Hostname: page-component-5d84bcc8dc-wjd8b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-08-15T15:24:40.549Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Heuristics and policy responsiveness: a research agenda

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Chris Butler  and
Barbara Vis
Chris Butler*
Affiliation:
Manchester University, Manchester, UK
Barbara Vis*
Affiliation:
Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
*
E-mail: christopher.butler-3@manchester.ac.uk
E-mail: b.vis@uu.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Theories of policy responsiveness assume that political decision-makers can rationally interpret information about voters’ likely reactions, but can we be sure of this? Political decision-makers face considerable time and information constraints, which are the optimal conditions for displaying decision-making biases—deviations from comprehensive rationality. Recent research has shown that when evaluating policies, political decision-makers display biases related to heuristics—cognitive rules of thumb that facilitate judgments and decision-making—when evaluating policies. It is thus likely that they also rely on heuristics in other situations, such as when forming judgments of voters’ likely reactions. But what types of heuristics do political decision-makers use in such judgments, and do these heuristics contribute to misjudgements of voters’ reactions? Existing research does not answer these crucial questions. To address this lacuna, we first present illustrative evidence of how biases related to heuristics contributed to misjudgements about voters’ reactions in two policy decisions by UK governments. Then, we use this evidence to develop a research agenda that aims to further our understanding of when political decision-makers rely on heuristics and the effects thereof. Such an agenda will contribute to the literature on policy responsiveness.

Keywords

HeuristicsDecision-making biasesPolitical decision-makingPolicy responsivenessJudgment

Information

Type
Research
Information
European Political Science , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , June 2023 , pp. 202 - 227
Copyright
Copyright © 2022 European Consortium for Political Research

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

Footnotes

Copyright comment

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

References

Achen, C.H. and Bartels, L.M. 2016 Democracy for Realists: Why Elections do not Produce Responsive Government New Jersey: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bang Petersen, M. 2015 Evolutionary political psychology: On the origin and structure of heuristics and biases in politics Advances in Political Psychology 36 (1): 45–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, L.M. 1996 Uninformed votes: Information effects in presidential elections American Journal of Political Science 40 (1): 194–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumgartner, F.R. and Jones, B.D. 2015 The Politics of Information: Problem Definition and the Course of Public Policy in America Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Böhmelt, T., Ezrow, L., Lehrer, R. and Ward, H. 2016 Party policy diffusion American Political Science Review 110 (2): 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broockman, D.E. and Skovron, C. 2018 Bias in perceptions of public opinion among political elites American Political Science Review 112 (3): 542–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, C. 2021 When are governing parties more likely to respond to public opinion? the strange case of the liberal democrats and tuition fees British Politics 16 (3): 336–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chong, D. and Druckman, J.N. 2007 Framing theory Annual Review of Political Science 10: 103–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clegg, N. 2016 Politics: Between the Extremes Manhattan: Penguin Random House.Google Scholar
Consterdine, E. 2018 Labour’s Immigration Policy The Making of the Migration State: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dommett, K. 2013 A miserable little compromise? exploring liberal democrat fortunes in the UK coalition The Political Quarterly 84 (2): 218–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunleavy, P. 1995 Policy disasters: Explaining the uk’s record Public Policy and Administration 10 (2): 52–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earle, S. 2020 Boris Johnson Cares About “Liberty” More Than People’s Lives New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Evans, G. and Mellon, J. 2016 Working class votes and conservative losses: Solving the UKIP Puzzle Parliamentary Affairs 69 (2): 464–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ezrow, L. and Xezonakis, G. 2011 Citizen satisfaction with democracy and parties’ policy offerings Comparative Political Studies 44 (9): 1152–1178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fieldhouse, E., Cutts, D. and Russell, A. 2006 Neither north nor south: The liberal democrat performance in the 2005 general election Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties 16 (1): 77–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flinders, M., Weinberg, A., Weinberg, J., Geddes, M. and Kwiatkowski, R. 2020 Governing under pressure? the mental wellbeing of politicians Parliamentary Affairs 73 (2): 253–273.Google Scholar
Gains, F. and Stoker, G. 2011 Special advisers and the transmission of ideas from the policy primeval soup Policy and Politics 39 (4): 484-449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geddes, B. 1990 How the cases you choose affect the answers you get: Selection bias in comparative politics Political Analysis 2: 131–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. 2015 Simply Rational: Decision Making in the Real World Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. and Selten, R. 2001 Rethinking Rationality Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox Gigerenzer, G. and Selten, R. (eds.) The MIT Press, 1–12.Google Scholar
Gilovich, T., Griffin, D. and Kahneman, D. (eds.) (2002) Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goertz, G. and Mahoney, J. 2012 A Tale of Two Cultures: Qualitative and Quantitative Research in the Social Sciences Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Green, J. and Jennings, W. 2017 The Politics of Competence: Parties Public Opinion and Voters Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hafner-Burton, E.M., Hughes, D.A. and Victor, D.G. 2013 The cognitive revolution and the political psychology of elite decision making Perspectives on Politics 11 (2): 368–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, T., Angrist, N., Goldszmidt, R., Kira, B., Petherick, A., Phillips, T., Webster, S., Cameron-Blake, E., Hallas, L., Majumdar, S. and Tatlow, H. 2021 A global panel database of pandemic policies (Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker) Nature Human Behaviour 5 (4): 529–538.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Helfer, L. and Van Aelst, P. 2020 Why politicians react to media coverage: A comparative experiment of political agenda-setting The Agenda Setting Journal 4 (1): 88–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helm, T. and Asthana, A. (2010) Half of Liberal Democrat voters ready to defect after VAT rise. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/jun/27/lib-dems-vat-rise-anger-pollGoogle Scholar
Huddy, L. and Sears, D.O. and Levy, J.S. (eds.) 2013 The Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology (second edition) Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jervis, R. 1976 Perception and Misperception in International Politics Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Jervis, R. 1986 Representativeness in foreign policy judgments Political Psychology 7 (3): 483–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, B.D. 2001 Politics and the Architecture of Choice Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jones, B.D. and Baumgartner, F.R. 2005 The Politics of Attention: How Government Prioritizes Problems Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. and Frederick, S., 2002 Representativeness Revisited: Attribute Substitution in Intuitive Judgment Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment Gilovich, T., Griffin, D. and Kahneman, D. (eds.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 49–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. 1972 Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness Cognitive Psychology 3 (3): 430–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. 1986 Rational choice and the framing of decisions The Journal of Business 59 (4): S251–S278.Google Scholar
Kelman, M. 2011 The Heuristics Debate Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keman, H. 2014 Democratic performance of parties and legitimacy in europe West European Politics 37 (2): 309–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khong, Y.F. 1992 Analogies at War: Korea, Munich, Dien Bien Phu, and the Vietnam Decisions of 1965 Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laws, D. 2016 Coalition: The Inside Story of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition London: Biteback Publishing.Google Scholar
Levy, J.S. 2003 Applications of prospect theory to political science Synthese 135 (2): 215–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattinson, D. 2010 Talking To A Brick Wall: How New Labour Stopped Listening to the Voter and Why We Need a New Politics London: Biteback Publishing.Google Scholar
McDermott, R. 2001 The psychological ideas of amos tversky and their relevance for political science Journal of Theoretical Politics 13 (1): 5–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miler, K.C. 2009 The limitations of heuristics for political elites Political Psychology 30 (6): 863–894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pereira, M.M. 2021 Understanding and reducing biases in elite beliefs about the electorate American Political Science Review 115 (4): 1308–1324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Read, D., Loewenstein, G. and Rabin, M. 1999 Choice bracketing Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 19 (1–3): 171–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redlawsk, D.P. 2004 What voters do: Information search during election campaigns Political Psychology 25 (4): 595–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohlfing, I. 2012 Case studies and causal inference In Case Studies and Causal Inference 10.1057/9781137271327.Google Scholar
Schwarz, N. and Vaughn, L.A., 2002 The Availability Heuristic Revisited: Ease of Recall and Content of Recall as Distict Sources of Information Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment Gilovich, T. and Griffin, D. and Kahneman, D. (eds.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 103–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, H.A. 1955 A behavioral model of rational choice Quarterly Journal of Economics 69 (1): 99–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, H.A. 1990 Invariants of human behavior Annual Review of Psychology 41: 1–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Slothuus, R. and De Vreese, C.H. 2010 Political parties, motivated reasoning, and issue framing effects The Journal of Politics 72 (3): 630–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soontjens, K. 2021 Inside the party’s mind: Why and how parties are strategically unresponsive to their voters’ preferences Acta Politica 10.1057/s41269-021-00220-9.Google Scholar
Stolwijk, S., 2020 The Representativeness Heuristic in Political Decision Making The Oxford Encyclopedia of Political Decision Making, Redlawsk, D.P. and Erisen, C. and Hennes, E. and Oxley, Z. and Schreiber, D. and Vis, B. (eds.) Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–25.Google Scholar
Stolwijk, S. and Vis, B. 2021 Politicians, the representativeness heuristic and decision-making biases Political Behavior 43 (4): 1411–1432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strom, K. 1990 A behavioral theory of competitive political parties American Journal of Political Science 34 (2): 565–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C., 1998 Quality of Inferences in Mixed Methods Research Advances in Mixed Methods Research: Theories and Applications Bergman, M.M. (eds.) Sage, pp. 101–119.Google Scholar
Tetlock, P.E. 2005 Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know? Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Todd, P.M. and Gigerenzer, G. 2012 Ecological Rationality: Intelligence in the World Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. 1973 Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability Cognitive Psychology 5 (2): 207–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. 1974 Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases Science 185 (4157): 1124–1131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Aelst, P., Thesen, G., Walgrave, S. and Vliegenthart, R., 2014 Mediatization and Political Agenda-Setting: Changing Issue Priorities? Mediatization of Politics Esser, F. and Strömbäck, J. (eds.) New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Vieider, F. and Vis, B., 2020 Prospect Theory and Political Decision Making Oxford Encyclopedia of Political Decision Making Redlawsk, D.P., Erisen, C., Hennes, E., Oxley, Z., Schreiber, D. and Vis, B. (eds.) Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vis, B. 2019 Heuristics and political elites’ judgment and decision-making Political Studies Review 17 (1): 41–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walgrave, S. and Dejaeghere, Y. 2017 Surviving information overload: How elite politicians select information Governance International Journal of Policy and Administration 30 (2): 229–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weyland, K. 2007 Bounded Rationality and Policy Diffusion: Social Sector Reform in Latin America Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Weyland, K. 2008 Towards a new theory of institutional change World Politics 60 (2): 281–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, C.F. 2010 The regulation of european labour mobility: National policy responses to the free movement of labour transition arrangements of recent eu enlargements Journal for Labour and Social Affairs in Eastern Europe 13 (2): 157–179.Google Scholar