Prevalence and Moderators of the Candidate Name-Order Effect

Pasek, Josh; Schneider, Daniel; Krosnick, Jon A.; Tahk, Alexander; Eyal, Ori; Milligan, Claire

doi:10.1093/poq/nfu013

Cited by 29 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This observation has been made across a variety of political and electoral systems (see Miller and Krosnick 1998;Blom-Hansen et al 2016 for reviews). Existing work has also consistently found that ballot position effects are stronger when voters have little knowledge about the candidates (Miller and Krosnick 1998;Brockington 2003;Pasek et al 2014;Geys and Heyndels 2003;Kim et al 2015). There are, however, at least two gaps in understanding ballot position effects, which we address in this paper.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 84%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cue-Taking, Satisficing, or Both? Quasi-experimental Evidence for Ballot Position Effects

Däubler

Rudolph

2018

Polit Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ballot position effects have been documented across a variety of political and electoral systems. In general, knowledge of the underlying mechanisms is limited. There is also little research on such effects in preferential-list PR systems, in which parties typically present ranked lists and thus signaling is important. This study addresses both gaps. Theoretically, we formalize four models of voter decision-making: pure appeal-based utility maximization, implying no position effects; rank-taking, where voters take cues from ballot position per se; satisficing, where choice is a function of appeal, but voters consider the options in the order of their appearance; and a hybrid "satisficing-with-rank-taking" variant. From these, we derive differential observable implications. Empirically, we exploit a quasi-experiment, created by the mixed-member electoral system that is used in the state of Bavaria, Germany. Particular electoral rules induce variation in both the observed rank and the set of competitors, and allow for estimating effects at all ranks. We find clear evidence for substantial position effects, which are strongest near the top, but discernible even for the 15th list position. In addition, a candidate's vote increases when the average appeal of higher-placed (but not that of lower-placed) competitors is lower. Overall, the evidence is most compatible with the hybrid satisficing-with rank-taking model. Ballot position thus affects both judgment and choice of candidates.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…electoral subunits, now akin to a methodological gold standard in nominal systems (e.g. Miller and Krosnick 1998;Chen et al 2014;Pasek et al 2014;Ho and Imai 2008), is typically not available. In addition to observational work (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cue-Taking, Satisficing, or Both? Quasi-experimental Evidence for Ballot Position Effects

Däubler

Rudolph

2018

Polit Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Additionally, they found that this reduction was consistent across ballot positions and that all candidates performed better against the top-ranked candidate among postal voters. Unlike with Pasek et. al.…”

Section: Ballot Position Effects Inmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…Both studies described above suffer from certain methodological diffi culties. The most immediate issue in Pasek et. al.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As opposed to a fully randomized process though, proposals usually encourage semi-randomized systems where alternatives appear fi rst in roughly equal proportion (Edwards, 2015, Flis andKaminski, 2021). This is typically accomplished through the use of some form of chance-based selection process such as generating a randomized alphabet, or holding lotteries to determine alternative listings (Pasek et. al.…”

Section: Determining the Impact On Election Outcomes And Working It Downmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Primacy Effects and Voting Methods (Literature Review)

Linder¹

2021

Decyzje

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The primacy effect has long been considered a decisive factor in determining election outcomes and has consequently developed a robust literature dedicated to studying it in different scenarios and contexts. However, existing research has offered limited insight into how the choice of voting method, particularly by-mail voting, may infl uence its impact on elections by altering how and when voters participate. This article fi rst reviews why the primacy effect exists, how researchers identify its infl uence, and its overall impact on election outcomes. It then discusses why the use of by-mail voting should be expected to alter the primacy effect, and analyzes two works where this relationship has been explored. Their results highlight several of the issues faced when trying to examine this relationship, but also indicate that further study is warranted and likely to be fruitful.

show abstract