Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-55597f9d44-mzfmx Total loading time: 1.362 Render date: 2022-08-09T02:02:30.057Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

Nonrepresentative Representatives: An Experimental Study of the Decision Making of Elected Politicians

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 December 2017

LIOR SHEFFER*
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
PETER JOHN LOEWEN*
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
STUART SOROKA*
Affiliation:
University of Michigan
STEFAAN WALGRAVE*
Affiliation:
University of Antwerp
TAMIR SHEAFER*
Affiliation:
Hebrew University
*
Lior Sheffer is a PhD Candidate, Department of Political Science, University of Toronto, Sidney Smith Hall, 100 St. George Street, Toronto, ON M5S 3G3, Canada (lior.sheffer@utoronto.ca.)
Peter John Loewen is the Director of the School of Public Policy and Governance and an Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Toronto, 14 Queen's Park Cres. West, Toronto, ON M5S 3K9, Canada (peter.loewen@utoronto.ca).
Stuart Soroka is the Michael W. Traugott Collegiate Professor of Communication Studies and Political Science, University of Michigan, 5370 North Quad, 105 South State Street, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48109-1285, USA (ssoroka@umich.edu.)
Stefaan Walgrave is a Professor of Political Science, University of Antwerp, Stadscampus, Sint - Jacobstraat 2 - 4, S.LN55.012, 2000 Antwerp, Belgium (stefaan.walgrave@uantwerpen.be.)
Tamir Sheafer is the Dean of the Social Science Faculty and Professor of Political Science and Communication, Hebrew University, Mount Scopus, Jerusalem 91905, Israel (tamir.sheafer@mail.huji.ac.il).

Abstract

A considerable body of work in political science is built upon the assumption that politicians are more purposive, strategic decision makers than the citizens who elect them. At the same time, other work suggests that the personality profiles of office seekers and the environment they operate in systematically amplifies certain choice anomalies. These contrasting perspectives persist absent direct evidence on the reasoning characteristics of representatives. We address this gap by administering experimental decision tasks to incumbents in Belgium, Canada, and Israel. We demonstrate that politicians are as or more subject to common choice anomalies when compared to nonpoliticians: they exhibit a stronger tendency to escalate commitment when facing sunk costs, they adhere more to policy choices that are presented as the status-quo, their risk calculus is strongly subject to framing effects, and they exhibit distinct future time discounting preferences. This has obvious implications for our understanding of decision making by elected politicians.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2017 

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.)

Footnotes

We wish to thank Eran Amsalem, Matthew Ayling, Yves Dejaeghere, Lynn Epping, Jeroen Joly, Yogev Karasenty, Julie Sevenans, Tal Shahaf, Kirsten Van Camp, Debby Vos, and Alon Zoizner for their work on this project; the editor and three anonymous reviewers for their thorough and helpful feedback; participants of the 2014 Yale ISPS Conference on Experimental Studies of Elite Behavior, the 2014 International Society of Political Psychology Association conference, the 2016 American Political Science Association and Southern Political Science Association conferences, and the 2016 New York Area Political Psychology Meeting for their invaluable discussion and comments. An earlier version of this article was awarded the CQ Press Award for Best Legislative Studies Section Presented at the 2016 APSA Meeting. This work was supported by the European Research Council [Advanced Grant INFOPOL, No. 295735] and the Research Fund of the University of Antwerp [Grant No. 26827].

