Political Behavior

, Volume 39, Issue 1, pp 157–175 | Cite as

Centrist by Comparison: Extremism and the Expansion of the Political Spectrum

  • Gabor SimonovitsEmail author
Original Paper


While it is well understood that policy suggestions outside the range of mainstream debate are prevalent in various policy domains of American politics, their effects remain unexplored. In this paper, we suggest that proposing policies far from the political mainstream can re-structure voter perceptions of where alternatives lie in the ideological space. We provide support for this hypothesis using results from six survey experiments. We find that the introduction of extreme alternatives into the public discourse makes mainstream policies on the same side of the spectrum look more centrist in the public eye, thus increasing support for these moderate alternatives.


Public opinion Extremism Political psychology 

Supplementary material

11109_2016_9351_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (302 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (pdf 302 KB)


  1. Abramowitz, A.I. (1978). The impact of a presidential debate on voter rationality. American Journal of Political Science, 22(3), 680–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bailey, M. A. Mummolo, J., & Hoel, N. (2012). Tea Party influence: A story of activists and elites. American Politics Research, 769-804.Google Scholar
  3. Bakker, R., Jolly, S., Polk, J., & Poole, K. (2014). The European common space: Extending the use of anchoring vignettes. The Journal of Politics, 76(4), 1089–1101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lenz, G. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research:’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20, 251–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Broockman, D. E. (2016). Approaches to studying representation. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 41(1), 181–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bullock, J. G. (2011). Elite influence on public opinion in an informed electorate. American Political Science Review, 105(3), 496–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Callander, S. & Wilson, C. H. (2006). Context-dependent voting. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 1(3), 227–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chong, D. & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Dynamic public opinion: Communication effects over time. American Political Science Review, 104(4), 663–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chong, D. & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing theory. Annual Review of Politcal Science, 10, 103–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Claassen, R. L. & Nicholson, S. P. (2013). Extreme voices: Interest groups and the misrepresentation of issue publics. Public Opinion Quarterly, 77(4), 861–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Daily, K. (2006). Why the Right-Wing Gets It-and Why Dems Don’t.
  12. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of political action in a democracy. The Journal of Political Economy, 135–150.Google Scholar
  13. Druckman, J. N. & Leeper, T. J. (2012). Learning more from political communication experiments: Pretreatment and its effects. American Journal of Political Science, 56(4), 875–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Egan, P.J. (2014). Do something politics and double-peaked policy preferences. The Journal of Politics, 76(2), 333–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ezrow, L., Homola, J., & Tavits, M. (2014). When extremism pays: Policy positions, voter certainty, and party support in postcommunist Europe. The Journal of Politics, 76(2), 535–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ezrow, L., Tavits, M., & Homola, J. (2014). Voter polarization, strength of partisanship, and support for extremist parties. Comparative Political Studies, 47(11), 1558–1583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goodman, C., Grimmer, J., Parker, D., and Zlotnick, F. (2015). Creating and Destroying Party Brands. Unpublished Working Paper, URL jgrimmer/destroy. pdf.Google Scholar
  18. Grose, C. R., Malhotra, N., & Parks Van Houweling, R. (2015). Explaining explanations: How legislators explain their policy positions and how citizens react. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 724–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Healy, A. & Lenz, G. S. (2014). Substituting the end for the whole: Why voters respond primarily to the election year economy. American Journal of Political Science, 58(1), 31–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Herne, K. (1997). Decoy alternatives in policy choices: Asymmetric domination and compromise effects. European Journal of Political Economy, 13(3), 575–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hutchinson, J. W. (1983). On the locus of range effects in judgment and choice. In R. P. Bagozzi & A. M. Tybout (Eds.), NA - Advances in Consumer Research (Vol. 10, pp. 305–308). Ann Abor: Association for Consumer Research.Google Scholar
  23. King, G. & Wand, J. (2007). Comparing incomparable survey responses: Evaluating and selecting anchoring vignettes. Political Analysis, 15(1), 46–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lenz, G. S. (2009). Learning and opinion change, not priming: Reconsidering the priming hypothesis. American Journal of Political Science, 53(4), 821–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lenz, G. S. (2012). Follow the leader? How voters respond to politicians’ performance and policies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McCarty, N., Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (2006). Polarized America: The dance of ideology and unequal riches. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. Mebane, W. R. Jr. and Waismel-Manor, I.S. (2005). Does it help or hurt Kerry if Nader is on the ballot?” Paper prepared for presentation at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association. April 6.
  28. Pan, Y., O’Curry, S., & Pitts, R. (1995). The attraction effect and political choice in two elections. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4(1), 85–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Parducci, A. (1965). Category judgment: A range-frequency model. Psychological Review, 72(6), 407–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Parducci, A. (1968). The relativism of absolute judgment. Scientific American, 219(6), 84–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Peterson, E. & Simonovits, G. (Forthcoming). Costly values: Values- based justifications exacerbate the consequences of policy disagreements for politician support? Journal of Experimental Political ScienceGoogle Scholar
  32. Rivers, D. (2006). Sample matching: representative sampling from internet samples. Polimetrix White Paper Series.
  33. Rotter, G. S. & Rotter, N. G. (1966). The influence of anchors in the choice of political candidates. The Journal of Social Psychology, 70(2), 275–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sniderman, P. M. & Bullock, J. (2004). A consistency theory of public opinion and political choice: The hypothesis of menu dependence (pp. 337–357). Attitudes, nonattitudes, measurement error, and change: Studies in public opinion.Google Scholar
  35. Sniderman, P. M. & Stiglitz, E. H. (2012). The reputational premium: A theory of party identification and policy reasoning. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Tourangeau, R. & Rasinski, K. A. (1988). Cognitive processes underlying context effects in attitude measurement. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 299–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tversky, A. & Simonson, I. (1993). Context-dependent preferences. Management Science, 39(10), 1179–1189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Yeung, C. W. M. & Soman, D. (2005). Attribute evaluability and the range effect. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(3), 363–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PoliticsNew York UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations