IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v102y2021i6p2955-2971.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Voter experience and ballot language framing effects: Evidence from a survey experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Ted D. Rossier

Abstract

Objective Discover the extent to which habitual voting may alter the effects of framing in the language of ballot measures. Methods Online survey was conducted using Amazon Mechanical Turk crowd labor service. Participants were presented with two ballot questions with two separate sets of language, randomized so that each participant had an equal chance of seeing either version. Logistic regression was used to analyze responses. Results Support for one measure was drastically reduced with the change in question framing; for the other, the results were inconclusive. None of the models exhibited any evidence that habitual voting mitigated framing effects. Conclusion Experienced voters are no more immune to framing effects than inexperienced voters.

Suggested Citation

  • Ted D. Rossier, 2021. "Voter experience and ballot language framing effects: Evidence from a survey experiment," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(6), pages 2955-2971, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:102:y:2021:i:6:p:2955-2971
    DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.13068
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.13068
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ssqu.13068?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Leifeld, Philip, 2013. "texreg: Conversion of Statistical Model Output in R to LATEX and HTML Tables," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 55(i08).
    2. Thomas Stratmann, 2006. "Is Spending More Potent For or Against a Proposition? Evidence from Ballot Measures," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(3), pages 788-801, July.
    3. Brian Greenhill & Michael D. Ward & Audrey Sacks, 2011. "The Separation Plot: A New Visual Method for Evaluating the Fit of Binary Models," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(4), pages 991-1002, October.
    4. Lupia, Arthur, 1994. "Shortcuts Versus Encyclopedias: Information and Voting Behavior in California Insurance Reform Elections," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 88(1), pages 63-76, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Matsusaka, John G., 2018. "Special Interest Influence under Direct versus Representative Democracy," Working Papers 278, The University of Chicago Booth School of Business, George J. Stigler Center for the Study of the Economy and the State.
    2. Holger Reinermann, 2022. "Party competition and the structuring of party preferences by the left-right dimension," Rationality and Society, , vol. 34(2), pages 185-217, May.
    3. Schläpfer, Felix & Getzner, Michael, 2020. "Beyond Current Guidelines: A Proposal for Bringing Behavioral Economics to the Design and Analysis of Stated Preference Surveys," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    4. Daniele, Gianmarco & Geys, Benny, 2012. "Public support for institutionalised solidarity: Europeans' reaction to the establishment of eurobonds," Discussion Papers, Research Professorship & Project "The Future of Fiscal Federalism" SP II 2012-112, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    5. Alan Blinder & Alan Krueger, 2004. "What Does the Public Know about Economic Policy, and How Does It Know It?," Working Papers 875, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section..
    6. Schläpfer, Felix & Schmitt, Marcel & Roschewitz, Anna, 2008. "Competitive politics, simplified heuristics, and preferences for public goods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 574-589, April.
    7. Author-Name: Alan S. Blinder & Alan B. Krueger, 2004. "What Does the Public Know about Economic Policy, and How Does It Know It?," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 35(1), pages 327-397.
    8. Schmidt, Dominik & Stöckl, Thomas & Palan, Stefan, 2024. "Voting for insider trading regulation. An experimental study of informed and uninformed traders’ preferences," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    9. Maarten C. W. Janssen & Mariya Teteryatnikova, 2015. "On the Positive Role of Negative Political Campaigning," Vienna Economics Papers 1506, University of Vienna, Department of Economics.
    10. Tsuyoshi Hatori & Kiyoshi Kobayashi, 2012. "Knowledge, Political Innovation and Referendum," Chapters, in: Charlie Karlsson & Börje Johansson & Roger R. Stough (ed.), The Regional Economics of Knowledge and Talent, chapter 9, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    11. Wolff, Irenaeus, 2022. "Predicting Voluntary Contributions by `Revealed-Preference Nash-Equilibrium'," VfS Annual Conference 2022 (Basel): Big Data in Economics 264072, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    12. Katjana Gattermann & Claes H De Vreese, 2017. "The role of candidate evaluations in the 2014 European Parliament elections: Towards the personalization of voting behaviour?," European Union Politics, , vol. 18(3), pages 447-468, September.
    13. Berggren, Niclas & Jordahl, Henrik & Poutvaara, Panu, 2006. "The Looks of a Winner: Beauty, Gender and Electoral Success," IZA Discussion Papers 2311, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    14. Fink, Josef & Palan, Stefan & Theissen, Erik, 2024. "Earnings Autocorrelation and the Post-Earnings-Announcement Drift: Experimental Evidence," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 59(6), pages 2799-2837, September.
    15. Donald Wittman, 2009. "How Pressure Groups Activate Voters and Move Candidates Closer to the Median," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(540), pages 1324-1343, October.
    16. Edmund Malesky & Markus Taussig, 2019. "How Do Firms Feel About Participation by Their Peers in the Regulatory Design Process? An Online Survey Experiment Testing the Substantive Change and Spillover Mechanisms," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 4(2), pages 129-150, June.
    17. Kumlin, Staffan, 2000. "Ideology-driven public opinion formation in Europe: The case of third sector attitudes in Sweden," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Institutions and Social Change FS III 00-202, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    18. James Tilley & Christopher Wlezien, 2008. "Does Political Information Matter? An Experimental Test Relating to Party Positions on Europe," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 56(1), pages 192-214, March.
    19. Robert Deacon & Felix Schläpfer, 2010. "The Spatial Range of Public Goods Revealed Through Referendum Voting," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(3), pages 305-328, November.
    20. Simon Niemeyer, 2011. "The Emancipatory Effect of Deliberation: Empirical Lessons from Mini-Publics," Politics & Society, , vol. 39(1), pages 103-140, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:102:y:2021:i:6:p:2955-2971. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.