References

Aberbach, Joel D., Putnam, Robert D., and Rockman, Bert A.. 1981. Bureaucrats and Politicians in Western Democracies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Alesina, Alberto. 1987. “Macroeconomic Policy in a Two-Party System as a Repeated Game.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 102 (3): 651–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Christopher J. 2003. “The Psychology of Doing Nothing: Forms of Decision Avoidance Result from Reason and Emotion.” Psychological Bulletin 129 (1): 139.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aragonès, Enriqueta, Postlewaite, Andrew, and Palfrey, Thomas. 2007. “Political Reputations and Campaign Promises.” Journal of the European Economic Association 5 (4): 846–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arceneaux, Kevin. 2012. “Cognitive Biases and the Strength of Political Arguments.” American Journal of Political Science 56 (2): 271–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arkes, Hal R., and Blumer, Catherine. 1985. “The Psychology of Sunk Cost.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 35 (1): 124–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, R. Douglas. 1992. The Logic of Congressional Action. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Ashworth, Scott. 2012. “Electoral Accountability: Recent Theoretical and Empirical Work.” Annual Review of Political Science 15: 183201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Axelrod, Robert. 2015. Structure of Decision: The Cognitive Maps of Political Elites. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Barbosa, Saulo Dubard, Gerhardt, Megan W., and Kickul, Jill Richard. 2007. “The Role of Cognitive Style and Risk Preference on Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy and Entrepreneurial Intentions.” Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 13 (4): 86104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baron, David P., and Ferejohn, John A.. 1989. “Bargaining in Legislatures.” American Political Science Review 83 (04): 1181–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumgartner, Frank R., and Jones, Bryan D.. 1993. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Best, Heinrich. 2011. “Does Personality Matter in Politics? Personality Factors as Determinants of Parliamentary Recruitment and Policy Preferences.” Comparative Sociology 10 (6): 928–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boettcher, William A. 2004. “The Prospects for Prospect Theory: An Empirical Evaluation of International Relations Applications of Framing and Loss Aversion.” Political Psychology 25 (3): 331–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boettcher, William A., and Cobb, Michael D.. 2009. “Don’t Let Them Die in Vain Casualty Frames and Public Tolerance for Escalating Commitment in Iraq.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 53 (5): 677–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brender, Adi, and Drazen, Allan. 2008. “How do Budget Deficits and Economic Growth Affect Reelection Prospects? Evidence from a Large Panel of Countries.” The American Economic Review 98 (5): 2203–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broockman, David E. 2014. “Mobilizing Candidates: Political Actors Strategically Shape the Candidate Pool with Personal Appeals.” Journal of Experimental Political Science 1 (02): 104–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broockman, David E., and Butler, Daniel M.. 2017. “The Causal Effects of Elite Position-Taking on Voter Attitudes: Field Experiments with Elite Communication.” American Journal of Political Science 61 (1): 208–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce. 2013. Principles of International Politics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce, and Siverson, Randolph M.. 1995. “War and the Survival of Political Leaders: A Comparative Study of Regime Types and Political Accountability.” American Political Science Review 89 (04): 841–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, Daniel M., and Dynes, Adam M.. 2016. “How Politicians Discount the Opinions of Constituents with Whom They Disagree.” American Journal of Political Science 60 (4): 975–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, Daniel M., Karpowitz, Christopher F., and Pope, Jeremy C.. 2012. “A Field Experiment on Legislators Home Styles: Service versus Policy.” The Journal of Politics 74 (02): 474–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cai, Hongbin and Treisman, Daniel 2009. “Political Decentralization and Policy Experimentation.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 4 (1): 3558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camerer, Colin F., Hogarth, Robin M., Budescu, David V., and Eckel, Catherine. 1999. The Effects of Financial Incentives in Experiments: A Review and Capital-Labor-Production Framework. In Elicitation of Preferences. New York, NY: Springer, 748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capelos, Tereza. 2005. Shield or Stinger: The Role of Party Bonds and Competence Evaluations in Political Predicaments. Technical Report, University of Surrey.Google Scholar
Caprara, Gian Vittorio, Barbaranelli, Claudio, Consiglio, Chiara, Picconi, Laura, and Zimbardo, Philip G.. 2003. “Personalities of Politicians and Voters: Unique and Synergistic Relationships.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 84 (4): 849.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caprara, Gianvittorio, Francescato, Donata, Mebane, Minou, Sorace, Roberta, and Vecchione, Michele. 2010. “Personality Foundations of Ideological Divide: A Comparison of Women Members of Parliament and Women Voters in Italy.” Political Psychology 31 (5): 739–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chabris, Christopher F., Laibson, David, Morris, Carrie L., Schuldt, Jonathon P., and Taubinsky, Dmitry. 2008. “Individual Laboratory-Measured Discount Rates Predict Field Behavior.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 37 (2–3): 237.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chong, Dennis, and Druckman, James N.. 2007. “Framing Theory.” Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 10: 103–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crandall, Christian S., Eidelman, Scott, Skitka, Linda J., and Morgan, G. Scott. 2009. “Status Quo Framing Increases Support for Torture.” Social Influence 4 (1): 110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dafoe, Allan. 2011. “Statistical Critiques of the Democratic Peace: Caveat Emptor.” American Journal of Political Science 55 (2): 247–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dafoe, Allan, Zhang, Baobao, and Caughey, Devin. 2016. “Confounding in Survey Experiments: Diagnostics and Solutions.” Manuscript. http://www.allandafoe.com/confounding.Google Scholar
Dewan, Torun, and Dowding, Keith. 2005. “The Corrective Effect of Ministerial Resignations on Government Popularity.” American Journal of Political Science 49 (1): 4656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewan, Torun, and Spirling, Arthur. 2011. “Strategic Opposition and Government Cohesion in Westminster Democracies.” American Political Science Review 105 (02): 337–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietrich, Bryce J., Lasley, Scott, Mondak, Jeffery J., Remmel, Megan L., and Turner, Joel. 2012. “Personality and Legislative Politics: The Big Five Trait Dimensions among U.S. State Legislators.” Political Psychology 33 (2): 195210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiRenzo, Gordon J. 1967. “Professional Politicians and Personality Structures.” American Journal of Sociology 73 (2): 217–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Downs, George W., and Rocke, David M.. 1994. “Conflict, Agency, and Gambling for Resurrection: The Principal-Agent Problem goes to War.” American Journal of Political Science 38 (2): 362–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drazen, Allan. 2000. “The Political Business Cycle after 25 Years.NBER Macroeconomics Annual 15: 75117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, James N. 2001. “The Implications of Framing Effects for Citizen Competence.” Political Behavior 23 (3): 225–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, James N. 2004. “Political Preference Formation: Competition, Deliberation, and the (Ir)relevance of Framing Effects.” American Political Science Review 98 (04): 671–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, James N., Green, Donald P., Kuklinski, James H., and Lupia, Arthur. 2006. “The Growth and Development of Experimental Research in Political Science.” American Political Science Review 100 (04): 627–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, James N., and Lupia, Arthur. 2000. “Preference Formation.” Annual Review of Political Science 3 (1): 124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, James N., and Lupia, Arthur. 2012. “Experimenting with Politics.” Science 335 (6073): 1177–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Druckman, James N., and McDermott, Rose. 2008. “Emotion and the Framing of Risky Choice.” Political Behavior 30 (3): 297321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunleavy, Patrick. 2014. Democracy, Bureaucracy and Public Choice: Economic Approaches in Political Science. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dur, Robert A. J. 2001. “Why do Policy Makers Stick to Inefficient Decisions?Public Choice 107 (3–4): 221–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, George C., and Wood, B. Dan. 1999. “Who Influences Whom? The President, Congress, and the Media.” American Political Science Review 93 (02): 327–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enemark, Daniel, Gibson, Clark C., McCubbins, Mathew D., and Seim, Brigitte. 2016. “Effect of Holding Office on the Behavior of Politicians.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113 (48): 13690–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fatas, Enrique, Neugebauer, Tibor, and Tamborero, Pilar. 2007. “How Politicians Make Decisions: A Political Choice Experiment.” Journal of Economics 92 (2): 167–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fearon, James D. 1995. “Rationalist Explanations for War.” International Organization 49 (03): 379414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fearon, James D. 1997. “Signaling Foreign Policy Interests Tying Hands versus Sinking Costs.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 41 (1): 6890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fearon, James D. 1999. “Electoral Accountability and the Control of Politicians: Selecting Good Types versus Sanctioning Poor Performance.” Democracy, Accountability, and Representation 55: 61.Google Scholar
Feldman, Ofer. 1996. “The Political Personality of Japan: An Inquiry into the Belief Systems of Diet Members.” Political Psychology 17 (4): 657–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernandez, Raquel, and Rodrik, Dani. 1991. “Resistance to Reform: Status Quo Bias in the Presence of Individual-Specific Uncertainty.” The American Economic Review, 1146–55.Google Scholar
Fowler, James H., and Kam, Cindy D.. 2006. “Patience as a Political Virtue: Delayed Gratification and Turnout.” Political Behavior 28 (2): 113–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franzese, Robert J Jr. 2002. “Electoral and Partisan Cycles in Economic Policies and Outcomes.” Annual Review of Political Science 5 (1): 369421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fréchette, Guillaume R. 2011. “Laboratory Experiments: Professionals versus Students.’ Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1939219 or https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1939219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frederick, Shane, Loewenstein, George, and O’Donoghue, Ted. 2002. “Time Discounting and Time Preference: A Critical Review.” Journal of Economic Literature 40 (2): 351401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fu, Qiang, and Li, Ming. 2014. “Reputation-Concerned Policy Makers and Institutional Status Quo Bias.” Journal of Public Economics 110: 1525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galle, Brian D. 2012. “Myopia, Fiscal Federalism, and Unemployment Insurance: Time to Reform UI Financing.” Boston College Law School Legal Studies Research Paper (265).Google Scholar
Garrett, Geoffrey. 1993. “The Politics of Structural Change Swedish Social Democracy and Thatcherism in Comparative Perspective.” Comparative Political Studies 25 (4): 521–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geddes, Barbara. 1996. Politician’s Dilemma: Building State Capacity in Latin America. Vol. 25, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Gerber, Alan S., Huber, Gregory A., Doherty, David, and Dowling, Conor M.. 2011. “The Big Five Personality Traits in the Political Arena.” Annual Review of Political Science 14: 265–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghadim, Amir K. Abadi, Pannell, David J., and Burton, Michael P.. 2005. “Risk, Uncertainty, and Learning in Adoption of a Crop Innovation.” Agricultural Economics 33 (1): 19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilovich, Thomas, Griffin, Dale, and Kahneman, Daniel. 2002. Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Donald P., Palmquist, Bradley, and Schickler, Eric. 2004. Partisan Hearts and Minds: Political Parties and the Social Identities of Voters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Greenstein, Fred I. 2004. The Presidential Difference: Leadership Style from FDR to George W. Bush. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Grose, Christian R. 2011. Congress in Black and White: Race and Representation in Washington and at Home. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grose, Christian R., Malhotra, Neil, and Van Houweling, Robert Parks. 2015. “Explaining Explanations: How Legislators Explain their Policy Positions and How Citizens React.” American Journal of Political Science 59 (3): 724–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hafner-Burton, Emilie M., Hughes, D. Alex, and Victor, David G.. 2013. “The Cognitive Revolution and the Political Psychology of Elite Decision Making.” Perspectives on Politics 11 (02): 368–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Peter A., and Taylor, Rosemary C. R.. 1996. “Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms.” Political Studies 44 (5): 936–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, Glenn W., Lau, Morten I., Rutström, E. Elisabet, and Sullivan, Melonie B.. 2005. “Eliciting Risk and Time Preferences Using Field Experiments: Some Methodological Issues.” Field Experiments in Economics 10: 125218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, Glenn W., Lau, Morten I., and Williams, Melonie B.. 2002. “Estimating Individual Discount Rates in Denmark: A Field Experiment.” The American Economic Review 92 (5): 1606–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Healy, Andrew, and Malhotra, Neil. 2013. “Retrospective Voting Reconsidered.” Annual Review of Political Science 16: 285306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heath, Chip. 1995. “Escalation and De-escalation of Commitment in Response to Sunk Costs: The Role of Budgeting in Mental Accounting.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 62 (1): 3854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heß, Moritz, von Scheve, Christian, Schupp, Jürgen, and Wagner, Gert. 2013. “Members of German Federal Parliament More Risk-Loving Than General Population.’ SOEP Paper No. 546. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2253836 or https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2253836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogarth, Robin M. 2002. “Deciding Analytically or Trusting Your Intuition? The Advantages and Disadvantages of Analytic and Intuitive Thought.’ UPF Economics and Business Working Paper No. 654. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=394920 or https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.394920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howitt, Peter, and Wintrobe, Ronald. 1995. “The Political Economy of Inaction.” Journal of Public Economics 56 (3): 329–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, Alan M. 2008. “The Politics of When: Redistribution, Investment and Policy Making for the Long Term.” British Journal of Political Science 38 (02): 193220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, Alan M. 2011. Governing for the Long Term: Democracy and the Politics of Investment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jervis, Robert. 1992. “Political Implications of Loss Aversion.” Political Psychology 13 (2): 187204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jervis, Robert. 2015. Perception and Misperception in International Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, Dominic D. P., McDermott, Rose, Barrett, Emily S., Cowden, Jonathan, Wrangham, Richard, McIntyre, Matthew H., and Rosen, Stephen Peter. 2006. “Overconfidence in Wargames: Experimental Evidence on Expectations, Aggression, Gender and Testosterone.” Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 273 (1600): 2513–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, Bryan D. 2001. Politics and the Architecture of Choice: Bounded Rationality and Governance. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jones, Bryan D. 2003. “Bounded Rationality and Political Science: Lessons from Public Administration and Public Policy.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 13 (4): 395412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, Bryan D. and Baumgartner, Frank R.. 2005 a. “A Model of Choice for Public Policy.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 15 (3): 325–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, Bryan D., and Baumgartner, Frank R.. 2005 b. The Politics of Attention: How Government Prioritizes Problems. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jost, John T., Banaji, Mahzarin R., and Nosek, Brian A.. 2004. “A Decade of System Justification Theory: Accumulated Evidence of Conscious and Unconscious Bolstering of the Status Quo.” Political Psychology 25 (6): 881919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel, Knetsch, Jack L., and Thaler, Richard H.. 1991. “Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias.” The Journal of Economic Perspectives 5 (1): 193206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalla, Joshua L., and Broockman, David E.. 2016. “Campaign Contributions Facilitate Access to Congressional Officials: A Randomized Field Experiment.” American Journal of Political Science 60 (3): 545–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanwisher, Nancy. 1989. “Cognitive Heuristics and American Security Policy.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 33 (4): 652–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayser, Mark Andreas. 2005. “Who Surfs, Who Manipulates? The Determinants of Opportunistic Election Timing and Electorally Motivated Economic Intervention.” American Political Science Review 99 (01): 1727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kingdon, John W. 1989. Congressmen’s Voting Decisions. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kühberger, Anton. 1998. “The Influence of Framing on Risky Decisions: A Meta-Analysis.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 75 (1): 2355.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lawless, Jennifer L. 2012. Becoming a Candidate: Political Ambition and the Decision to Run for Office. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lerner, Jennifer S., and Tetlock, Philip E.. 1999. “Accounting for the Effects of Accountability.” Psychological Bulletin 125 (2): 255.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
LeVeck, Brad L., Hughes, D. Alex, Fowler, James H., Hafner-Burton, Emilie, and Victor, David G.. 2014. “The Role of Self-Interest in Elite Bargaining.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111 (52): 18536–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levy, Jack S. 1997. “Prospect Theory, Rational Choice, and International Relations.” International Studies Quarterly 41 (1): 87112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, Jack S. 2003. “Applications of Prospect Theory to Political Science.” Synthese 135 (2): 215–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, Jack S. 2013. “Psychology and Foreign Policy Decision-Making.” The Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology, 314–6.Google Scholar
Linde, Jona, and Vis, Barbara. 2017. “Do Politicians Take Risks Like the Rest of Us? An Experimental Test of Prospect Theory under MPs.” Political Psychology 38 (1): 101–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, John A. 2003. “Does Market Experience Eliminate Market Anomalies?The Quarterly Journal of Economics 118 (1): 4171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, John A., and Mason, Charles F.. 2011. “Are CEOs Expected Utility Maximizers?Journal of Econometrics 162 (1): 114–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewen, Peter, and MacKenzie, Michael. Forthcoming. “Service Representation in a Federal System: A Field Experiment.” Journal of Experimental Political Science.Google Scholar
Loewenstein, George, and Elster, Jon. 1992. Choice Over Time. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Majumdar, Sumon, and Mukand, Sharun W.. 2004. “Policy Gambles.” The American Economic Review 94 (4): 1207–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, James G., and Olsen, Johan P.. 1995. Democratic Governance. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
Massey, Frank J Jr. 1951. “The Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test for Goodness of Fit.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 46 (253): 6878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAfee, R. Preston, Mialon, Hugo M., and Mialon, Sue H.. 2010. “Do Sunk Costs Matter?Economic Inquiry 48 (2): 323–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDermott, Rose. 2001. Risk-Taking in International Politics: Prospect Theory in American Foreign Policy. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
McDermott, Rose. 2004. Political Psychology in International Relations. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDermott, Rose, Fowler, James H., and Smirnov, Oleg. 2008. “On the Evolutionary Origin of Prospect Theory Preferences.” The Journal of Politics 70 (02): 335–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGraw, Kathleen M. 2000. “Contributions of the Cognitive Approach to Political Psychology.” Political Psychology 21 (4): 805–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meier, Stephan, and Sprenger, Charles D.. 2012. “Time Discounting Predicts Creditworthiness.” Psychological Science 23 (1): 56–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mellers, Barbara, Stone, Eric, Atanasov, Pavel, Rohrbaugh, Nick, Metz, S. Emlen, Ungar, Lyle, Bishop, Michael M., Horowitz, Michael, Merkle, Ed, and Tetlock, Philip. 2015. “The Psychology of Intelligence Analysis: Drivers of Prediction Accuracy in World Politics.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 21 (1): 1.Google ScholarPubMed
Mercer, Jonathan. 2005. “Prospect Theory and Political Science.” Annual Review of Political Science 8: 121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miler, Kristina C. 2009. “The Limitations of Heuristics for Political Elites.” Political Psychology 30 (6): 863–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mintz, Alex, Redd, Steven B., and Vedlitz, Arnold. 2006. “Can We Generalize from Student Experiments to the Real World in Political Science, Military Affairs, and International Relations?Journal of Conflict Resolution 50 (5): 757–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton, Rebecca B., and Williams, Kenneth C.. 2010. Experimental Political Science and the Study of Causality: From Nature to the Lab. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nordhaus, William D. 1975. “The Political Business Cycle.” The Review of Economic Studies 42 (2): 169–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, Pippa, and Lovenduski, Joni. 1995. Political Recruitment: Gender, Race and Class in the British Parliament. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pierson, Paul. 2000. “Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics.” American Political Science Review 94 (2): 251–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Przeworski, Adam, Stokes, Susan C., and Manin, Bernard. 1999. Democracy, Accountability, and Representation. Vol. 2, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, Robert. 1976. The Comparative Study of Political Elites. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Putnam, Robert D. 1988. “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games.” International Organization 42 (03): 427–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quattrone, George A., and Tversky, Amos. 1988. “Contrasting Rational and Psychological Analyses of Political Choice.” American Political Science Review 82 (03): 719–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renshon, Jonathan. 2015. “Losing Face and Sinking Costs: Experimental Evidence on the Judgment of Political and Military Leaders.” International Organization 69 (3): 659–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogoff, Kenneth. 1990. “Equilibrium Political Budget Cycles.” The American Economic Review, 2136.Google Scholar
Samuelson, William, and Zeckhauser, Richard. 1988. “Status quo bias in Decision Making.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1 (1): 759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth A., and Bonchek, Mark S.. 1997. Analyzing Politics: Rationality, Behavior and Institutions. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
