alan I. Abramowitz Emory
More informationObjectives and Context
Encouraging Ballot Return via Text Message: Portland Community College Bond Election 2017 Prepared by Christopher B. Mann, Ph.D. with Alexis Cantor and Isabelle Fischer Executive Summary A series of text
More informationDo two parties represent the US? Clustering analysis of US public ideology survey
Do two parties represent the US? Clustering analysis of US public ideology survey Louisa Lee 1 and Siyu Zhang 2, 3 Advised by: Vicky Chuqiao Yang 1 1 Department of Engineering Sciences and Applied Mathematics,
More informationPolitical Economics II Spring Lectures 4-5 Part II Partisan Politics and Political Agency. Torsten Persson, IIES
Lectures 4-5_190213.pdf Political Economics II Spring 2019 Lectures 4-5 Part II Partisan Politics and Political Agency Torsten Persson, IIES 1 Introduction: Partisan Politics Aims continue exploring policy
More informationThe Evolution of Voter Intent Since the 1995 Referendum Myths and Realities.
The Evolution of Voter Intent Since the 1995 Referendum Myths and Realities. Claire Durand Department de Sociology Université de Montréal This article is a summary of a number of analyses on this subject.
More informationCAN FAIR VOTING SYSTEMS REALLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE?
CAN FAIR VOTING SYSTEMS REALLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE? Facts and figures from Arend Lijphart s landmark study: Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries Prepared by: Fair
More informationEvidence of Gendered Selection Effects into Public Office: Gendered Institutions, Political Ambition, and Personality Differences
Evidence of Gendered Selection Effects into Public Office: Gendered Institutions, Political Ambition, and Personality Differences Adam M. Dynes adamdynes@byu.edu Brigham Young University Hans J.G. Hassell
More informationPolitical socialization: change and stability in political attitudes among and within age cohorts
University of Central Florida HIM 1990-2015 Open Access Political socialization: change and stability in political attitudes among and within age cohorts 2011 Michael S. Hale University of Central Florida
More informationOnline Appendix 1: Treatment Stimuli
Online Appendix 1: Treatment Stimuli Polarized Stimulus: 1 Electorate as Divided as Ever by Jefferson Graham (USA Today) In the aftermath of the 2012 presidential election, interviews with voters at a
More informationSo Close But So Far: Voting Propensity and Party Choice for Left-Wing Parties
(2010) Swiss Political Science Review 16(3): 373 402 So Close But So Far: Voting Propensity and Party Choice for Left-Wing Parties Daniel Bochsler and Pascal Sciarini Central European University Budapest
More informationSupplemental Appendices
Supplemental Appendices Appendix 1: Question Wording, Descriptive Data for All Variables, and Correlations of Dependent Variables (page 2) Appendix 2: Hierarchical Models of Democratic Support (page 7)
More informationVote Likelihood and Institutional Trait Questions in the 1997 NES Pilot Study
Vote Likelihood and Institutional Trait Questions in the 1997 NES Pilot Study Barry C. Burden and Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier The Ohio State University Department of Political Science 2140 Derby Hall Columbus,
More informationIowa Voting Series, Paper 6: An Examination of Iowa Absentee Voting Since 2000
Department of Political Science Publications 5-1-2014 Iowa Voting Series, Paper 6: An Examination of Iowa Absentee Voting Since 2000 Timothy M. Hagle University of Iowa 2014 Timothy M. Hagle Comments This
More informationPublic Awareness and Attitudes about Redistricting Institutions
Journal of Politics and Law; Vol. 6, No. 3; 2013 ISSN 1913-9047 E-ISSN 1913-9055 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education Public Awareness and Attitudes about Redistricting Institutions Costas
More informationArticle (Accepted version) (Refereed)
Alan S. Gerber, Gregory A. Huber, Daniel R. Biggers and David J. Hendry Self-interest, beliefs, and policy opinions: understanding how economic beliefs affect immigration policy preferences Article (Accepted
More informationCan a party school be sophisticated? Citizen preferences for Electoral College reform. Jason Reifler Georgia State University
Can a party school be sophisticated? Citizen preferences for Electoral College reform Jason Reifler Georgia State University jreifler@gsu.edu John Aldrich Duke University aldrich@duke.edu We are extremely
More informationMigrants and external voting
The Migration & Development Series On the occasion of International Migrants Day New York, 18 December 2008 Panel discussion on The Human Rights of Migrants Facilitating the Participation of Migrants in
More informationVote Compass Methodology
Vote Compass Methodology 1 Introduction Vote Compass is a civic engagement application developed by the team of social and data scientists from Vox Pop Labs. Its objective is to promote electoral literacy
More informationVoter strategies with restricted choice menus *
Voter strategies with restricted choice menus * Kenneth Benoit Daniela Giannetti Michael Laver Trinity College, Dublin University of Bologna New York University kbenoit@tcd.ie giannett@spbo.unibo.it ml127@nyu.edu
More informationResponsibility judgments in voting scenarios
Responsibility judgments in voting scenarios Tobias Gerstenberg 1 (tger@mit.edu) Joseph Y. Halpern 2 (halpern@cs.cornell.edu) Joshua B. Tenenbaum 1 (jbt@mit.edu) 1 Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences,
More informationHANDBOOK OF SOCIAL CHOICE AND VOTING Jac C. Heckelman and Nicholas R. Miller, editors.
HANDBOOK OF SOCIAL CHOICE AND VOTING Jac C. Heckelman and Nicholas R. Miller, editors. 1. Introduction: Issues in Social Choice and Voting (Jac C. Heckelman and Nicholas R. Miller) 2. Perspectives on Social
More informationNon-electoral Participation: Citizen-initiated Contact. and Collective Actions
Asian Barometer Conference on Democracy and Citizen Politics in East Asia Co-organized by Institute of Political Science, Academia Sinica Taiwan Foundation for Democracy Program for East Asia Democratic
More information