Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T18:45:18.196Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Heuristics, Heterogeneity and Green Choices Voting on California’s Proposition 23*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 August 2015

Harold D. Clarke ,
Euel Elliott  and
Marianne C. Stewart
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Ballot initiatives and referendums are increasingly popular methods for addressing important political issues. Studies of voting in these events has found that people rely on party leader and candidate image heuristics when deciding how to cast their ballots. Some analysts have argued that these effects are heterogeneous, being larger for people with lower levels of political knowledge. However, research in experimental economics and political psychology suggests that the impact of heuristics may be greater among more knowledgeable individuals. This paper investigates these rival hypotheses using survey data on voting in a ballot initiative to repeal California’s climate change legislation. Analyses using methods appropriate for studying interaction effects in nonlinear multivariate models demonstrate that candidate heuristics are stronger among more knowledgeable people.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Political Science Research and Methods , Volume 5 , Issue 4 , October 2017 , pp. 755 - 774
Copyright
© The European Political Science Association 2015 

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.)

Footnotes

*

Harold D. Clarke, Asbel Smith Professor ([email protected]), Euel Elliott, Professor ([email protected]) and Marianne C. Stewart, Professor ([email protected]), School of Economic, Political and Policy Sciences, University of Texas at Dallas, Dallas, TX 75252. Financial support for the present study was provided by the National Science Foundation (Grant #SES-1048117) and the University of Texas at Dallas. The authors wish to thank the NSF and UTD for their generous assistance. The survey data and supporting documentation will be placed on the authors’ website to permit replication analyses.

References

Achen, Christopher. 2001. An Agenda for the New Political Methodology: Microfoundations and ART. Ann Arbor, MI: Department of Political Science, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Ai, Chunrong, and Norton, Edward C.. 2003. ‘Interaction Terms in Logit and Probit Models’. Economics Letters 80:123–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alvarez, R. Michael, and Kiewiet, D. Roderick. 2009. ‘Rationality and Rationalistic Choice in the California Recall’. British Journal of Political Science 39:267–290.Google Scholar
Alvarez, R. Michael, and Glasgow, Garrett. 1999. ‘Two-Stage Estimation of Non-Recursive Choice Models’. Political Analysis 8:147–165.Google Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, and Schaffner, Brian F.. 2014. ‘Does Survey Mode Still Matter? Findings From a 2010 Multi-Mode Comparison’. Political Analysis 22:285–303.Google Scholar
Bartle, John. 2005. ‘Homogeneous Models and Heterogeneous Voters’. Political Studies 53:653–675.Google Scholar
Berry, William D., DeMeritt, Jacqueline H. R., and Esarey, Justin. 2010. ‘Testing for Interaction in Binary Logit and Probit Models: Is a Product Term Essential?’. American Journal of Political Science 54:248–266.Google Scholar
Bowler, Shaun, and Donovan, Todd. 1998. Demanding Choices: Opinion, Voting and Direct Democracy. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blais, Andre, Gidengil, Elisabeth, Nevitte, Neil, and Johnston, Richard. 1996. The Challenge of Direct Democracy: The 1992 Canadian Referendum. Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press.Google Scholar
Bowler, Shaun, Donovan, Todd, and Tolbert, Caroline (eds) 1998. Citizens as Legislators: Direct Democracy in the United States . Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Brambor, Thomas, Clark, William, and Golder, Matt. 2006. ‘Understanding Interaction Models: Improving Empirical Analyses’. Political Analysis 14:63–82.Google Scholar
Braumoeller, Bear. 2004. ‘Hypothesis Testing and Multiplicative Interaction Terms’. International Organization 58:807–820.Google Scholar
Burnham, Kenneth P., and Anderson, David R.. 2002. Model Selection and Multi-Model Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Butler, David, and Ranney, Austin (eds), 1994. Referendums Around the World: The Growing Use of Direct Democracy. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Clarke, Harold D., Kornberg, Allan, and Stewart, Marianne C.. 2004. ‘Referendum Voting as Political Choice: The Case of Quebec’. British Journal of Political Science 34:345–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, Harold D., Kornberg, Allan, and Scotto, Thomas J.. 2009. Making Political Choices: Voting in Canada and the United States. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Clarke, Harold D., Kornberg, Allan, Scotto, Thomas J., and Stewart, Marianne C.. 2012. ‘Political Choices in Hard Times: Voting in the 2010 Congressional Elections’. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 22:139–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, Harold D., Sanders, David, Stewart, Marianne, and Whiteley, Paul. 2013. ‘Leader Heuristics, Political Knowledge and Voting in Britain’s AV Referendum’. Electoral Studies 32:224–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conlisk, John. 1996. ‘Why Bounded Rationality?’. Journal of Economic Literature 34:669–700.Google Scholar
Converse, Philip E. 1964. ‘The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics’. In David Apter (ed.), Ideology and Discontent, pp. 206–261. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Cronin, Thomas E. 1989. Direct Democracy: The Politics of Initiative, Referendum and Recall. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Delli Carpini, Michael X., and Keeter, Scott. 1997. What Americans Know About Politics and Why it Matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Donovan, Todd, Tolbert, Carline J., and Smith, Daniel A.. 2009. ‘Political Engagement, Mobilization, and Direct Democracy’. Public Opinion Quarterly 73:96–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gigerenzer, Gerd. 2008. Rationality for Mortals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, Gerd, Hertwig, Ralph, and Pachur, Thorsten (eds), 2011. Heuristics: The Foundations of Adaptive Behavior. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gigerenzer, Gerd, and Gaissmaier, Wolfgang. 2011. ‘Heuristic Decision Making’. Review of Psychology 62:451–482.Google Scholar
Gomez, Brad, and Wilson, Matthew. 2001. ‘Political Sophistication and Economic Voting in the American Electorate: A Theory of Heterogeneous Attribution’. American Journal of Political Science 45:899–914.Google Scholar
Gomez, Brad, and Wilson, Matthew. 2006. ‘Cognitive Heterogeneity and Economic Voting: A Comparative Analysis of Four Democratic Electorates’. American Journal of Political Science 50:127–145.Google Scholar
Greene, William. 2010. ‘Testing Hypotheses About Interaction Terms in Nonlinear Models’. Economics Letters 107:291–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanmer, Michael J., and Kalkan, Kerem Ozan. 2013. ‘Behind the Curve: Clarifying the Best Approach to Calculating Predicted Probabilities and Marginal Effects From Limited Dependent Variable Models’. American Journal of Political Science 57:263–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel, Slovic, Paul, and Tversky, Amos (eds), 1982. Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kam, Cindy D., and Franzese, Robert J. Jr. 2007. Modeling and Interpreting Interactive Hypotheses in Regression Analysis. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Karp, Jeffrey. 1998. ‘The Influence of Elite Endorsements in Initiative Campaigns’. In Shaun Bowler, Todd Donovan and Caroline J. Tolbert (eds), Citizens as Legislators: Direct Democracy in the United States. 149–165. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
LeDuc, Lawrence. 2003. The Politics of Direct Democracy: Referendums in Global Perspective. Toronto: Broadview Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis-Beck, Michael S., Nadeau, Richard, and Bélanger, Eric. 2011. French Presidential Elections. London: Macmillan Palgrave.Google Scholar
Long, J. Scott, and Freese, Jeremy. 2014. Regression Models for Categorical Dependent Variables Using Stata 3rd ed. College Station, TX: The Stata Press.Google Scholar
Lupia, Arthur. 1994. ‘Shortcuts Versus Encyclopedias: Voting in California Insurance Reform Elections’. American Political Science Review 88:63–76.Google Scholar
Lupia, Arthur, and McCubbins, Mathew D.. 1998. The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need to Know. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lupia, Arthur, McCubbins, Mathew D., and Popkin, Samuel L. (eds), 2000. Elements of Reason: Cognition, Choice, and the Bounds of Rationality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Magleby, David B. 1984. Direct Legislation: Voting on Ballot Propositions in the United States. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondak, Jeffrey. 1993. ‘Source Cues and Policy Approval: The Cognitive Dynamics of Public Support for the Reagan Agenda’. American Journal of Political Science 37:186–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nadeau, Richard, Martin, Richard, and Blais, André. 1999. ‘Attitudes Towards Risk Taking and Individual Choice in the Quebec Referendum on Sovereignty’. British Journal of Political Science 29:523–539.Google Scholar
Nagler, Jonathan. 1991. ‘The Effect of Registration Laws and Education on U.S. Voter Turnout’. American Journal of Political Science 85:1393–1405.Google Scholar
Nagler, Jonathan. 1994. ‘Scobit: An Alternative Estimator to Logit and Probit’. American Journal of Political Science 38:230–255.Google Scholar
Norton, Edward C., Wang, Hua, and Ai, Chunrong. 2004. ‘Computing Interaction Effects and Standard Errors in Logit and Probit’. The Stata Journal 4:154–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savage, Leonard J. 1972. The Foundations of Statistics. 2nd rev. ed. New York, NY: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
Simon, Herbert. 1955. ‘A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice’. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 69:99–118.Google Scholar
Simon, Herbert. 1957. Models of Man: Social and Rational. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Smith, Daniel A., and Tolbert, Caroline J.. 2004. Educated by Initiative: The Effects of Direct Democracy on Citizens and Political Organizations in the American States. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Daniel A., and Tolbert, Caroline J.. 2010. ‘Direct Democracy, Public Opinion, and Candidate Choice’. Public Opinion Quarterly 74:85–108.Google Scholar
Sniderman, Paul, Brody, Richard, and Tetlock, Philip E.. 1991. Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thaler, Richard (ed.), 1993. Advances in Behavioral Finance. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Thaler, Richard. 1994. Quasi-Rational Economics. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Tomz, Michael, Wittenberg, Jason, and King, Gary. 1999. Clarify: Software for Interpreting and Presenting Statistical Results. Cambridge, MA: Department of Government, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Vavreck, Lynn, and Rivers, Douglas. 2008. ‘The 2006 Cooperative Congressional Election Study’. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 18:355–366.Google Scholar
Zaller, John. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar