Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T08:20:15.211Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Moral Bias in Large Elections: Theory and Experimental Evidence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2009

TIMOTHY FEDDERSEN ,
SEAN GAILMARD  and
ALVARO SANDRONI
TIMOTHY FEDDERSEN*
Affiliation:
Northwestern University
SEAN GAILMARD*
Affiliation:
University of California at Berkeley
ALVARO SANDRONI*
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
*
Timothy Feddersen is the Wendell Hobbs Professor of Managerial Economics, Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, 2001 Sheridan Road, Evanston, IL 60208 ([email protected]).
Sean Gailmard is Assistant Professor, Charles and Louise Travers Department of Political Science, University of California at Berkeley, 210 Barrows Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720 ([email protected]).
Alvaro Sandroni is Professor, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania, 3718 Locust Walk, Philadelphia, PA 19104 ([email protected]).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We argue that large elections may exhibit a moral bias (i.e., conditional on the distribution of preferences within the electorate, alternatives understood by voters to be morally superior are more likely to win in large elections than in small ones). This bias can result from ethical expressive preferences, which include a payoff voters obtain from taking an action they believe to be ethical. In large elections, pivot probability is small, so expressive preferences become more important relative to material self-interest. Ethical expressive preferences can have a disproportionate impact on results in large elections for two reasons. As pivot probability declines, ethical expressive motivations make agents more likely to vote on the basis of ethical considerations than on the basis of narrow self-interest, and the set of agents who choose to vote increasingly consist of agents with large ethical expressive payoffs. We provide experimental evidence that is consistent with the hypothesis of moral bias.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 103 , Issue 2 , May 2009 , pp. 175 - 192
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Andreoni, James. 1990. “Impure Altruism and Donations to Public Goods: A Theory of Warm-Glow.” Economic Journal 100: 464–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andreoni, James. 2006. “Philanthropy.” In Handbook of Giving, Reciprocity, and Altruism, eds. Gerard-Veret, L.-A., Kolm, S.-C., and Mercier, J.. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Babcock, Linda, and Lowenstein, George. 1997. “Explaining Bargaining Impasse: The Role of Self-Serving Biases.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 11: 109–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckman, Steven, Formby, John, Smith, W. James, and Zheng, Buhong. 2002. “Envy, Malice, and Pareto Efficiency: An Experimental Investigation.” Social Choice and Welfare 19: 349–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolton, Gary, and Ockenfels, Axel. 2000. “ERC: A Theory of Equity, Reciprocity, and Competition.” American Economic Review 90: 166–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brennan, Geoffry, and Buchanan, James. 1984. “Voter Choice: Evaluating Political Alternatives.” American Behavioral Scientist 28: 185–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brennan, Geoffrey, and Lomasky, Loren. 1993. Democracy and Decision: The Pure Theory of Electoral Preference. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camerer, Colin. 2003. Behavioral Game Theory: Experiments in Strategic Interaction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Carter, John, and Guerette, Stephen. 1992. “An Experimental Study of Expressive Voting.” Public Choice 73: 251–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charness, Gary, and Rabin, Matthew. 2002. “Understanding Social Preferences with Simple Tests.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 117: 817–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coate, Stephen, and Conlin, Michael. 2004. “A Group Rule-Utilitarian Approach to Voter Turnout: Theory and Evidence.” American Economic Review 94: 1476–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummings, R. G., Harrison, G., and Rutström, E. E.. 1995. “Homegrown Values and Hypothetical Surveys: Is the Dichotomous Choice Approach Incentive Compatible?” American Economic Review 85: 260–6.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Duffy, John, and Tavits, Margit. 2006. “Beliefs and Voting Decisions: A Test of the Pivotal Voter Model.” Typescript, University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
Edlin, Aaron, Gelman, Andrew, and Kaplan, Noah. 2007. “Voting as a Rational Choice: Why and How People Vote to Improve the Well-being of Others.” Rationality and Society 19: 293–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feddersen, Timothy, and Pesendorfer, Wolfgang. 1996. “The Swing Voter's Curse.” American Economic Review 86: 408–24.Google Scholar
Feddersen, Timothy, and Sandroni, Alvaro. 2006a. “A Theory of Participation in Elections.” American Economic Review 96: 1271–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feddersen, Timothy, and Sandroni, Alvaro. 2006b. “Ethical Voters and Costly Information Acquisition.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 1 (3): 287–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fehr, Ernst, and Schmidt, Klaus. 1999. “A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Co-operation.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 114: 817–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, A. J. 1995. “A Further Experimental Study of Expressive Voting.” Public Choice 88: 171–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, James 2006. “Altruism and Turnout.” Journal of Politics 68: 674–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frohlich, Norman, and Oppenheimer, Joe. 1992. Choosing Justice. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grether, David, and Plott, Charles. 1979. “Economic Theory and the Preference Reversal Phenomenon.” American Economic Review 69: 623–38.Google Scholar
Harrison, Glenn W., and Rutström, E. Elisabet. 2008. “Experimental Evidence on the Existence of Hypothetical Bias in Value Elicitation Methods.” In Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, eds. Plott, Charles and Smith, Vernon. New York: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Harsanyi, John. 1977. “Rule Utilitarianism and Decision Theory.” Erkenntnis 11: 25–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jankowski, Richard. 2002. “Buying a Lottery Ticket to Help the Poor: Altruism, Civic Duty, and Self Interest in the Decision to Vote.” Rationality and Society 14: 55–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinder, Donald, and Kiewiet, D. Roderick. 1979. “Economic Grievances and Political Behavior: The Role of Personal Discontents and Collective Judgments in Congressional Voting.” American Journal of Political Science 23: 495–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, David, and Palfrey, Thomas. 2007. “The Paradox of Voter Participation? A Laboratory Study.” American Political Science Review 101: 143–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, John, and Gallet, Craig. 2001. “What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values? Evidence from a Meta-Analysis.” Environmental and Resource Economics 20: 241–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luce, Duncan. 1959. Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
McFadden, Daniel. 1974. “Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior.” In Frontiers of Econometrics, ed. Zarembka, P.. Academic Press.Google Scholar
McKelvey, Richard, and Palfrey, Thomas R.. 1995. “Quantal Response Equilibrium in Normal Form Games.” Games and Economic Behavior 10: 6–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Messick, David, and Sentis, Keith. 1979. “Fairness and Preference.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 15: 418–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton, Rebecca B. 1991. “Groups in Rational Turnout Models.” American Journal of Political Science 35: 758–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riker, William, and Ordeshook, Peter. 1968. “A Theory of the Calculus of Voting.” American Political Science Review 62: 25–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheussler, Alex. 2000. A Logic of Expressive Choice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sears, David O., and Citrin, Jack. 1985. Tax Revolt: Something for Nothing in California. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sears, David O., and Funk, Carolyn L.. 1991. “The Role of Self-Interest in Social and Political Attitudes.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 24: 1–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tullock, Gordon. 1971. “The Charity of the Uncharitable.” Western Economic Journal 9: 379–92.Google Scholar
Tyran, Jean-Robert. 2005. “Voting When Money and Morals Conflict: An Experimental Test of Expressive Voting.” Journal of Public Economics 88: 1645–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyran, Jean-Robert, and Sausgruber, Rupert. 2006. “A Little Fairness May Induce a Lot of Redistribution in Democracy.” European Economic Review 50: 469–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uhlaner, Carol. (1989). “Relational Goods and Participation: Incorporating Sociability into a Theory of Rational Action.” Public Choice 62: 255–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.