The More You Know: Voter Heuristics and the Information Search
Informed voting is costly: research shows that voters use heuristics such as party identification and retrospection to make choices that approximate enlightened decision-making. Most of this work, however, focuses on high-information races and ignores elections in which these cues are often unavailable (e.g. primary, local). In these cases, citizens are on their own to search for quality information and evaluate it efficiently. To assess how voters navigate this situation, we field three survey experiments asking respondents what information they want before voting. We evaluate respondents on their ability to both acquire and utilize information in a way that improves their chances of voting for quality candidates, and how this varies by the sophistication of respondents and the offices sought by candidates. We find strong evidence that voters use “deal-breakers” to quickly eliminate undesirable candidates; however, the politically unsophisticated rely on unverifiable, vague, and irrelevant search considerations. Moreover, less sophisticated voters also rely on more personalistic considerations. The findings suggest that voters’ search strategies may be ineffective at identifying the best candidates for office, especially at the local level.
KeywordsInformation search Heuristics Local elections Nonpartisan elections Primaries
The authors wish to thank Ruth Collier, Gabe Lenz, Laura Stoker, the members of Berkeley’s Political Behavior workshop, and attendees of the 2016 ISPP and 2017 MPSA and WPSA panels at which earlier drafts were presented for their feedback. Special thanks are also owed to Rikio Inouye, Julia Konstantinovsky, and Marissa Lei Aclan for their research assistance, to Mirya Holman for her support, and to Paul Christesen for the question that inspired this paper.
- Berelson, B., Lazarsfeld, P., & McPhee, W. (1954). Voting: A study of opinion formation in a presidential campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
- Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
- Freeder, S. A., Lenz, G. S., & Turney, S. (2018). The importance of knowing what goes with what: Reinterpreting the evidence on policy attitude stability. Journal of Politics.Google Scholar
- Gigerenzer, G., Czerlinski, J., & Martignon, L. (1999). How good are fast and frugal heuristics? In Decision science and technology (pp. 81–103). Berlin: Springer. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4615-5089-1_6.
- Gigerenzer, G., Martignon, L., Hoffrage, U., Rieskamp, J., Czerlinski, J., & Goldstein, D. G. (2008). One-reason decision making. In Handbook of experimental economics results (pp. 1004–1017). North-Holland. http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/item/escidoc:2100203/component/escidoc:2100202/GG_One_2008.pdf.
- Gilens, M. (2011). Two-thirds full? Citizen competence and democratic governance. In New directions in public opinion (pp. 52–76)Google Scholar
- Goggin, S.N. Personal politicians: Candidate biographies, subjective importance, and candidate evaluation. Working Paper. http://ocf.berkeley.edu/~goggin/gogginpersonalpoliticians.pdf.
- Kaplan, R. (2015). What Americans want to know about 2016 candidates. CBS News, 20 Aug 2015. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-americans-want-to-know-about-2016-candidates/.
- Kuklinski, J. H., & Quirk, P. J. (2000). Reconsidering the rational public: Cognition, heuristics, and mass opinion. In A. Lupia, M. McCubbins, & S. Popkin (Eds.), Elements of reason: Cognition, choice, and the bounds of rationality (pp. 153–182). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2001b). An experimental study of information search, memory, and decision making during a political campaign. In J. Kuklinski (Ed.), Citizens and politics: Perspectives from political psychology (pp. 136–159). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Miller, W. E., Merrill Shanks, J., & Shapiro, R. Y. (1996). The new American voter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Pitkin, H. F. (1967). The concept of representation. California: University of California Press.Google Scholar