Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b95js Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-20T16:24:17.979Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Heuristics in Context

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 October 2016

David Fortunato  and
Randolph T. Stevenson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A growing literature in political science has pointed to the importance of heuristics in explaining citizens’ political attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. At the same time, the multidisciplinary research on heuristics in general has revealed that individuals seem to use heuristics sensibly—applying them (perhaps subconsciously) when they are likely to be helpful but not otherwise. We extend this multidisciplinary work to political behavior and present a general theory of contextual variation in political heuristic use applied to discover under what conditions (i.e., what political contexts) voters will use a partisanship heuristic to infer the legislative votes of their legislators in imperfectly disciplined voting contexts. More specifically, we predict that US constituents of loyal partisan senators will use the partisanship heuristic more often than constituents of less loyal senators. Our empirical analysis reveals strong support for our theory, contributing to our understanding of political heuristics in general and adding nuance to our understanding of the partisanship heuristic in particular.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Political Science Research and Methods , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , April 2019 , pp. 311 - 330
Copyright
© The European Political Science Association 2016 

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

*

David Fortunato, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Texas A&M University, 2010 Allen Building, 4348 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843-4348 ([email protected]). Randolph T. Stevenson, Professor, Department of Political Science, Rice University, 105 Herzstein Hall, 6100 Main St. Houston, TX 77005-1827 ([email protected]).

References

Ansolabehere, Stephen, and Jones, Philip Edward. 2010. ‘Constituents’ Responses to Congressional Roll-Call Voting’. American Journal of Political Science 54:583–597.Google Scholar
Carson, Jaime, Koger, Gregory, Lebo, Matthew, and Young, Everett. 2010. ‘The Electoral Costs of Party Loyalty in Congress’. American Journal of Political Science 54:598–616.Google Scholar
Dancey, Logan, and Sheagley, Geoffrey. 2013. ‘Heuristics Behaving Badly: Party Cues and Voter Knowledge’. American Journal of Political Science 57:312–325.Google Scholar
Duch, Raymond M., Przepiorka, Wojtek, and Stevenson, Randolph T.. 2014. ‘Responsibility Attribution for Collective Decision Makers’. American Journal of Political Science 59:372–389.Google Scholar
Fortunato, David, and Stevenson, Randolph T.. 2013. ‘Perceptions of Partisan Ideologies: The Effect of Coalition Participation’. American Journal of Political Science 57:459–477.Google Scholar
Fortunato, David, and Stevenson, Randolph T.. 2016. ‘Heuristics and Coalition Expectations’. Manuscript, Rice University, Houston, TX.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, Gerd, Hertwig, Ralph, and Pachur, Thorsten. (eds). 2011. Heuristics: The Foundations of Adaptive Behavior. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, Gerd, and Gassmaier, Wolfgang. 2011. ‘Heuristic Decision Making’. Annual Review of Psychology 62:451–482.Google Scholar
Goldstein, Daniel G., and Gigerenzer, Gerd. 2002. ‘Models of Ecological Rationality: The Recognition Heuristic’. Psychological Review 109:75–90.Google Scholar
Huckfeldt, Robert. 2007. ‘Unanimity, Discord, and the Communication of Public Opinion’. American Journal of Political Science 51:978–995.Google Scholar
King, Gary, and Roberts, Margaret E.. 2015. ‘How robust standard errors expose methodological problems they do not fix, and what to do about it’. Political Analysis 23:159–179.Google Scholar
Kuklinski, James H., and Hurley, Norman L.. 1994. ‘On Hearing and Interpreting Political Messages: A Cautionary Tale of Citizen Cue-Taking’. Journal of Politics 56:729–751.Google Scholar
Lau, Richard, and Redlawsk, David. 1997. ‘Voting Correctly’. American Political Science Review 91:585–598.Google Scholar
Lau, Richard, and Redlawsk, David. 2001. ‘Advantages and Disadvantages of Cognitive Heuristics in Political Decision Making’. American Journal of Political Science 45:951–971.Google Scholar
Levendusky, Matthew. 2009. The Partisan Sort: How Liberals Became Democrats and Conservatives Became Republicans. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lodge, Milton, McGraw, Kathleen, and Stroh, Patrick. 1989. ‘An Impression-Driven Model of Candidate Evaluation’. American Political Science Review 83:399–419.Google Scholar
Lodge, Milton, and Hamill, Ruth. 1986. ‘A Partisan Schema for Political Information Processing’. American Political Science Review 80:505–520.Google Scholar
Lupia, Arthur. 1994. ‘Shortcuts Versus Encyclopedias: Information and Voting Behavior in California Insurance Reform Elections’. American Political Science Review 88:63–76.Google Scholar
Lupia, Artur, and McCubbins, Matthew D.. 1998. The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need to Know?. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Luskin, Robert C., and Bullock, John G.. 2011. ‘“Don’t Know” Means “Don’t Know”: DK Responses and the Public’s Level of Political Knowledge’. Journal of Politics 73:547–557.Google Scholar
Nicholson, Stephen P. 2012. ‘Polarizing Cues’. American Journal of Political Science 56:52–66.Google Scholar
Pohl, Rüdiger F. 2006. ‘Empirical Tests of the Recognition Heuristic’. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 19:251–271.Google Scholar
Smith, Vernon L. 2003. ‘Constructivist and Ecological Rationality in Economics’. American Economics Review 93:465–508.Google Scholar
Sniderman, Paul M., Brody, Richard A., and Tetlock, Philip E.. 1991. Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Steenbergen, Marco R., and Jones, Bradford S.. 2002. ‘Modeling Multilevel Data Structures’. American Journal of Political Science 46:218–237.Google Scholar
The Pew Research Center. 2012. ‘What the Public Knows about the Political Parties’. White Paper. Available at http://www.people-press.org/2012/04/11/what-the-public-knows-about-the-political-parties/, accessed 11 April 2012.Google Scholar
Todd, Peter M., and Gigerenzer, Gerd. 2012. Ecological Rationality: Intelligence in the World . New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Train, Kenneth. 2009. Discrete Choice Methods With Simulation 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, J. Matthew, and Gronke, Paul. 2000. ‘Concordance and projection in citizen perceptions of congressional roll-call voting’. Legislative Studies Quarterly 445–467.Google Scholar
Zaller, John. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Fortunato and Stevenson supplementary material

Online Appendix

Download Fortunato and Stevenson supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 270.1 KB
Supplementary material: Link

Fortunato and Stevenson Dataset

Dataset

http://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/VLS3XL
Link