IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/intell/v70y2018icp1-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Different political systems suppress or facilitate the impact of intelligence on how you vote: A comparison of the U.S. and Denmark

Author

Listed:
  • Ludeke, Steven G.
  • Rasmussen, Stig H.R.

Abstract

Intelligence is rarely studied as a predictor of vote choice, and at first glance our data supports this neglect: In samples from the U.S. and Denmark (Ns = 1419 and 953), intelligence does not predict the standard operationalization of vote choice in which parties are placed on a single left-vs-right dimension. (Standardized coefficients predicting right-wing vote choice were 0.05 and −0.03, respectively.) However, this apparent non-effect in fact reflects approximately equal and opposite effects of intelligence on vote choice as transmitted through social and economic ideology. In both countries, higher ability predicts left-wing social and right-wing economic views. The impact of intelligence on vote choice is thus most visible in true multi-party systems like Denmark, in which parties do not simply pair similar levels of social and economic conservatism, but instead provide diverse combinations of social and economic ideology. Comparing the parties closest to representing authoritarian egalitarianism (social-right plus economic-left) and libertarianism (social-left plus economic-right), we observed a 0.9 SD intelligence gap.

Suggested Citation

  • Ludeke, Steven G. & Rasmussen, Stig H.R., 2018. "Different political systems suppress or facilitate the impact of intelligence on how you vote: A comparison of the U.S. and Denmark," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 1-6.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:intell:v:70:y:2018:i:c:p:1-6
    DOI: 10.1016/j.intell.2018.06.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289618300060
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.intell.2018.06.003?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Johanna Mollerstrom & David Seim, 2014. "Cognitive Ability and the Demand for Redistribution," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(10), pages 1-7, October.
    2. Berinsky, Adam J. & Huber, Gregory A. & Lenz, Gabriel S., 2012. "Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 351-368, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hrishikesh Joshi, 2020. "What are the chances you’re right about everything? An epistemic challenge for modern partisanship," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 19(1), pages 36-61, February.
    2. Bell, Edward & Dawes, Christopher T. & Weinschenk, Aaron & Riemann, Rainer & Kandler, Christian, 2020. "Patterns and sources of the association between intelligence, party identification, and political orientations," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    3. Lin, Chien-An & Bates, Timothy C., 2022. "Sophisticated deviants: Intelligence and radical economic attitudes," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).

    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. Pan, Jing Yu & Liu, Dahai, 2022. "Mask-wearing intentions on airplanes during COVID-19 – Application of theory of planned behavior model," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 32-44.
    2. Michele Cantarella & Chiara Strozzi, 2021. "Workers in the crowd: the labor market impact of the online platform economy [An evaluation of instrumental variable strategies for estimating the effects of catholic schooling]," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 30(6), pages 1429-1458.
    3. Robbett, Andrea & Matthews, Peter Hans, 2018. "Partisan bias and expressive voting," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 107-120.
    4. Park, JungKun & Ahn, Jiseon & Thavisay, Toulany & Ren, Tianbao, 2019. "Examining the role of anxiety and social influence in multi-benefits of mobile payment service," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 140-149.
    5. Chunhao Wei & Han Chen & Yee Ming Lee, 2022. "COVID-19 preventive measures and restaurant customers’ intention to dine out: the role of brand trust and perceived risk," Service Business, Springer;Pan-Pacific Business Association, vol. 16(3), pages 581-600, September.
    6. Masha Shunko & Julie Niederhoff & Yaroslav Rosokha, 2018. "Humans Are Not Machines: The Behavioral Impact of Queueing Design on Service Time," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(1), pages 453-473, January.
    7. Brodeur, Abel & Cook, Nikolai & Heyes, Anthony, 2022. "We Need to Talk about Mechanical Turk: What 22,989 Hypothesis Tests Tell Us about Publication Bias and p-Hacking in Online Experiments," IZA Discussion Papers 15478, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    8. Lude, Maximilian & Prügl, Reinhard, 2021. "Experimental studies in family business research," Journal of Family Business Strategy, Elsevier, vol. 12(1).
    9. Mattozzi, Andrea & Snowberg, Erik, 2018. "The right type of legislator: A theory of taxation and representation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 54-65.
    10. Jasper Grashuis & Theodoros Skevas & Michelle S. Segovia, 2020. "Grocery Shopping Preferences during the COVID-19 Pandemic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-10, July.
    11. Jeanette A.M.J. Deetlefs & Mathew Chylinski & Andreas Ortmann, 2015. "MTurk ‘Unscrubbed’: Exploring the good, the ‘Super’, and the unreliable on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk," Discussion Papers 2015-20, School of Economics, The University of New South Wales.
    12. Jun Zhang & Joon Soo Lim, 2021. "Mitigating negative spillover effects in a product-harm crisis: strategies for market leaders versus market challengers," Journal of Brand Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 28(1), pages 77-98, January.
    13. Haas, Nicholas & Hassan, Mazen & Mansour, Sarah & Morton, Rebecca B., 2021. "Polarizing information and support for reform," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 883-901.
    14. Cantarella, Michele & Strozzi, Chiara, 2019. "Workers in the Crowd: The Labour Market Impact of the Online Platform Economy," IZA Discussion Papers 12327, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    15. O. Ashton Morgan & John C. Whitehead, 2018. "Willingness to Pay for Soccer Player Development in the United States," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 19(2), pages 279-296, February.
    16. John Hulland & Jeff Miller, 2018. "“Keep on Turkin’”?," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 46(5), pages 789-794, September.
    17. Atalay, Kadir & Bakhtiar, Fayzan & Cheung, Stephen & Slonim, Robert, 2014. "Savings and prize-linked savings accounts," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 107(PA), pages 86-106.
    18. Kyungsik Han, 2018. "How do you perceive this author? Understanding and modeling authors’ communication quality in social media," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-25, February.
    19. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:3:p:234-279 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Joshua Gubler & Nathan Kalmoe & David Wood, 2015. "Them’s Fightin’ Words: The Effects of Violent Rhetoric on Ethical Decision Making in Business," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 130(3), pages 705-716, September.
    21. Azzam, Tarek & Harman, Elena, 2016. "Crowdsourcing for quantifying transcripts: An exploratory study," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 63-73.

    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:eee:intell:v:70:y:2018:i:c:p:1-6. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/intelligence .

    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.