Research
Dissertation | Works in Progress
Dissertation
Abstract: Scholars have been researching how voters make decisions for well over a half a century, but these studies are limited in what they are able to say about how voters make decisions because they have focused on the decision itself rather than the process. Most of these studies have focused on the end decision that voters reach or the way their memories are structured, overlooking the importance of the search and acquisition of information. Specifically, scholars in political science have paid little attention to how contextual variations in the information environment affect how voters make decisions.
To fill this gap, I investigate how changes in context affect how voters search for information. For the purposes of this project, I explore three specific contexts: the number of offices on the ballot, the availability of partisan information about the candidates, and the amount of campaign dialogue between two candidates. Indeed one of the prominent features of American elections is the variation in the number of elections across jurisdictions, the availability of partisan information about candidates, and the amount of campaign dialogue between candidates—the three contexts that I propose to examine in this study.
To answer this question, I conduct three experiments that manipulate each of these contexts. In order to gather data on how subjects search for information, I use a dynamic information board that simulates a campaign environment and allows me to track the information subjects chose to view and in what order they chose to view it. Preliminary results from a pilot study conducted during the fall of 2009 suggest that context is important for voter information searches. Voters who had multiple elections to learn about searched for more information, compared less information between candidates, and searched for information in more of a random manner than subjects who only had to learn about a single presidential election. It also appears that subject who had to learn about multiple elections tended to focus on the candidate who had the same party affiliation as the subject.
Works In Progress
Scott McClurg, Souithern Illinois University
Anand Sokhey, The Ohio State University
Drew Seib, Southern Illinois University
"Social Networks and Correct Voting: A Dynamic, Processing Approach"
Abstract: Recent scholarship on social networks has taken a “normative turn,” meaning that it increasingly focuses on whether or not observed consequences of interaction in these networks benefits or detracts from individual contributions to democratic practice. While much of this research approaches this subject indirectly by comparing results to standards developed from normative theory (e.g., Mutz 2006), we build on an approach that uses individual-level measures of “correct voting” to assess the consequences of social interaction. This paper builds on earlier research that uses multiple nationally-representative survey samples – across two divergent electoral conditions – to demonstrate that interpersonal disagreement in social networks drives down the probability of “correct voting” in the American electorate. Specifically we focus on isolating the cognitive mechanism behind these results through an experimental design.
The core of our research design is Lau and Redlawsk’s (1997) dynamic, process tracing method for examing voting behavior. Using computer terminal-based experiments at two Midwestern universities, we simulate a presidential campaign environment in which subjects are exposed to substantial information about fictional candidates for office. Like previous research in this area the information environment mimics crucial features of contemporary politics. However, we tweak the typical experimental design in two ways. First, we randomly assign subjects to receive a battery of network questions after exposure to the campaign in order to stimulate views about how their friends and family would vote in this election. Second, we explicitly measure the underlying levels of cognition using the “stop-and-think” method in order to determine whether the stimulus affects information people retain about candidates or if it is simply use of networks as a heuristic that drives their attitudes.
Drew Seib, Southern Illinois University
"Divided Government and Congressional Investigations"
Open PDF
Abstract: Mayhew’s (1991) attempts to grasp how divided government affects the ability of legislators to pass laws. In his study, he uses frequencies to decipher the effects of divided government on the probability of congressional investigations. This study takes a different look at the same data, by using a duration model. The suggest that presidential approval is only helpful in preventing congressional investigations when government is unified.
Drew Seib, Southern Illinois University
"Campaign War Chests and Challenger Emergence in State Supreme Court Elections"
Open PDF
Abstract: The study of campaign war chest and challenger emergence has only been studied in the context of legislative and executive elections. This study seeks to expand the understanding of this relationship by studying it in the context of state supreme court elections from 1990 to 2006 in states that hold competitive elections. A bivariate probate model is used to test the relationship, taking into account the emergence of both weak and strong challengers. The results provide some support for the conventional wisdom that large war chest deter challengers.
Drew Seib, Southern Illinois University
"Unclear Ideology Heuristics and Voting"
Open PDF
Abstract: Representative democracies require that its citizens choose representatives that are in their best interest. Research shows that people have little knowledge about candidates. Scholars are now exploring heuristics as a way for citizens to be able to make reasonable decisions with little or no information about candidates. Research on heuristics thus far has only considered clear or well-defined heuristics, but heuristics are not always welldefined. This study will examine the ability of voters to employ the ideology heuristic when it is unclear. The question driving this paper is can a person vote for the candidate with the same ideology if the ideology heuristic is unclear. The results show that people are not as probable to vote for the candidate with the same ideology when the ideology heuristic is unclear.
"Unclear Ideology Heuristics and Voting"
Open PDF
Abstract: Representative democracies require that its citizens choose representatives that are in their best interest. Research shows that people have little knowledge about candidates. Scholars are now exploring heuristics as a way for citizens to be able to make reasonable decisions with little or no information about candidates. Research on heuristics thus far has only considered clear or well-defined heuristics, but heuristics are not always welldefined. This study will examine the ability of voters to employ the ideology heuristic when it is unclear. The question driving this paper is can a person vote for the candidate with the same ideology if the ideology heuristic is unclear. The results show that people are not as probable to vote for the candidate with the same ideology when the ideology heuristic is unclear.