Sherman, Gary D., Lee, Jooa J., Cuddy, Amy J. C., Renshon, Jonathan, Oveis, Christopher, Gross, James J., and Lerner, Jennifer S.. 2012. “Leadership is Associated with Lower Levels of Stress.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109 (44): 17903–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simonson, Itamar, and Nye, Peter. 1992. “The Effect of Accountability on Susceptibility to Decision Errors.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 51 (3): 416–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonson, Itamar, and Staw, Barry M.. 1992. “Deescalation Strategies: A Comparison of Techniques for Reducing Commitment to Losing Courses of Action.” Journal of Applied Psychology 77 (4): 419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sleesman, Dustin J., Conlon, Donald E., McNamara, Gerry, and Miles, Jonathan E.. 2012. “Cleaning up the Big Muddy: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Determinants of Escalation of Commitment.” Academy of Management Journal 55 (3): 541–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slovic, Paul Ed. 2000. The Perception of Risk. London, UK: Earthscan Publications.Google Scholar
Soroka, Stuart N. 2014. Negativity in Democratic Politics: Causes and Consequences. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Streich, Philip, and Levy, Jack S.. 2007. “Time Horizons, Discounting, and Intertemporal Choice.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 51 (2): 199226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swers, Michele L. 2002. The Difference Women Make: The Policy Impact of Women in Congress. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Taliaferro, Jeffrey W. 2004. “Power Politics and the Balance of Risk: Hypotheses on Great Power Intervention in the Periphery.” Political Psychology 25 (2): 177211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teger, A. 1980. Too Much Invested to Quit. New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Tetlock, Philip E., and Boettger, Richard. 1994. “Accountability Amplifies the Status Quo Effect When Change Creates Victims.” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 7 (1): 123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thaler, Richard. 1980. “Toward a Positive Theory of Consumer Choice.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 1 (1): 3960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thaler, Richard. 1981. “Some Empirical Evidence on Dynamic Inconsistency.” Economics Letters 8 (3): 201–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomz, Michael, Wittenberg, Jason, and King, Gary. 2003. “CLARIFY: Software for Interpreting and Presenting Statistical Results.” Journal of Statistical Software 8 (1): 130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsebelis, George. 1990. Nested Games: Rational Choice in Comparative Politics, Vol. 18. Berkeley, CA: Univ of California Press.Google Scholar
Tsebelis, George. 2002. Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, Amos, and Kahneman, Daniel. 1981. “The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice.” Science 211 (4481): 453–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, Amos, and Kahneman, Daniel. 1992. “Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5 (4): 297323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyszka, Tadeusz, and Zielonka, Piotr. 2002. “Expert Judgments: Financial Analysts versus Weather Forecasters.” The Journal of Psychology and Financial Markets 3 (3): 152–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Vugt, Mark, and Ronay, Richard. 2014. “The Evolutionary Psychology of Leadership Theory, Review, and Roadmap.” Organizational Psychology Review 4 (1): 7495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wängnerud, Lena. 2009. “Women in Parliaments: Descriptive and Substantive Representation.” Annual Review of Political Science 12: 5169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weaver, R. Kent. 1986. “The Politics of Blame Avoidance.” Journal of Public Policy 6 (04): 371–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiegele, Thomas C., and Oots, Kent Layne. 1990. “Type A Behavior and Local Government Elites.” Political Psychology, 721–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaller, John. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Sheffer et al. Dataset

Link
Supplementary material: PDF

Sheffer et al supplementary material

Sheffer et al supplementary material 1

Download Sheffer et al supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 234 KB
72
Cited by

Linked content

Please note a has been issued for this article.

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Nonrepresentative Representatives: An Experimental Study of the Decision Making of Elected Politicians
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Nonrepresentative Representatives: An Experimental Study of the Decision Making of Elected Politicians
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Nonrepresentative Representatives: An Experimental Study of the Decision Making of Elected Politicians
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *