Advertisement

Political Behavior

, Volume 33, Issue 2, pp 271–290 | Cite as

In the Eye of the Beholder? Motivated Reasoning in Disputed Elections

  • Kyle C. KopkoEmail author
  • Sarah McKinnon Bryner
  • Jeffrey Budziak
  • Christopher J. Devine
  • Steven P. Nawara
Original Paper

Abstract

This study uses an experimental design to simulate the ballot counting process during a hand-recount after a disputed election. Applying psychological theories of motivated reasoning to the political process, we find that ballot counters’ party identification conditionally influences their ballot counting decisions. Party identification’s effect on motivated reasoning is greater when ballot counters are given ambiguous, versus specific, instructions for determining voter intent. This study’s findings have major implications for ballot counting procedures throughout the United States and for the use of motivated reasoning in the political science literature.

Keywords

Motivated reasoning Partisanship Disputed elections Ballot counting 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the following individuals for helpful comments and suggestions on earlier versions of this manuscript: Lawrence Baum, Christopher Elmendorf, Edward Foley, Richard Hasen, Kathleen McGraw, Thomas Nelson, and Craig Volden. Additionally, the authors extend a special thank you to Mark Kopko for his assistance in constructing computerized ballot conditions. Earlier versions of this manuscript were presented at the 2009 meetings of the International Society of Political Psychology and the American Political Science Association.

Supplementary material

11109_2010_9133_MOESM1_ESM.docx (3.3 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 3356 kb)

References

  1. Agrawal, N., & Maheswaran, D. (2005). Motivated reasoning in outcome-bias effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 798–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allison, P. D. (1999). Comparing logit and probit coefficients across groups. Sociological Methods & Research, 28, 198–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Balcetis, E., & Dunning, D. (2006). See what you want to see: Motivational influences on visual perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 612–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Braman, E., & Nelson, T. E. (2007). Mechanism of motivated reasoning? Analogical perception in US discrimination disputes. American Journal of Political Science, 51, 940–956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bruner, J. S., & Goodman, C. C. (1947). Value and need as organizing factors in perception. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 42, 33–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bruner, J. S., & Mintern, L. A. (1955). Perceptual identification and conceptual organization. Journal of General Psychology, 53, 21–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Campbell, A., Converse, P., Miller, W., & Stokes, D. (1960). The American voter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  9. Chen, S. H., Shechter, D. E., & Chaiken, S. (1996). Getting at the truth or getting along: Accuracy- versus impression- motivated heuristic and systematic processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 262–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. A. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and discontent (pp. 206–261). New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  11. Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1997). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Dyck, J. J., & Seabrook, N. R. (2009). The problem with vote-by-mail. Paper presented at the 2009 Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association. Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  13. Election Administration Research Center and Verified Voting Foundation. (2008). Poll workers. http://earc.berkeley.edu/poll.php. May 24, 2010.
  14. Erikson, R. S., & Tedin, K. L. (2007). American public opinion (7th ed.). New York: Pearson Longman.Google Scholar
  15. Fischle, M. (2000). Mass response to the Lewinsky scandal: Motivated reasoning or Bayesian updating? Political Psychology, 21(1), 135–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Foley, E. B. (2008). The original Bush v. Gore: An historical perspective on disputed elections. University Distinguished Lecture delivered at The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.Google Scholar
  17. Foley, E. B. (2009). Gubernatorial contests. Lecture delivered at the past, present, and future of disputed elections, sponsored by The University of Miami Law Review, University of Miami, Miami, FL.Google Scholar
  18. Green, D. P., & Palmquist, B. (1994). How stable is party identification? Political Behavior, 16, 437–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Green, D. P., Palmquist, B., & Schickler, E. (2002). Partisan hearts and minds: Political parties and the social identities of voters. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Greene, S. (2004). Social identity theory and party identification. Social Science Quarterly, 65, 136–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hoetker, G. (2007). The use of logit and probit models in strategic management research: Critical issues. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 331–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jenkins, J. A. (2004). Partisanship and contested election cases in the House of Representatives, 1789–2002. Studies in American Political Development, 18, 112–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jenkins, Jeffrey. A. (2005). Partisanship and contested election cases in the Senate, 1789–2002. Studies in American Political Development, 19, 53–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Klaczynski, P. A., & Robinson, B. (2000). Personal theories, intellectual ability, and epistemological beliefs: Adult age differences in everyday reasoning biases. Psychology and Aging, 15, 400–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kruglanski, A. W., & Webster, D. M. (1996). Motivated closing of the mind: “Seizing and freezing”. Psychological Review, 103, 263–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lewis-Beck, M., Norpoth, H., Jacoby, W., Converse, P., & Weisberg, H. (2008). The American voter revisited. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  28. Minnesota Secretary of State. (2008a). Election reporting. http://electionresults.sos.state.mn.us/20081104/SenateRecount.asp. Accessed July 12, 2010.
  29. Minnesota Secretary of State. (2008b). Serve as an election judge. http://www.sos.state.mn.us/home/index.asp?page=585. Accessed July 12, 2010.
  30. Redlawsk, D. (2002). Hot cognition or cool consideration? Testing the effects of motivated reasoning on political decision making. Journal of Politics, 64, 1021–1044.Google Scholar
  31. Schmitt, D. P., Realo, A., Voracek, M., & Allik, J. (2008). Why can’t a man be more like a woman? Sex differences in big five personality traits across 55 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 168–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sears, D. O. (1986). College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of a narrow data base on social psychology’s view of human nature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 515–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stuart, G. (2004). Databases, felons, and voting: Bias and partisanship of the Florida felon list in the 2000 Elections. Political Science Quarterly, 119, 453–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Taber, C., Cann, D., & Kucsova, S. (2009). The motivated processing of political arguments. Political Behavior, 31, 137–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Taber, C., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 755–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. US Election Assistance Commission. (2008). 2008 election administration and voting survey. http://www.eac.gov/assets/1/Documents/2008%20Election%20Administration%20and%20Voting%20Survey%20EAVS%20Report.pdf. Accessed July 12, 2010.
  37. US Election Assistance Commission. (2009). EAC will award grants to recruit the next generation of poll workers. 2 June, 2009. http://archives.eac.gov/News/eac-will-award-grants-to-recruit-the-next-generation-of-poll-workers/. Accessed July 12, 2010.
  38. Webster, D. M., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1049–1062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wells, C., Reedy, J., Gastil, J., & Lee, C. (2009). Information distortion and voting choices: The origins and effects of factual beliefs in initiative elections. Political Psychology, 30(6), 953–969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kyle C. Kopko
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sarah McKinnon Bryner
    • 2
  • Jeffrey Budziak
    • 2
  • Christopher J. Devine
    • 2
  • Steven P. Nawara
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceElizabethtown CollegeElizabethtownUSA
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations