Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cross-National Yardstick Comparisons: A Choice Experiment on a Forgotten Voter Heuristic

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Political Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Comparing performance between countries is both a theoretically and intuitively useful yardstick for voters. Cross-national comparisons provide voters with heuristics that are less cognitively demanding, less ambiguous, and less uncertain than solely national, absolute performance measurements. We test this proposition using a unique, choice experiment embedded in the 2011 Danish National Election Study. This design allows to contrast cross-national comparisons with more traditional national sociotropic and egotropic concerns. The findings suggest that voters are strongly influenced by cross-national performance comparisons—even when accounting for classic national sociotropic and egotropic items. Specifically, voters respond strongly to how the prospective wealth of Denmark evolves relative to the neighboring Sweden. Interestingly, voters are more negative in their response to cross-national losses compared to their positive response to cross-national gains—indicating a negativity bias in voters’ preferences.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. It should be noted that Kinder and Kiewiet (1981, p. 132), Kramer (1983) and latest Kiewiet and Lewis-Beck (2012) all point to that a sociotropic vote not necessary should be interpreted as an indicator for that voters set aside their self-interest. As e.g. improvement of the national economy can in many ways be in voters’ self-interest. I.e. a sociotropic vote may be self-interested.

  2. In addition, we carried out a large pilot study in the spring of 2011 to conduct a preliminary test of the various items (CAWI; n = 1,141). This pilot study provided the same conclusions as the conclusion we focus on here from the larger face-to-face study. Thus, the results are robust across modes and time.

  3. A search on InfoMedia.dk, a database of articles from all Danish news media, confirms that during the campaign, a few news stories did in fact discuss the Danish economic development, comparing it to the neighboring Sweden. Search key “Sverige”+“Danmark”+“økonomisk+“vækst”+“svenskerne”—27 Aug 2011–15 Sep 2011. E.g., “Svenskerne er rigere end danskerne (Swedes are richer than Danes)” Ekstra Bladet 8/9-11, “Derfor slår Sverige os på konkurrencen (This is why Sweden beat us)” Business.dk 10/9-11 and “Økonomer: Lær af Sverige (Economists: Learn from Sweden)” Agenda 8.9.-11. However, the stories never surfaced as top stories, managed to set a general news agenda across the news media, or were reported in the TV news.

  4. The exchange rate at the time of the study was approximately 5.6 DKK per USD.

References

  • Alvarez, R. M., Nagler, J., & Willette, J. R. (2000). Measuring the relative impact of issues and the economy in democratic elections. Electoral Studies, 19(2–3), 237–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ansolabehere, S., Meredith, M., & Snowberg, E. (2012). Asking about numbers: Why and how. Political Analysis, 21(1), 48–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5(4), 323–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bechtel, M. M., Hainmueller, J., & Margalit, Y. M. (2012). Studying public opinion on multidimensional policies: The case of the Eurozone bailouts. Working Paper No. 2012-27. MIT: Political-Science Department.

  • Bellucci, P., & Lewis-Beck, M. S. (2011). A stable popularity function? Cross-national analysis. European Journal of Political Research, 50(2), 190–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bellucci, P., Lobo, M. C., & Lewis-Beck, M. S. (2012). Economic crisis and elections: The European periphery. Electoral Studies, 31(3), 469–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, J., & Blamey, R. (2001). The choice modeling approach to environmental evaluation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Pub.

    Google Scholar 

  • Besley, T., & Case, A. (1995). Incumbent behavior: Vote-seeking, tax-setting, and yardstick competition. The American Economic Review, 85(1), 25–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, H. S., & Price, H. D. (1975). Voter Response to short-run economic conditions: The asymmetric effect of prosperity and Recession. American Political Science Review, 69(4), 1240–1254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borre, O. (1997). Economic voting in Danish electoral surveys 1987-1994. Scandinavian Political Studies, 20(4), 347–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bosch, N., & Solé-Ollé, A. (2007). Yardstick competition and the political costs of raising taxes: An empirical analysis of Spanish municipalities. International Tax and Public Finance, 14(1), 71–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyne, G., James, O., John, P., & Petrovsky, N. (2009). Democracy and government performance: Holding incumbents accountable in English local governments. Journal of Politics, 71(4), 1273–1284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brickman, P., & Campbell, D. T. (1971). Hedonic relativism and planning the good society. In M. H. Apley (Ed.) Adaptation level theory. A symposium (pp. 287–302). New York: Academic Press.

  • Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, E. W., & Stokes, D. (1960). The American Voter. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Claggett, W. (1986). A reexamination of the asymmetry hypothesis: Economic expansions, contractions, and congressional elections. Western Political Quarterly, 39(4), 623–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. American Psychologist, 55(1), 34.

    Article  CAS  MathSciNet  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • DNES (2011). Danish national election study 2011. www.valgprojektet.dk.

  • Dorussen, H., & Palmer, H. D. (2002). The context of economic voting—an introduction. In H. Dorussen & M. Taylor (Eds.), Economic voting (pp. 1–14). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duch, R. M., & Stevenson, R. (2008). Voting in context: How political and economic institutions condition election results. Cambridge: Cambridge University.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Duch, R. M., & Stevenson, R. (2010). The global economy, competency, and the economic vote. Journal of Politics, 72(1), 105–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilardi, F. (2010). Who learns from what in policy diffusion processes? American Journal of Political Science, 54(3), 650–666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goul Andersen, J. (2013). Den økonomiske udvikling op til 2011-valget. In R. Stubager, K. M. Hansen & J. Goul Andersen (eds.) Krisevalg - Økonomien og folketingsvalget 2011 (pp. 45–59). Copenhagen: DJØF-forlag.

  • Hainmueller, J., Hopkins, D., & Yamamoto, T. (2014). Causal inference in conjoint analysis: Understanding multidimensional choices via stated preference experiments. Political Analysis, 22(1), 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, K. M., & Bech, M. (2007). De sociotropiske vælgere: Ønsket om stigende beskæftigelse betyder mere end hvem der bliver statsminister og vælgerne kan ikke købes med lønstigninger. Politica, 39(1), 67–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, K. M., & Bech, M. (2012). Forcing voters to choose by using discrete choice experiments to estimate political preferences. Working Paper no. 2012-3. Centre for Parties and Voting, Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen.

  • Hansen, K. M., & Goul Andersen, J. (2013). En samlet model for partivalg. In Stubager, R., K. M. Hansen & J. Goul Andersen (Eds.) Krisevalg - Økonomien og folketingsvalget 2011 (pp. 189–212). Copenhagen: DJØF-forlag.

  • Headrick, B., & Lanoue, D. J. (1991). Attention, asymmetry, and government popularity in britain. Political Research Quarterly, 44(1), 67–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Healy, A., & Malhotra, N. (2013). Retrospective voting reconsidered. Annual Review of Political Science, 16, 285–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hellwig, T. T. (2001). Interdependence, government constraints, and economic voting. Journal of Politics, 63(4), 1141–1162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hellwig, T. T., & Samuels, D. (2007). Voting in open economies: The electoral consequences of globalization. Comparative Political Studies, 40(3), 283–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hopkins, D. J. (2011). Whose economy? Perceptions of national economic performance during unequal growth. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(1), 50–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber, G. A., Hill, S. J., & Lenz, G. S. (2012). Sources of bias in retrospective decision making: Experimental evidence on voters’ limitations in controlling incumbents. American Political Science Review, 106(4), 720–741.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, T. R. (2007). Discrete choice models for ordinal response variables: A generalization of the stereotype model. Psychometrika, 72(4), 489–504.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1991). Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 193–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Kappe, R. (2013). Asymmetric evaluations: Government popularity and economic performance in the United Kingdom. Paper presented at the EPOP conference, Lancaster University, UK.

  • Kayser, M. A., & Peress, M. (2012). Benchmarking across Borders: Electoral accountability and the necessity of comparison. American Political Science Review, 106(3), 661–684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiewiet, D. R. (1983). Macroeconomic and micropolitics: The electoral effects of economic issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiewiet, D. R., & Lewis-Beck, M. S. (2012). No man is an Island: Self-interest, the public interest, and sociotropic voting. Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society, 23(3), 303–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kinder, D. R., & Kiewiet, D. R. (1981). Sociotropic politics: The American case. British Journal of Political Science, 11(2), 129–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, G. (1983). The ecological fallacy revisited: Aggregate- versus individual-level findings on economics and elections, and sociotropic voting. American Political Science Review, 77(1), 92–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhfeld, W. F. (2005). Marketing research methods in sas: Experimental design, choice, conjoint, and graphical techniques. SAS Institute, SAS 9.1 Edition, TS-722.

  • Lanoue, D. J. (1987). Economic prosperity and presidential popularity: Sorting out the effects. Western Political Quarterly, 40(2), 237–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lau, R. R. (1982). Negativity in political perception. Political Behavior, 4(4), 353–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lau, R. R. (1985). Two explanations for negativity effects in political behavior. American Journal of Political Science, 29(1), 119–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, J. S. (2003). Applications of prospect theory to political science. Synthese, 135(2), 215–241.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis-Beck, M. S. (1988). Economics and the American voter: past, present, future. Political Behavior, 10(1), 5–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis-Beck, M. S., & Paldam, M. (2000). Economic voting: An introduction. Electoral Studies, 19(2–3), 113–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis-Beck, M. S., & Stegmaier, M. (2013). The VP-function revisited: a survey of the literature on vote and popularity functions after over 40 years. Public Choice, 157(3–4), 367–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linos, K. (2011). Diffusion through democracy. American Journal of Political Science, 55(3), 678–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louviere, J. J., Hensher, D. A., & Swait, J. D. (2000). Stated choice methods—analysis and application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lyubomirsky, S., & Ross, L. (1997). Hedonic consequences of social comparison: a contrast of happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(6), 1141–1157.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McDermott, R. (2004). Theory in political science: Gains and losses from the first decade. Political Psychology, 25(2), 289–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDermott, R., Fowler, J. H., & Smirnov, O. (2008). On the evolutionary origin of prospect theory preferences. The Journal of Politics, 70(2), 335–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McFadden, D. (1974). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In P. Zarembka (Ed.), Frontiers in Econometrics (pp. 105–142). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michelitch, K., Morales, M. A., Tucker, J., & Owen, A. (2012). Looking to the future: Prospective economic voting in 2008 presidential elections. Electoral Studies, 31(4), 838–851.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, J. E. (1973). War, presidents and public opinion. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mussweiler, T., & Epstude, K. (2009). Relatively fast! Efficiency advantages of comparative thinking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mussweiler, T., & Posten, A. (2011). Relatively certain! Comparative thinking reduces uncertainty. Cognition, 122(2012), 236–240.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mutz, D., & Mondak, J. J. (1997). Dimensions of sociotropic behavior: Group-based judgments of fairness and well-being. American Journal of Political Science, 41(1), 284–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nannestad, P., & Paldam, M. (1997). The grievance asymmetry revisited: A micro study of economic voting in Denmark, 1986–92. European Journal of Political Economy, 13(1), 81–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norpoth, H. (1996). Presidents and the prospective voter. Journal of Politics, 58(3), 776–792.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olsen, A. L. (2013). Compared to What? Experimental evidence on social and historical reference points in performance evaluation. Paper presented at the Midwest Political Association Meeting. Panel: Political Bias, Misinformation, and Conspiracy Theories. Chicago, USA.

  • Rozin, P., & Royzman, E. B. (2001). Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(4), 296–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, M., & Gerard, K. (2003). Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: Current practice and future research reflections. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 2(1), 55–64.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Salmon, P. (1987). Decentralisation as an incentive scheme. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 3(2), 24–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, D. (2000). The real economy and the perceived economy in popularity functions: how much do voters need to know? A study of British data, 1974–1997. Electoral Studies, 19(2), 275–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, M. M., & Carlin, R. E. (2013). Context counts: The election cycle, development, and the nature of economic voting. Journal of Politics, 75(3), 730–742.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soroka, S. N. (2006). Good news and bad news: Asymmetric responses to economic information. The Journal of Politics, 68(2), 372–385.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Stark, O., & Taylor, J. E. (1989). Relative deprivation and international migration. Demography, 26(1), 1–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stubager, R., Botterill, N. W., Lewis-Beck, M. S., & Nadeau, R. (2014). Scope conditions of economic voting: The Danish exception? Electoral Studies, 34(1), 16–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stubager, R., Hansen, K. M., & Goul Andersen, J. (Eds.). (2013). Krisevalg - Økonomien og folketingsvalget 2011. Copenhagen: DJØF-forlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Train, K. E. (1986). Qualitative choice analysis: Theory, econometrics, and an application to automobile. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1991). Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(4), 1039–1061.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Brug, W., van der Eijk, C., & Franklin, M. (2007). The economy and the vote: Economic conditions and elections in fifteen countries. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • van der Eijk, C., van der Brug, W., Kroh, M., & Franklin, M. (2006). Rethinking the dependent variable in voting behavior: On the measurement and analysis of electoral utilities. Electoral Studies, 25(3), 424–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vavreck, L. (2009). The message matters—the economy and presidential campaigns. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Vermeir, J., & Heyndels, B. (2006). Tax policy and yardstick voting in Flemish municipal elections. Applied Economics, 38(19), 2285–2298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wittink, D. R., & Cattin, P. (1989). Commercial use of conjoint analysis: An update. Journal of Marketing, 53(3), 91–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the reviewers and editors for their comments. Previous versions were presented at the Midwest Political Science Association Annual Conference. April, 2012, a seminar at the Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen, October 2012 and, a seminar at the Department of Political Science, Aarhus University, November 2011. We thank the participants for valuable comments. A special thank goes to Michael Lewis-Beck, Oliver James, Fabrizio Gilardi, and Søren Serritzlew for their valuable input to earlier versions of the manuscript. Any remaining errors are our responsibility alone.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen, Øster Farimagsgade 5, 1353, Copenhagen K, Denmark

    Kasper M. Hansen & Asmus L. Olsen

  2. Department of Business and Economics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark

    Mickael Bech

Authors
  1. Kasper M. Hansen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Asmus L. Olsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mickael Bech
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kasper M. Hansen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hansen, K.M., Olsen, A.L. & Bech, M. Cross-National Yardstick Comparisons: A Choice Experiment on a Forgotten Voter Heuristic. Polit Behav 37, 767–789 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-014-9288-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-014-9288-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation