Measuring Voter Decision Strategies in Political Behavior and Public Opinion Research

Abstract

The 2008 presidential election was an historic moment in American politics for many reasons, not least of which was the Democratic Party selecting an African American as its nominee. Speculation about how racial prejudice might affect Barack Obama's candidacy was widespread, and varied from proclamations that we now live in a "post-racial society" to condemnations that race would cost him the election. For scholars interested in the possible implications of racism for American politics, Obama's candidacy and eventual victory present a unique opportunity to investigate the impact of racism on vote choice and public opinion in the context of the nation's highest national office. More specifically, we can now begin to answer questions about the extent to which racism affects citizens' willingness to vote for a black president, their evaluations of his character, and attitudes toward his abilities as a leader. Further, the combination of lingering racism within the electorate and a black candidate (and eventual winner) for president may have had an unusual effect on Americans' attitudes toward racial policy.Just as we are currently presented with a unique political context in which to study race and racial bias, scholars now have more tools at their disposal than ever to contribute to the study of racism in American politics. Along with widely accepted explicit racism measures (such as feeling thermometers and acceptance of racial stereotypes) and "new racism" scales (Sears and Kinder 1970;Sears et al, 1997), relatively new, implicit measures of prejudice --unintentional and often unconscious mental associations --offer a different approach for identifying racial prejudice. Their reliance on automatic mental associations, as opposed to conscious attitudes, has meant that these implicit measures have simultaneously been subject to interest and excitement, as well as strong criticism, on multiple fronts (e.g. Tetlock and Mitchell 2008).

Adolescents’ Evaluations of Political Leaders: The Case of President Donald Trump

“…Finally, many adolescents demonstrated a stout understanding of Trump’s social and political policy agenda, and this knowledge intersected with their own values and political opinions in their appraisal of the president. These broad factors that formed the foundation of youth (dis)approval ratings align with those identified by an extensive body of political science, which has found that adults’ views of politicians are rooted in their understanding of the politician’s policies and agenda and evaluation of their personal attributes and linked to individual’s own personal experiences (Lau et al, ). Thus, the processes and factors underlying youth’s ratings of political leaders may mirror those seen among adult voters.…”

The origins of information processing preferences in politics: Examining parental influence

“…We include controls for race and gender given, not least, their potential association with decision strategies. Lau et al (2018) found that women were more likely to prefer the rational choice model, while minorities were more likely to prefer the fast and frugal and confirmatory models.…”

“…The full list of survey items, corresponding scales, and descriptive statistics are included in Appendices E and B, respectively (see Supplementary Materials). Detailed analysis demonstrating the reliability and discriminant validity of the decision strategy subscales can be found in Lau et al (2018). Our experimental design also allows us to observe actual information search behavior, which is a crucial indicator of decision strategy (Lau & Redlawsk, 2006).…”

“…Complementing these cognitive motivations are a number of decision strategies that predict, not least, the depth of information search in politics, affective polarization, and quality of vote choice (Lau, Kleinberg, & Ditonto, 2018;Lau & Redlawsk, 2006). We focus on four decision strategies that guide political preferences and behavior (rational choice, confirmatory, fast and frugal, and heuristic-based; see Lau et al, 2018;Lau & Redlawsk, 2006). The strategies are differentiated across two dimensions: the depth of information search and the relative balance applied in incorporating information into a decision.…”

“…246). Lau et al (2018) found evidence of gender and racial differences in preferred decision strategies, but the antecedents of these preferences remain largely unexamined. While previous research has focused on how cognitive motivations and strategies give way to individual differences in political outcomes, we ask from where those cognitive elements originate in the first place.…”