Comparative Politics

B05 - Workshop: Experiments on Decision Making and Vote Choice

Date: May 30 | Time: 01:30pm to 03:00pm | Location: Classroom - CL 317 Room ID:15750

Joint Session / Séance conjointe : with Political Behaviour/Sociology

Chair/Président/Présidente : Eline de Rooij (Simon Fraser University)

Discussant/Commentateur/Commentatrice : Peter Loewen (University of Toronto)

Can Mini-Publics Correct Misinformation? The Effects of Source Cues, Populist Attitudes, and Trust in Experts on Fact-checks: Spencer McKay (University of British Columbia), Eric Merkley (University of British Columbia)
Abstract: Deliberative mini-publics – small groups of citizens selected, often at random, from the population at large to participate in a facilitated deliberation process – are usually introduced to address political issues that are highly contested by elites, unfamiliar to voters, or both. Mini-publics generally make their findings available to the broader public, which often include both factual statements as well as value judgments. Existing experimental evidence shows that there are modest effects on citizens’ attitudes about unfamiliar issues and mini-publics can correct misinformation on relatively uncontroversial topics. We ask: do mini-publics effectively correct misinformation related to polarizing issues? Using evidence from two survey experiments, we investigate if citizens use the source of a fact-check – either a deliberative mini-public or a fact-checking organization like Politifact – as a cue when deciding whether to accept the correction. We also consider whether the effectiveness of this correction is conditional on the reader’s level of trust in experts or populist attitudes. Existing research finds that mini-publics appeal to non-populists because of their ability to develop expertise and appeal to populists because of the ordinariness of participants, suggesting that mini-publics might be a compelling source of corrections for those who distrust traditional elite institutions.

Public and Private Scandals: How Scandal Type and Sphere Affect Voter Behavior: Jason Roy (Wilfrid Laurier University), Christopher Alcantara (Western University)
Abstract: This research employs an online voting experiment to assess the impact of candidate scandals on the information search voters undertake prior to casting their ballot and the impact the scandal has on the vote that is cast. We further assess differences according to the type of scandal the candidate is involved in (financial or sexual) as well as whether the scandal took place in the public or private sphere (e.g. an affair with a co-worker or an affair with a neighbor). Our work allows us to test an assumption that, while all accusations of a scandal will hurt a candidate, the loss in support will be greatest when the scandal is directly linked to the candidate’s public life.

Voting Fast and Slow - Context and Cognition in Political Decision Making: Mackenzie Lockhart (University of California San Diego)
Abstract: This project builds on previous work in dual process theory. Dual process theory argues that decisions are made based on two systems: one that is fast and one that is automatic. Based on evidence from psychological research, I argue that the context in which voting occurs should affect the way these two systems are used. When voters have stronger feelings towards candidates, they'll rely on those feelings instead of engaging deeper processes. Using experimental data, I demonstrate that deepening feelings causes voters to make their vote choice more quickly. By manipulating participants to develop stronger feelings during a mock election campaign, I cause participants to make their vote choice 30% quicker. I further show that similar context dependent effects are evident both with voters who develop stronger feelings by engaging with campaigns more and voters who choose to engage in slower processing styles when elections are close. This work demonstrates that the dual processes are dynamic and their role in vote choice depends on contextual clues. These results suggests that the dynamics that surround an election will effect not only the content of voter’s cognitions and emotions but the ways in which they translate those considerations into votes.

Closed Session | Lunch will be provided