Advertisement

Political Behavior

, Volume 25, Issue 3, pp 221–246 | Cite as

Being Certain Versus Being Right: Citizen Certainty and Accuracy of House Candidates' Ideological Orientations

  • Jeffrey W. Koch
Article

Abstract

Research on voting behavior has been reinvigorated by focusing on citizens' certainty of candidates' issue positions and ideological orientations. According to this perspective, citizens are inclined to support candidates whom they are confident possess attributes they deem important. Analysis of citizens' perceptual certainty and perceptual accuracy of 1994, 1996, and 1998 House candidates' ideological orientations reveals that many candidate characteristics (incumbency, fiscal resources) that enhance certainty fail to improve perceptual accuracy. The electoral consequence of this fact is that candidates endowed with these resources benefit from the importance of certainty to citizens without paying the electoral costs of clarifying their issue positions and ideological orientations. Similarly, several characteristics of citizens that lead to certainty reduction—gender and caring about the outcome of the election, for example—fail to improve perceptual accuracy. The implications of the empirical findings for the role of citizens' assessments of certainty in the voting decision for producing an informed electorate are considered here.

certainty perception accuracy elections ideology 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Allwood, Carl M., and Montgomery, Henry (1987). Response selection strategies and realism of confidence judgments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 39: 365–383.Google Scholar
  2. Alvarez, R. Michael (1998). Information and Elections. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  3. Alvarez, R. Michael, and Franklin, Charles H. (1994). Uncertainty and political perceptions. Journal of Politics 56: 671–689.Google Scholar
  4. Ansolabehere, Stephen, Snyder, James M, and Stewart, Charles III (2001a). Candidate positioning in U.S. House Elections. American Journal of Political Science 45: 36–159.Google Scholar
  5. Ansolabehere, Stephen, Snyder,, James M. Jr., and Stewart, Charles III (2001b). The effects of party and preferences on congressional roll-call voting. Legislative Studies Quarterly 26: 533–572.Google Scholar
  6. Bartels, Larry M. (1986). Issue voting under uncertainty: an empirical test American Journal of Political Science 30: 709–728.Google Scholar
  7. Bartels, Larry M. (1988). Presidential Primaries and the Dynamics of Public Choice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bernhardt, Daniel M., and Ingberman, Daniel E. (1985). Candidate reputation and the incumbency effect. Journal of Public Economics 27: 47–67.Google Scholar
  9. Bianco, William (1998). Different paths to the same result: rational choice, political psychology, and impression formation in campaigns. American Journal of Political Science 42: 1061–1081.Google Scholar
  10. Casey, M. Beth, Nuttall, Ronald L. and Pezaris, Elizabeth (1997). Mediators of gender differences in mathematics college entrance test scores: a comparison of spatial skills with internalized beliefs and anxieties. Developmental Psychology 33: 669–680.Google Scholar
  11. Coleman, John J., and Manna, Paul F. (2000). Congressional campaign spending and the quality of democracy. Journal of Politics 62: 757–789.Google Scholar
  12. Conover, Pamela Johnston, and Feldman, Stanley (1989). Candidate perception in an ambiguous world. American Journal of Political Science 33: 912–939.Google Scholar
  13. Downs, Anthony (1957). An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  14. Enelow, J. M., and Hinich, M. J. (1984). The Spatial Theory of Voting. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Erikson, Robert S., and Wright, Gerald C. (1997). Voters, candidates, and issues in congressional elections. In Lawrence C. Dodd and Bruce Oppenheimer (eds.), Congress Reconsidered, pp. 132–151. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
  16. Fischoff, Baruch, Slovic, Paul and Lichtenstein, Sarah (1977). Knowing with certainty: the appropriateness of extreme confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance3: 552–564.Google Scholar
  17. Franklin, Charles (1991). Eschewing obfuscation? Campaigns and the perception of U.S. candidates. American Political Science Review 85: 1192–1114.Google Scholar
  18. Griffin, Dale, and Tversky, Amos (1992). The weighing of evidence and the determinants of confidence. Cognitive Psychology 24: 411–435.Google Scholar
  19. Groseclose, Tim (2001). A model of candidate location when one candidate has a valence advantage. American Journal of Political Science 45: 862–886Google Scholar
  20. Hinich, Melvin J., and Munger, Michael C. (1997). Analytical Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Hirschfeld, Mary, Moore, Robert L. and Brown, Eleanor. (1995). Exploring the gender gap on the GRE subject test in economics. " Journal of Economic Education 26: 3–15.Google Scholar
  22. Honaker, James, Joseph, Anne, King, Gary, Scheve, Kenneth and Sing, Naunihal (1999). Amelia: a program for missing data. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. http://Gking.Harvard.edu (accessed May 20, 2001).Google Scholar
  23. Huckfeldt, Robert, Sprague, John and Levine, Jeffrey (2000). The dynamics of collective deliberation in the 1996 election: campaign effects on accessibility, certainty, and accuracy. American Political Science Review 94: 641–652.Google Scholar
  24. Huddy, Leonie, and Terkildsen, Nayda (1993). Gender stereotypes and the perception of male and female candidates. American Journal of Political Science 37: 119–147.Google Scholar
  25. Husted, Thomas A., Kenny, Lawrence W., and Morton, Rebecca B. (1995). Constituent errors in assessing their senators. Public Choice 83: 251–271.Google Scholar
  26. Ingberman, Daniel E. (1989). Reputational dynamics in spatial competition. Journal of Mathematical and Computer Modeling 12: 479–496.Google Scholar
  27. Kahn, Kim Fridkin, and Kenney, Patrick J. (1997). A model of candidate evaluations in senate elections: the impact of campaign intensity. Journal of Politics 59: 1173–1205.Google Scholar
  28. Koch, Jeffrey W. (1998). Electoral competitiveness and the voting decision: evidence from the pooled senate election study. Political Behavior 20: 295–311.Google Scholar
  29. Kuklinski, James H., Quirk, Paul J., Jerit, Jennifer, Schwieder, David and Rich, Robert F. (2000). Misinformation and the currency of citizenship. Journal of Politics 62: 791–816.Google Scholar
  30. Markus, Gregory B., and Converse, Philip E.(1979). A dynamic simultaneous equation model of electoral choice. American Political Science Review 73: 1055–1070.Google Scholar
  31. Mondak, Jeffrey J. (1999). Reconsidering the measurement of political knowledge. Political Analysis 8: 57–82.Google Scholar
  32. Nisbett, Richard, and Ross, Lee (1980). Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcoming of Social Judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  33. Nisbett, Richard, and Wilson, T. D.. (1977). Telling more than we can know: verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review 84: 231–259.Google Scholar
  34. Page, Benjamin (1976). A theory of political ambiguity. American Political Science Review 70: 742–752.Google Scholar
  35. Powell, Linda (1989). Analyzing misinformation: perception of congressional candidates' ideologies. American Journal of Political Science 33: 272–293.Google Scholar
  36. Shepsle, Kenneth A. (1972). The strategy of ambiguity: uncertainty and electoral competitiveness. American Political Science Review 66: 555–568.Google Scholar
  37. Slovic, Paul, and Lichtenstein, Sarah (1971). Comparison of bayesian and regression approaches to the study of information processing in judgment. Journal of Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 6: 649–744.Google Scholar
  38. Wilson, J. Matthew, and Gronke, Paul (2000). Concordance and projection in citizen perceptions of congressional roll-call voting. Legislative Studies Quarterly 25: 445–467.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeffrey W. Koch
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceState University of New York at Geneseo, One College CircleGeneseo

Personalised recommendations