Advertisement

Political Behavior

, Volume 35, Issue 3, pp 429–452 | Cite as

Tactical Voting and Party Preferences: A Test of Cognitive Dissonance Theory

  • Jørgen Bølstad
  • Elias Dinas
  • Pedro Riera
Original Paper

Abstract

Studying the development of stable political attitudes, political scientists have argued that repeated voting for a political party reinforces initial party preferences, in a seemingly mechanistic process of habit-formation. However, the empirical evidence is scarce and the theoretical framework underdeveloped. Does the act of voting for a party improve an individual’s evaluation of this party? If so, is this effect simply due to habit-formation, or a more complex psychological mechanism? Drawing on cognitive dissonance theory, we examine the act of voting as a choice inducing dissonance reduction. We go beyond existing research, by focusing on tactical voters—a group for which the notion of habitual reinforcement does not predict an effect. The analyses reveal a positive effect of the act of voting tactically on the preferences for the parties voted for and may thus call for a revision of the traditional understanding of the role of voting in shaping party preferences.

Keywords

Party preferences Partisanship Party identification Cognitive dissonance Tactical voting Genetic matching Multiple control groups 

Notes

Acknowledgment

The authors are grateful for comments by three anonymous reviewers, the editors of this journal, Juan A. Mayoral, and the participants of the Elections, Public Opinion and Parties (EPOP) Annual Conference at the University of Essex, September 10–12, 2010. The usual disclaimer applies.

