Advertisement

Political Behavior

, Volume 41, Issue 4, pp 1001–1024 | Cite as

Roadmaps to Representation: An Experimental Study of How Voter Education Tools Affect Citizen Decision Making

  • Cheryl BoudreauEmail author
  • Christopher S. Elmendorf
  • Scott A. MacKenzie
Original Paper

Abstract

Efforts to educate citizens about the candidates and issues at stake in elections are widespread. These include distributing voter guides describing candidates’ policy views and interactive tools conveying similar information. Do these voter education tools help voters identify candidates who share their policy views? We address this question by conducting survey experiments that randomly assign a nonpartisan voter guide, political party endorsements, a spatial map showing voters their own and the candidates’ ideological positions, or both a spatial map and party endorsements. We find that each type of information strengthens the relationship between voters’ policy views and those of the candidates they choose. These effects are largest for uninformed voters. When spatial maps and party endorsements send conflicting signals, many voters choose candidates with more similar policy views, against their party’s recommendation. These results contribute to debates about citizen competence and demonstrate the efficacy of practical efforts to inform electorates.

Keywords

Voter guide Party cues Survey experiment Ideology Local elections Citizen competence 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank participants in the “New Developments in the Study of Political Persuasion” conference at UC Irvine for valuable feedback. Thank you as well to the anonymous reviewers and the Editor for their excellent suggestions.

Funding

This research was generously funded by an Interdisciplinary Research Grant from the University of California, Davis. We are grateful to Danielle Joesten Martin for outstanding research assistance.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Ethical Approval

All procedures involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in this study.

Supplementary material

11109_2018_9480_MOESM1_ESM.docx (1.2 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 1189 kb)

References

  1. Ahn, T. K., Huckfeldt, R., & Ryan, J. B. (2014). Experts, activists, and democratic politics: Are electorates self-educating?. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Arceneaux, K. (2008). Can partisan cues diminish democratic accountability? Political Behavior,30, 139–160.Google Scholar
  3. Arceneaux, K., & Kolodny, R. (2009). Educating the least informed: Group endorsements in a grassroots campaign. American Journal of Political Science,53(4), 755–770.Google Scholar
  4. Bafumi, J., & Herron, M. C. (2010). Leapfrog representation and extremism: A study of American voters and their members in congress. American Political Science Review,104(3), 519–542.Google Scholar
  5. Bartels, L. M. (1996). Uninformed voters: Information effects in presidential elections. American Journal of Political Science,40, 194–230.Google Scholar
  6. Bedolla, L. G., & Michelson, M. (2012). Mobilizing inclusion: Transforming the electorate through get-out-the-vote campaigns. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Black, D. (1948). On the rationale of group decision-making. Journal of Political Economy,56, 23–34.Google Scholar
  8. Boudreau, C. (2009). Closing the gap: When do cues eliminate differences between sophisticated and unsophisticated citizens? Journal of Politics,71(3), 964–976.Google Scholar
  9. Boudreau, C., Elmendorf, C. S., & MacKenzie, S. A. (2015a). Lost in space? Information shortcuts, spatial voting, and local government representation. Political Research Quarterly,68(4), 843–855.Google Scholar
  10. Boudreau, C., Elmendorf, C. S., & MacKenzie, S. A. (2015b). Informing electorates via election law: An experimental study of partisan endorsements and nonpartisan voter guides in local elections. Election Law Journal,14(1), 2–23.Google Scholar
  11. Boudreau, C., & MacKenzie, S. A. (2014). Informing the electorate? How party cues and policy information affect public opinion about initiatives. American Journal of Political Science,58(1), 48–62.Google Scholar
  12. Bullock, J. (2011). Elite influence on public opinion in an informed electorate. American Political Science Review,105(3), 496–515.Google Scholar
  13. Campbell, A., Converse, P., Miller, W., & Stokes, D. (1960). The American voter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  14. Carpini, D., Michael, X., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing public opinion in competitive democracies. American Political Science Review,101(4), 637–655.Google Scholar
  16. Clinton, J. D., Jackman, S., & Rivers, D. (2004). The statistical analysis of roll call data. American Political Science Review,98, 355–370.Google Scholar
  17. Cohen, G. L. (2003). Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,85, 808–822.Google Scholar
  18. Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. E. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and discontent (pp. 206–261). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  19. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  20. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth: Harcourt.Google Scholar
  21. Enelow, J. M., & Hinich, M. J. (1984). The spatial theory of voting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Garzia, D., Trechsel, A. H., Vassil, K., & Dinas, E. (2013). Indirect campaigning—Past, present and future of voting advice applications. In B. Grofman, A. H. Trechsel, & M. Franklin (Eds.), The Internet and Democracy in Global Perspective. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  23. Green, D., Palmquist, B., & Schickler, E. (2002). Partisan hearts and minds: Political parties and the social identities of voters. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Grofman, B., & Norrander, B. (1990). Efficient use of reference group cues in a single dimension. Public Choice,64, 213–227.Google Scholar
  25. Jessee, S. A. (2010). Partisan bias, political information and spatial voting in the 2008 presidential election. Journal of Politics,72(2), 327–340.Google Scholar
  26. Kahan, D. M. (2013). Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection. Judgment and Decision Making,8(4), 407–424.Google Scholar
  27. Kuklinski, J. H., Quirk, P. J., Jerit, J., & Rich, R. F. (2001). The political environment and citizen competence. American Journal of Political Science,45(2), 410–424.Google Scholar
  28. Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2001). Advantages and disadvantages of cognitive heuristics in political decision making. American Journal of Political Science,45(4), 951–971.Google Scholar
  29. Lodge, M., Steenbergen, M. R., & Brau, S. (1995). The responsive voter: Campaign information and the dynamics of candidate evaluation. American Political Science Review,89(2), 309–326.Google Scholar
  30. Lupia, A. (1994). Shortcuts versus encyclopedias: Information and voting behavior in california insurance reform elections. American Political Science Review,88, 63–76.Google Scholar
  31. Lupia, A., & McCubbins, M. D. (1998). The democratic dilemma: Can citizens learn what they need to know?. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. McKelvey, R. D., & Ordeshook, P. C. (1986). Information, electoral equilibria, and the democratic ideal. Journal of Politics,8, 909–937.Google Scholar
  33. Mummolo, J., & Peterson, E. (2017). How content preferences limit the reach of voting aids. American Politics Research,45(2), 159–185.Google Scholar
  34. Nicholson, S. P. (2011). Dominating cues and the limits of elite influence. Journal of Politics,73(4), 1165–1177.Google Scholar
  35. Petersen, M. B., Slothuus, R., & Togeby, L. (2010). Political parties and value consistency in public opinion formation. Public Opinion Quarterly,74(3), 530–550.Google Scholar
  36. Rahn, W. M. (1993). The role of partisan stereotypes in information processing about political candidates. American Journal of Political Science,37, 472–496.Google Scholar
  37. Rogers, T., & Middleton, J. (2015). Are ballot initiative outcomes influenced by the campaigns of independent groups? Political Behavior,37(3), 567–593.Google Scholar
  38. Shor, B., & Rogowski, J. C. (2016). Ideology and the US congressional vote. Political Science Research and Methods.  https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2016.23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sniderman, P. M., Brody, R. A., & Tetlock, P. E. (1991). Reasoning and choice: Explorations in political psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Sniderman, P. M., & Stiglitz, E. H. (2012). The reputational premium. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science,50, 755–769.Google Scholar
  42. Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of California, DavisDavisUSA
  2. 2.School of LawUniversity of California, DavisDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations