-
- Aa
- Aa
Druckman, James N. and Lupia, Arthur 2016. Preference Change in Competitive Political Environments. Annual Review of Political Science, Vol. 19, Issue. 1, p. 13.
Hollibaugh, Gary E. 2016. Presidential Appointments and Public Trust. Presidential Studies Quarterly,
Kogan, Vladimir Lavertu, Stéphane and Peskowitz, Zachary 2016. Performance Federalism and Local Democracy: Theory and Evidence from School Tax Referenda. American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 60, Issue. 2, p. 418.
Kurdi, Benedek Lozano, Shayn and Banaji, Mahzarin R. 2016. Introducing the Open Affective Standardized Image Set (OASIS). Behavior Research Methods,
Peterson, Erik 2016. The Rich are Different: The Effect of Wealth on Partisanship. Political Behavior, Vol. 38, Issue. 1, p. 33.
Preißinger, Maria and Schoen, Harald 2016. It's not always the campaign – Explaining inter-election switching in Germany, 2009–2013. Electoral Studies,
Simonovits, Gabor 2016. Centrist by Comparison: Extremism and the Expansion of the Political Spectrum. Political Behavior,
Song, B.K. 2016. Media markets and politicians involved in scandals. The Social Science Journal,
YASUI, KIYOTAKA and NAKAI, RYO 2016. An Opportunity for Backing Down: Looking for an Electoral Connection to Audience Costs. Japanese Journal of Political Science, Vol. 17, Issue. 02, p. 168.
Zink, James R. and Dawes, Christopher T. 2016. The Dead Hand of the Past? Toward an Understanding of “Constitutional Veneration”. Political Behavior, Vol. 38, Issue. 3, p. 535.
Bausch, Andrew W. and Zeitzoff, Thomas 2015. Citizen Information, Electoral Incentives, and Provision of Counter-Terrorism: An Experimental Approach. Political Behavior, Vol. 37, Issue. 3, p. 723.
Bélanger, Éric and Nadeau, Richard 2015. Issue Ownership of the Economy: Cross-Time Effects on Vote Choice. West European Politics, Vol. 38, Issue. 4, p. 909.
Christenson, Dino P. and Glick, David M. 2015. Chief Justice Roberts's Health Care Decision Disrobed: The Microfoundations of the Supreme Court's Legitimacy. American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 59, Issue. 2, p. 403.
Dowling, Conor M. and Miller, Michael G. 2015. Can Information Alter Perceptions about Women's Chances of Winning Office? Evidence from a Panel Study. Politics & Gender, Vol. 11, Issue. 01, p. 55.
Fowler, Anthony and Montagnes, B. Pablo 2015. College football, elections, and false-positive results in observational research. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 112, Issue. 45, p. 13800.
Francis-Tan, Andrew and Mialon, Hugo M. 2015. “A DIAMOND IS FOREVER” AND OTHER FAIRY TALES: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WEDDING EXPENSES AND MARRIAGE DURATION. Economic Inquiry, Vol. 53, Issue. 4, p. 1919.
Fukumoto, Kentaro and Matsuo, Akitaka 2015. The Effects of Election Proximity on Participatory Shirking: The Staggered-Term Chamber as a Laboratory. Legislative Studies Quarterly, Vol. 40, Issue. 4, p. 599.
Grose, Christian R. Malhotra, Neil and Parks Van Houweling, Robert 2015. Explaining Explanations: How Legislators Explain their Policy Positions and How Citizens React. American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 59, Issue. 3, p. 724.
Hansen, Kasper M. Olsen, Asmus L. and Bech, Mickael 2015. Cross-National Yardstick Comparisons: A Choice Experiment on a Forgotten Voter Heuristic. Political Behavior, Vol. 37, Issue. 4, p. 767.
Hellwig, Timothy and Marinova, Dani M. 2015. More Misinformed than Myopic: Economic Retrospections and the Voter’s Time Horizon. Political Behavior, Vol. 37, Issue. 4, p. 865.
Are citizens competent to assess the performance of incumbent politicians? Observational studies cast doubt on voter competence by documenting several biases in retrospective assessments of performance. However, these studies are open to alternative interpretations because of the complexity of the real world. In this article, we show that these biases in retrospective evaluations occur even in the simplified setting of experimental games. In three experiments, our participants (1) overweighted recent relative to overall incumbent performance when made aware of an election closer rather than more distant from that event, (2) allowed an unrelated lottery that affected their welfare to influence their choices, and (3) were influenced by rhetoric to give more weight to recent rather than overall incumbent performance. These biases were apparent even though we informed and incentivized respondents to weight all performance equally. Our findings point to key limitations in voters’ ability to use a retrospective decision rule.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.