References

  1. Abadie, A. (2003). Semiparametric instrumental variable estimation of treatment response models. Journal of Econometrics, 113(2), 231–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abadie, A., & Imbens, G. (2006). Large sample properties of matching estimators for average treatment effects. Econometrica, 74(1), 235–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alvarez, R. M., & Nagler, J. (2000). A new approach for modeling strategic voting in multiparty elections. British Journal of Political Science, 30, 57–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, C. J., Mendes, S. M., & Tverdova, Y. V. (2004). Endogenous economic voting: Evidence from the 1997 British Election. Electoral Studies, 23(4), 683–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anderson, C. J. (2007). The end of economic voting? Contingency dilemmas and the limits of democratic accountability. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 271–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Angrist, J. D., Imbens, G., & Rubin, D. (1996). Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 91(434), 444–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Aronson, E., Fried, C., & Stone, J. (1991). Overcoming denial and increasing the intention to use condoms through the induction of hypocrisy. American Journal of Public Health, 81(12), 1636–1638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Arulampalam, W., Booth, A. L., & Taylor, M. P. (2000). Unemployment persistence. Oxford Economic Papers, 52(1), 24–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bem, D. (1972). Self-Perception Theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 1–62). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  10. Besley, R., & Joslyn, M. (2001). Cognitive dissonance and post-decision attitude change in six presidential elections. Political Psychology, 22(3), 521–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brader, T., & Tucker, J. A. (2001). The emergence of mass partisanship in Russia, 1993–1996. American Journal of Political Science, 45(1), 69–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brehm, J. W. (1956). Post-decision changes in desirability of alternatives. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 52(3), 384–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brody, R. A. (1991). Stability and change in party identification: Presidential to off-years. In P. M. Snidman, R. Brody, & P. E. Tetlock & (Eds.), Reasoning and choice: Explorations in political psychology (pp. 179–205). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Butler, D., & Stokes, D. E. (1974). Political change in Britain (2nd edn.). London: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  15. Cain, B. (1978). Strategic voting in Britain. American Journal of Political Science, 22(3), 639–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes D. E. (1960). The American Voter. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
  17. Converse, P. E. (1969). Of time and partisan stability. Comparative Political Studies, 2(2), 139–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Converse, P. E. (1976). The dynamics of party support: Cohort-analyzing party identification. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  19. Cowden, J. A., & McDermott, R. M. (2000). Short-term forces and partisanship. Political Behavior, 22(3), 197–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Curtice, J., & Steed, M. (1988). Appendix 2: analysis. In D. Butler & D. Kavanaugh (Eds.), The British General Election of 1987 (pp. 316–362). New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  21. Daniel, S. R., Armstrong, K., Silber, J. H., & Rosenbaum, P. R. (2008). An algorithm for optimal tapered matching, with application to disparities in survival. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 17(4), 914–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Diamond, A., & Sekhon, J. S. (2008). Genetic matching for estimating causal effects: A general multivariate matching method for achieving balance in observational studies, working paper. Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
  23. Dobson, D., & St Angelo, D. (1975). Party identification and the floating vote: Some dynamics. American Political Science Review, 69(2), 481–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Egan, L. C., Santos, L. R., & Bloom, P. (2007). The origins of cognitive dissonance: Evidence from children and monkeys. Psychological Science, 18(11), 978–983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Eggers, A. C., & Hainmueller, J. (2009). MPs for sale? Returns to office in postwar British politics. American Political Science Review, 103(4), 513–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Eiser, R. J. (1992). Attitudinal judgement: The to and fro of assimilation-contrast. In D. Granberg & G. Sarup (Eds.), Social judgement and intergroup relations. Essays in honor of Muzafer Sherif (pp. 129–146). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Evans, G. A. (1994). Tactical voting and Labour’s prospects. In A. Heath, R Jowell, & J. Curtice & (Eds.), Labour’s last chance?: The 1992 Election and beyond (pp. 65–84). Aldershot: Dartmouth.Google Scholar
  28. Evans, G. A., & Andersen, R. (2006). The political conditioning of economic perceptions. Journal of Politics, 68(1), 194–207.Google Scholar
  29. Evans, G. A., Curtice, J., & Norris, P. (1998). New Labour, new tactical voting? The causes and consequences of tactical voting in the 1997 General Election. In D. Denver, J. Fisher, P. Cowley, C. Pattie (Eds.), British Elections and Parties Review vol. 8: The 1997 General Election (pp. 65–79). London: Frank Cass.Google Scholar
  30. Evans, G. A., & Heath, A. F. (1993). A tactical error in the analysis of tactical voting: A response to Niemi, Whitten and Franklin. British Journal of Political Science, 23(1), 131–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Festinger, L., Riecken, H. W., & Scachter, S. (1956). When prophecy fails. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, 203–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston: Row, Peterson.Google Scholar
  34. Fiorina, M. P. (1981). Retrospective voting in American Elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Fisher, S. D. (2004). Definition and measurement of tactical voting: The role of rational choice. British Journal of Political Science, 34, 152–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Fisher, S. D., & Curtice, J. (2006). Tactical unwind? Changes in party preference structure and tactical voting in Britain between 2001 and 2005. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 16(1), 55–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Franklin, C. (1984). Issue preferences, socialization and the evolution of party identification. American Journal of Political Science, 28(3), 478–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Franklin, C., & Jackson, J. E. (1983). The Dynamics of party identification. American Political Science Review, 77(4), 957–973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Gerber, A. S., & Green, D. P. (2000). The effects of canvassing, telephone calls, and direct mail on voter turnout: A field experiment. American Political Science Review, 94(3), 653–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Gerber, A. S., & Green, D. P. (2005). Correction to Gerber and Green (2000), replication of disputed findings, and reply to Imai (2005). American Political Science Review, 99(2), 301–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Green, D. P., & Palmquist, B. (1994). How stable is party identification?. Political Behavior, 16(4), 437–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Green, D. P., & Palmquist, B. (1990). Of artifacts and partisan instability. American Journal of Political Science, 34(3), 872–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Grimmer, J., Hersh, E., Feinstein, B., & Carpenter, D. (2011). Are close elections random? Unpublished Manuscript. http://www.stanford.edu/∼jgrimmer/CEF.pdf.
  44. Groenendyk, E. (forthcoming). Justifying party identification: A case of identifying with the “lesser of two evils”. Political Behavior.Google Scholar
  45. Grofman, B., Wayman, F., & Barreto, M. (2009). Rethinking partisanship: Some thoughts on a unified theory. In J. Bartle & P. Bellucci (Eds.), Political parties and partisanship: Social identity and individual attitudes (pp. 60–73). Routledge: Ruhr University Bochum.Google Scholar
  46. Hansen, B. B., & Bowers, J. (2008). Covariate balance in simple, stratified and clustered comparative studies. Statistical Science, 23(2), 219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hansen, B. B., & Bowers, J. (2009). Attributing effects to a cluster-randomized get-out-the-vote campaign. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 104(487), 873–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Heath, A., Jowell, R., Curtice, J., Evans, G. A., Field, J., & Witherspoon, S. (1991). Understanding political change: The British voter 1964–1987. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  49. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: John Wiley Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Howell, S. (1980). The behavioral component of changing partisanship. American Politics Quarterly, 8(3), 279–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Howell, S. (1981). Short term forces and changing partisanship. Political Behavior, 3(2), 163–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Huber, G., Gerber, A., & Sempolinski, J. (2009, 3–6 September). Using ballot order to test for cognitive dissonance: Results from a natural experiment. Paper presented at the 2009 APSA Annual Meeting, Toronto.Google Scholar
  53. Imai, K. (2005). Do get-out-the-vote calls reduce turnout? The importance of statistical methods for field experiments. American Political Science Review, 99(2), 283–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Jackson, J. E. (1975). Issues, party choices, and presidential votes. American Journal of Political Science, 19(2), 161–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Johnston, R. (1981). Regional variations in British voting trends—1966-1979: Tests of an ecological model. Regional Studies, 15(1), 23–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Johnston, R., & Pattie, C. (1991). Tactical voting in Britain in 1983 and 1987: An alternative approach. British Journal of Political Science, 21, 95–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Kern, H. L., Hainmueller, J. (2009). Opium for the masses: How foreign media can stabilize authoritarian regimes. Political Analysis, 17(4), 377–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Kiewiet, R. (2009, 28–30 August). The ecology of tactical voting in Britain, 1983–2005. Paper presented at the 2009 EPOP conference, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow.Google Scholar
  59. Knoke, D. (1976). Change and continuity in American politics: The social basis of political parties. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Larsen, R. J., & Buss, D. M. (2005). Personality psychology: Domains of knowledge about human nature. Boston: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  61. Lu, B., & Rosenbaum, P. R. (2004). Optimal pair matching with two control groups. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 13(2), 422–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Markus, G. B., & Converse, P. E. (1979). A dynamic simultaneous equation model of electoral choice. American Political Science Review, 73(4), 1055–1070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. McPhee, W., & Ferguson, J. (1962). Political immunization. In W. N. McPhee & W. A. Glaser (Eds.), Public opinion and congressional elections (pp. 155–179). Glencoe: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  64. Meredith, M. (2009). Persistence in political participation. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 4(3), 186–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Mullainathan, S., & Washington, E. (2009). Sticking with your vote: Cognitive dissonance and political attitudes. Applied Economics, 1(1), 86–111.Google Scholar
  66. Niemi, R., Whitten, G., & Franklin, M. N. (1993). People who live in glass houses. A response to Evans and Heath’s critique of our note on tactical voting. British Journal of Political Science, 23, 549–563.Google Scholar
  67. Plumb, E. (1986). Validation of voter recall: Time of electoral decision making. Political Behavior, 8(4), 301–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Robinson, G., McNulty, & J. E., Krasno, J. S. (2009). Observing the counterfactual? The search for political experiments in nature. Political Analysis, 17(4), 341–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Rosenbaum, P. R. (2010). Design of observational studies. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Sekhon, J. S., & Mebane, W. R. Jr. (1998). Genetic optimization using derivatives: Theory and application to nonlinear models. Political Analysis, 7(1), 189–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sherif, M., & Hovland, C. I. (1961). Social judgement: Assimilation and contrast effects in communication and attitude change. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Shively, W. P. (1970). The elusive ‘psychological’ factor: A test for the impact of electoral systems on voters’ behavior. Comparative Politics, 3(1), 115–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Spafford, D. (1972). Electoral systems and voters’ behavior: Comment and a further test. Comparative Politics, 5(1), 129–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Stone, J. R. (2000). Introduction. In J. R. Stone (Eds.), Expecting armageddon: Essential readings in failed prophecy (pp. 1–30). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  75. Tavits, M. (2005). The development of stable party support: Electoral dynamics in post-communist Europe. American Journal of Political Science, 49(2), 283–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Van der Brug, W. (2001). Perceptions, opinions and party Preferences in the face of a real world event: Chernobyl as a natural experiment in political psychology. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 13(1), 53–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Zanna, M. P., & Cooper, J. (1974). Dissonance and the pill: An attribution approach to studying the arousal properties of dissonance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29(5), 703–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ETH ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Nuffield CollegeUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
  3. 3.European University InstituteFlorenceItaly

Personalised recommendations