Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Moral Bias in Large Elections: Theory and Experimental Evidence

  • TIMOTHY FEDDERSEN (a1), SEAN GAILMARD (a2) and ALVARO SANDRONI (a3)
Abstract

We argue that large elections may exhibit a moral bias (i.e., conditional on the distribution of preferences within the electorate, alternatives understood by voters to be morally superior are more likely to win in large elections than in small ones). This bias can result from ethical expressive preferences, which include a payoff voters obtain from taking an action they believe to be ethical. In large elections, pivot probability is small, so expressive preferences become more important relative to material self-interest. Ethical expressive preferences can have a disproportionate impact on results in large elections for two reasons. As pivot probability declines, ethical expressive motivations make agents more likely to vote on the basis of ethical considerations than on the basis of narrow self-interest, and the set of agents who choose to vote increasingly consist of agents with large ethical expressive payoffs. We provide experimental evidence that is consistent with the hypothesis of moral bias.

Copyright
Corresponding author
Timothy Feddersen is the Wendell Hobbs Professor of Managerial Economics, Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, 2001 Sheridan Road, Evanston, IL 60208 (tfed@kellogg.northwestern.edu).
Sean Gailmard is Assistant Professor, Charles and Louise Travers Department of Political Science, University of California at Berkeley, 210 Barrows Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720 (gailmard@berkeley.edu).
Alvaro Sandroni is Professor, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania, 3718 Locust Walk, Philadelphia, PA 19104 (sandroni@econ.upenn.edu).
References
Hide All
Andreoni, James. 1990. “Impure Altruism and Donations to Public Goods: A Theory of Warm-Glow.” Economic Journal 100: 464–77.
Andreoni, James. 2006. “Philanthropy.” In Handbook of Giving, Reciprocity, and Altruism, eds. Gerard-Veret, L.-A., Kolm, S.-C., and Mercier, J.. New York: Elsevier.
Babcock, Linda, and Lowenstein, George. 1997. “Explaining Bargaining Impasse: The Role of Self-Serving Biases.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 11: 109–26.
Beckman, Steven, Formby, John, Smith, W. James, and Zheng, Buhong. 2002. “Envy, Malice, and Pareto Efficiency: An Experimental Investigation.” Social Choice and Welfare 19: 349–67.
Bolton, Gary, and Ockenfels, Axel. 2000. “ERC: A Theory of Equity, Reciprocity, and Competition.” American Economic Review 90: 166–93.
Brennan, Geoffry, and Buchanan, James. 1984. “Voter Choice: Evaluating Political Alternatives.” American Behavioral Scientist 28: 185201.
Brennan, Geoffrey, and Lomasky, Loren. 1993. Democracy and Decision: The Pure Theory of Electoral Preference. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Camerer, Colin. 2003. Behavioral Game Theory: Experiments in Strategic Interaction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Carter, John, and Guerette, Stephen. 1992. “An Experimental Study of Expressive Voting.” Public Choice 73: 251–60.
Charness, Gary, and Rabin, Matthew. 2002. “Understanding Social Preferences with Simple Tests.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 117: 817–69.
Coate, Stephen, and Conlin, Michael. 2004. “A Group Rule-Utilitarian Approach to Voter Turnout: Theory and Evidence.” American Economic Review 94: 1476–504.
Cummings, R. G., Harrison, G., and Rutström, E. E.. 1995. “Homegrown Values and Hypothetical Surveys: Is the Dichotomous Choice Approach Incentive Compatible?American Economic Review 85: 260–6.
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper.
Duffy, John, and Tavits, Margit. 2006. “Beliefs and Voting Decisions: A Test of the Pivotal Voter Model.” Typescript, University of Pittsburgh.
Edlin, Aaron, Gelman, Andrew, and Kaplan, Noah. 2007. “Voting as a Rational Choice: Why and How People Vote to Improve the Well-being of Others.” Rationality and Society 19: 293314.
Feddersen, Timothy, and Pesendorfer, Wolfgang. 1996. “The Swing Voter's Curse.” American Economic Review 86: 408–24.
Feddersen, Timothy, and Sandroni, Alvaro. 2006a. “A Theory of Participation in Elections.” American Economic Review 96: 1271–82.
Feddersen, Timothy, and Sandroni, Alvaro. 2006b. “Ethical Voters and Costly Information Acquisition.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 1 (3): 287311.
Fehr, Ernst, and Schmidt, Klaus. 1999. “A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Co-operation.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 114: 817–68.
Fischer, A. J. 1995. “A Further Experimental Study of Expressive Voting.” Public Choice 88: 171–80.
Fowler, James 2006. “Altruism and Turnout.” Journal of Politics 68: 674–83.
Frohlich, Norman, and Oppenheimer, Joe. 1992. Choosing Justice. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Grether, David, and Plott, Charles. 1979. “Economic Theory and the Preference Reversal Phenomenon.” American Economic Review 69: 623–38.
Harrison, Glenn W., and Rutström, E. Elisabet. 2008. “Experimental Evidence on the Existence of Hypothetical Bias in Value Elicitation Methods.” In Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, eds. Plott, Charles and Smith, Vernon. New York: North-Holland.
Harsanyi, John. 1977. “Rule Utilitarianism and Decision Theory.” Erkenntnis 11: 2553.
Jankowski, Richard. 2002. “Buying a Lottery Ticket to Help the Poor: Altruism, Civic Duty, and Self Interest in the Decision to Vote.” Rationality and Society 14: 5577.
Kinder, Donald, and Kiewiet, D. Roderick. 1979. “Economic Grievances and Political Behavior: The Role of Personal Discontents and Collective Judgments in Congressional Voting.” American Journal of Political Science 23: 495527.
Levine, David, and Palfrey, Thomas. 2007. “The Paradox of Voter Participation? A Laboratory Study.” American Political Science Review 101: 143–58.
List, John, and Gallet, Craig. 2001. “What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values? Evidence from a Meta-Analysis.” Environmental and Resource Economics 20: 241–54.
Luce, Duncan. 1959. Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis. New York: Wiley.
McFadden, Daniel. 1974. “Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior.” In Frontiers of Econometrics, ed. Zarembka, P.. Academic Press.
McKelvey, Richard, and Palfrey, Thomas R.. 1995. “Quantal Response Equilibrium in Normal Form Games.” Games and Economic Behavior 10: 638.
Messick, David, and Sentis, Keith. 1979. “Fairness and Preference.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 15: 418–34.
Morton, Rebecca B. 1991. “Groups in Rational Turnout Models.” American Journal of Political Science 35: 758–76.
Riker, William, and Ordeshook, Peter. 1968. “A Theory of the Calculus of Voting.” American Political Science Review 62: 2543.
Scheussler, Alex. 2000. A Logic of Expressive Choice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Sears, David O., and Citrin, Jack. 1985. Tax Revolt: Something for Nothing in California. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sears, David O., and Funk, Carolyn L.. 1991. “The Role of Self-Interest in Social and Political Attitudes.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 24: 191.
Tullock, Gordon. 1971. “The Charity of the Uncharitable.” Western Economic Journal 9: 379–92.
Tyran, Jean-Robert. 2005. “Voting When Money and Morals Conflict: An Experimental Test of Expressive Voting.” Journal of Public Economics 88: 1645–64.
Tyran, Jean-Robert, and Sausgruber, Rupert. 2006. “A Little Fairness May Induce a Lot of Redistribution in Democracy.” European Economic Review 50: 469–85.
Uhlaner, Carol. (1989). “Relational Goods and Participation: Incorporating Sociability into a Theory of Rational Action.” Public Choice 62: 255–85.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

American Political Science Review
  • ISSN: 0003-0554
  • EISSN: 1537-5943
  • URL: /core/journals/american-political-science-review
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed