IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wut/journl/v3-4y2011p21-34id1014.html

Cognitive properties of approval voting. An experimental approach

Author

Listed:
  • Krzysztof Przybyszewski

  • Monika Rzeska

  • Honorata Sosnowska

Abstract

The paper summarizes two series of experiments demonstrating the cognitive properties of ap- proval voting. The former series is devoted to mental processes induced in decision makers who use the method of approval voting. Based on cognitive effort, the use of choice strategies is presented in this paper. The observations of respondents show that most of them use relatively effortless strategy of eliminating alternatives and attributes. Few respondents use more sophisticated methods. The other series of experiments analyses the number of alternatives chosen in approval voting. It appears that the average number is not constant, even for similar votes but it depends on the subject of voting. The number of chosen alternatives and the subjective significance of the scope of voting are negatively or positively correlated in the case of special votes. The analyzed experiments show that the cognitive properties of approval voting have a diverse structure.

Suggested Citation

  • Krzysztof Przybyszewski & Monika Rzeska & Honorata Sosnowska, 2011. "Cognitive properties of approval voting. An experimental approach," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 21(3-4), pages 21-34.
    • Handle: RePEc:wut:journl:v:3-4:y:2011:p:21-34:id:1014
    DOI: 10.5277/ord1203-0402
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ord.pwr.edu.pl/assets/papers_archive/1014%20-%20published.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.5277/ord1203-0402?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. Nils Reisen & Ulrich Hoffrage & Fred W. Mast, 2008. "Identifying decision strategies in a consumer choice situation," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 3(8), pages 641-658, December.
    2. Marcin Malawski & Krzysztof Przybyszewski & Honorata Sosnowska, 2010. "Cognitive effort of voters under three different voting methods - an experimental study," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 20(3-4), pages 69-79.
    3. Jean-François Laslier & Karine Straeten, 2008. "A live experiment on approval voting," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 11(1), pages 97-105, March.
    4. Antoinette Baujard & Herrade Igersheim & Jean-François Laslier, 2013. "Voting Experiments," PSE Working Papers halshs-04745041, HAL.
    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. Antoinette Baujard & Herrade Igersheim & Isabelle Lebon, 2020. "Some regrettable grading scale effects under different versions of evaluative voting," Working Papers halshs-02926780, HAL.
    2. Antoinette Baujard & Herrade Igersheim & Isabelle Lebon, 2021. "Some regrettable grading scale effects under different versions of evaluative voting," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 56(4), pages 803-834, May.
    3. repec:wut:journl:v:3-4:y:2011:id:1014 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Barbaro, Salvatore, 2025. "Election methods and political polarization," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    5. Salvatore Barbaro & Anna-Sophie Kurella, 2025. "Dichotomous Preferences: Concepts, Measurement, and Evidence," Working Papers 2506, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.
    6. Pintér, Ágnes & Veszteg, Róbert F., 2010. "Minority vs. majority: An experimental study of standardized bids," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 36-50, March.
    7. Casella, Alessandra & Laslier, Jean-François & Macé, Antonin, 2017. "Democracy for Polarized Committees: The Tale of Blotto's Lieutenants," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 239-259.
    8. Etienne Farvaque & Hubert Jayet & Lionel Ragot, 2009. "A "winner" under any voting rule? An experiment on the single transferable vote," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00429725, HAL.
    9. Brandl, Florian & Peters, Dominik, 2022. "Approval voting under dichotomous preferences: A catalogue of characterizations," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    10. Hauser, John R., 2014. "Consideration-set heuristics," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(8), pages 1688-1699.
    11. Herrade Igerseim & Antoinette Baujard & Jean-François Laslier, 2016. "La question du vote. Expérimentations en laboratoire et In Situ," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 92(1-2), pages 151-189.
    12. Tomas J. McIntee, 2017. "A geometric model of sensitivity of multistage elections to change," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 49(1), pages 89-115, June.
    13. Dellaert, B.G.C. & Johnson, E.J. & Baker, T., 2019. "Choice Architecture for Healthier Insurance Choices: Ordering and Partitioning Can Improve Decisions," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2019-008-MKT, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    14. Arnaud Dellis & Sean D’Evelyn & Katerina Sherstyuk, 2011. "Multiple votes, ballot truncation and the two-party system: an experiment," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 37(2), pages 171-200, July.
    15. Andrea C. Hupman & Jay Simon, 2023. "The Legacy of Peter Fishburn: Foundational Work and Lasting Impact," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 1-15, March.
    16. Behe, Bridget K. & Bae, Mikyeung & Huddleston, Patricia T. & Sage, Lynnell, 2015. "The effect of involvement on visual attention and product choice," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 10-21.
    17. Bouton, Laurent & Castanheira, Micael & Llorente-Saguer, Aniol, 2016. "Divided majority and information aggregation: Theory and experiment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 114-128.
    18. Antoinette Baujard & Isabelle Lebon, 2022. "Not-so-strategic voters.Evidence from an in situ experiment during the 2017 French presidential election," Post-Print halshs-03607824, HAL.
    19. Husić-Mehmedović, Melika & Omeragić, Ismir & Batagelj, Zenel & Kolar, Tomaž, 2017. "Seeing is not necessarily liking: Advancing research on package design with eye-tracking," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 145-154.
    20. Dellaert, B.G.C. & Baker, T. & Johnson, E.J., 2017. "Partitioning Sorted Sets: Overcoming Choice Overload while Maintaining Decision Quality," ERIM Report Series Research in Management 18-2, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    21. Alós-Ferrer, Carlos & Buckenmaier, Johannes, 2019. "Strongly sincere best responses under approval voting and arbitrary preferences," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 388-401.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:wut:journl:v:3-4:y:2011:p:21-34:id:1014. 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: Adam Kasperski (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iopwrpl.html .

    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.