Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-plnhv Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2025-08-30T08:22:25.687Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Partisan Vision Biases Determination of Voter Intent

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 January 2011

Peter A. Ubel  and
Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher
Peter A. Ubel
Affiliation:
Duke University
Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher
Affiliation:
University of Michigan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In close, disputed elections, outcomes can depend on determinations of voter intent for ballots that have been filled out improperly. We surveyed 899 adult Minnesotans during a time when the state's U.S. Senate election was still disputed and presented them with ambiguous ballots similar to ballots under dispute in the same election. We randomized participants to three experimental groups, across which we varied the names on the ballot. We found that participants' judgments of voter intent were strongly biased by their voting preferences (p < .002 in all four ballots).

Information

Type
Features
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 44 , Issue 1 , January 2011 , pp. 81 - 84
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Brockington, D. 2003. “A Low Information Theory of Ballot Position Effect.” Political Behavior 25 (1): 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brownstein, A. L. 2003. “Biased Predecision Processing.” Psychological Bulletin 129 (4): 545–68.Google Scholar
Cohen, G. 2003. “Party over Policy: The Dominating Impact of Group Influence on Political Beliefs.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85 (5): 808–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Couper, M. 2008. Designing Effective Web Surveys. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falcone, M. 2008. “Minnesota's Not-So-Nice Ballot Recount. New York Times, November 19.Google Scholar
Gilovich, T. 1991. How We Know What Isn't So: The Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Ho, D. 2008. “Estimating Causal Effects of Ballot Order from a Randomized Natural Experiment: The California Alphabet Lottery, 1978–2002.” Public Opinion Quarterly 72 (2): 216–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krosnick, J. 1999. “Survey Research.” Annual Review of Psychology 50 (1): 537–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lord, C., Ross, L., and Lepper, M.. 1979. “Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization: The Effects of Prior Theories on Subsequently Considered Evidence.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37 (11): 2098–2109.Google Scholar
Munro, G. D., Ditto, P. H., Lockhart, L. K., Fagerlin, A., Gready, R. M., and Peterson, E. C.. 2002. “Biased Assimilation of Sociopolitical Arguments: Evaluating the 1996 U.S. Presidential Debate.” Basic Applied Social Psychology 24 (1): 15–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, L., Lepper, M., and Hubbard, M.. 1975. “Perseverance in Self-Perception and Social Perception: Biased Attributional Processes in the Debriefing Paradigm.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 32 (5): 880–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sherman, D., and Cohen, G.. 2002. “Accepting Threatening Information: Self-Affirmation and the Reduction of Defensive Biases.” Current Directions in Psychological Science 11 (14): 119–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar