IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v10y2023i1d10.1057_s41599-023-02422-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

To stay, remain or leave: how verbal concepts as response options in political referendums such as the Brexit polls might bias voting outcomes

Author

Listed:
  • Liane Ströbel

    (RWTH Aachen University)

  • Iring Koch

    (RWTH Aachen University)

  • Torsten-Oliver Salge

    (RWTH Aachen University)

  • David Antons

    (RWTH Aachen University)

Abstract

Referendums allow people to participate in political decision-making. However, they also come with the challenge of presenting complex issues to the electorate in a concise and comprehensible way. In order to simplify the decision-making process, referendum questions are often tailored to yes/no response options. In comparison, the UK European Union membership referendum of 2016, in contrast to the 1975 referendum on the same issue, discarded this option, and a verbal and conceptually more complex alternative response option was brought into play (remain vs. leave). This potentially relevant change in the voting tradition justifies a linguistic consideration of the suitability of the choice of verbs. Verbal response options such as stay, remain and leave might activate different framing effects due to their underlying etymology. Our goal was therefore to examine whether the choice of verbs can have a biasing effect, which might be the case due to their frame-inherent structure. This investigation attempts, through both a linguistic analysis and an experimental analysis using a version of the Implicit Association Test (IAT), to bridge the research gap between the awareness that there are linguistic factors that can influence decision-making processes and the lack of inclusion of framing effects. Overall, the data of two IAT studies (n = 185 and n = 355) suggest that the exact wording of dichotomic response options has the potential to influence response choice based on evaluative associations of the verbs. Specifically, when compared to leave, we found relatively more positive evaluation for stay than for remain. Furthermore - independent of the Brexit referendum - our study raises the question whether verbs are at all suitable to replace yes/no response options due to inherent framing effects. This linguistic aspect requires more attention in the design of response options in future referendums.

Suggested Citation

  • Liane Ströbel & Iring Koch & Torsten-Oliver Salge & David Antons, 2023. "To stay, remain or leave: how verbal concepts as response options in political referendums such as the Brexit polls might bias voting outcomes," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-11, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:10:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-023-02422-2
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-023-02422-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-023-02422-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-023-02422-2?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. Bosman, Ronald & Kräussl, Roman & Mirgorodskaya, Elizaveta, 2015. "The "tone effect" of news on investor beliefs: An experimental approach," CFS Working Paper Series 522, Center for Financial Studies (CFS).
    2. Eric Luis Uhlmann & Keith Leavitt & Jochen I. Menges & Michael Howe & Russell E. Johnson & Joel Koopman, 2012. "Getting Explicit About the Implicit: A Taxonomy of Implicit Measures and Guide for Their Use in Organizational Research," Post-Print hal-00743353, HAL.
    3. Ritu Agarwal & Vasant Dhar, 2014. "Editorial —Big Data, Data Science, and Analytics: The Opportunity and Challenge for IS Research," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 25(3), pages 443-448, September.
    4. Elisabeth Deutskens & Ko de Ruyter & Martin Wetzels & Paul Oosterveld, 2004. "Response Rate and Response Quality of Internet-Based Surveys: An Experimental Study," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 21-36, February.
    5. Eric Luis Uhlmann & Anthony Greenwald & Andrew Poehlmann & Mahzarin Banaji, 2009. "Understanding and Using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-Analysis of Predictive Validity," Post-Print hal-00516146, HAL.
    6. Kim Huat Goh & Jesse C. Bockstedt, 2013. "The Framing Effects of Multipart Pricing on Consumer Purchasing Behavior of Customized Information Good Bundles," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 24(2), pages 334-351, June.
    7. Nico Molenaar & Johannes Smit, 1996. "Asking and answering yes/no-questions in survey interviews: a conversational approach," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 115-136, May.
    8. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1986. "Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(4), pages 251-278, October.
    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. Hendrik Slabbinck & Arjen van Witteloostuijn & Julie Hermans & Johanna Vanderstraeten & Marcus Dejardin & Jacqueline Brassey & Dendi Ramdani, 2018. "The added value of implicit motives for management research Development and first validation of a Brief Implicit Association Test (BIAT) for the measurement of implicit motives," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(6), pages 1-29, June.
    2. Arjen van Witteloostuijn & Marcus Dejardin & Julie Hermans & Dendi Ramdani, & Johanna Vanderstraeten & Jacqueline Brassey & Hendrik Slabbinck, 2015. "Fitting entrepreneurial, firm-level and environmental contingencies for better performance," Post-Print halshs-01379907, HAL.
    3. Reynolds, Scott J. & Dang, Carolyn T. & Yam, Kai Chi & Leavitt, Keith, 2014. "The role of moral knowledge in everyday immorality: What does it matter if I know what is right?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 124-137.
    4. Keith Leavitt & Lei Zhu & Karl Aquino, 2016. "Good Without Knowing it: Subtle Contextual Cues can Activate Moral Identity and Reshape Moral Intuition," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 137(4), pages 785-800, September.
    5. Güth, W., 1997. "Boundedly Rational Decision Emergence -A General Perspective and Some Selective Illustrations-," SFB 373 Discussion Papers 1997,29, Humboldt University of Berlin, Interdisciplinary Research Project 373: Quantification and Simulation of Economic Processes.
    6. Kareklas, Ioannis & Muehling, Darrel D. & King, Skyler, 2019. "The effect of color and self-view priming in persuasive communications," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 33-49.
    7. Bram Klievink & Bart-Jan Romijn & Scott Cunningham & Hans Bruijn, 2017. "Big data in the public sector: Uncertainties and readiness," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 267-283, April.
    8. Freeman, Steven F., 1997. "Good decisions : reconciling human rationality, evolution, and ethics," Working papers WP 3962-97., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    9. Alexandra Rausch & Alexander Brauneis, 2015. "It’s about how the task is set: the inclusion–exclusion effect and accountability in preprocessing management information," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 23(2), pages 313-344, June.
    10. Wafaa Shoukry Saleh & Maha M. A. Lashin, 2022. "Traffic Safety Policies for Saudi Women: Attitudinal Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-14, August.
    11. Jin, Haofeng, 2022. "The effect of overspending on tariff choices and customer churn: Evidence from mobile plan choices," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    12. Kumar, Alok, 2007. "Do the diversification choices of individual investors influence stock returns?," Journal of Financial Markets, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 362-390, November.
    13. Jensen, Robert & Lleras-Muney, Adriana, 2012. "Does staying in school (and not working) prevent teen smoking and drinking?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 644-657.
    14. Angelo Rosa, 2023. "Organizational Training in Startups: The Incubators Perspective in Turbulent Times," International Journal of Business and Management, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 18(4), pages 1-1, August.
    15. Yi Yang & Kunpeng Zhang & Yangyang Fan, 2023. "sDTM: A Supervised Bayesian Deep Topic Model for Text Analytics," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(1), pages 137-156, March.
    16. Strauss, Jason, 2007. "Return-of-Premium Endorsements for Living-Benefits Insurance Policies: Rational or Irrational?," MPRA Paper 11103, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Ellen Garbarino & Robert Slonim, 2007. "Preferences and decision errors in the winner’s curse," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 241-257, June.
    18. Elie Matta & Jean McGuire, 2008. "Too Risky to Hold? The Effect of Downside Risk, Accumulated Equity Wealth, and Firm Performance on CEO Equity Reduction," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(4), pages 567-580, August.
    19. Giuseppe Pernagallo & Benedetto Torrisi, 2020. "A theory of information overload applied to perfectly efficient financial markets," Review of Behavioral Finance, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 14(2), pages 223-236, October.
    20. J. Michelle Brock & Ralph De Haas, 2023. "Discriminatory Lending: Evidence from Bankers in the Lab," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 15(2), pages 31-68, April.

    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:pal:palcom:v:10:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-023-02422-2. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/ .

    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.