Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-hqrjx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-22T20:47:31.702Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Homer Gets a Warm Hug: A Note on Ignorance and Extenuation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2007

Larry M. Bartels
Larry M. Bartels
Affiliation:
Princeton University, E-mail: bartels@princeton.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Lupia, Levine, Menning, and Sin show that well-informed Republicans and conservatives were highly supportive of the 2001 Bush tax cut. They mistakenly infer that this fact invalidates my claim in “Homer Gets a Tax Cut” that “the strong plurality support” for the tax cut was “entirely attributable to simple ignorance.” Their analysis, like mine, implies that a fully-informed public would have been lukewarm, at best, toward the tax cut. They have little to say about why this is the case, beyond insisting that “citizens have reasons for the opinions they have.” I suggest that citizens' “reasons” are sometimes misleading, misinformed, or substantively irrational, and that social science should not be limited to “attempts to better fit our analyses into their rationales.”Larry M. Bartels is the Donald E. Stokes Professor of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University (bartels@princeton.edu).

Information

Type
COMMENT AND RESPONSE
Information
Perspectives on Politics , Volume 5 , Issue 4 , December 2007 , pp. 785 - 790
Copyright
© 2007 American Political Science Association

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

Achen, Christopher H., and Larry M. Bartels. 2006. “It Feels Like We're Thinking: The Rationalizing Voter and Electoral Democracy.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, August 31–September 3.
Bartels, Larry M. 1987. “Candidate Choice and the Dynamics of the Presidential Nominating Process.” American Journal of Political Science 31 (1): 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 1988. Presidential Primaries and the Dynamics of Public Choice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bartels, Larry M. 1990. “Public Opinion and Political Interests.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.
Bartels, Larry M. 1996. Uninformed votes: Information effects in presidential elections. American Journal of Political Science 40 (1): 194–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 2005. Homer gets a tax cut: Inequality and public policy in the American mind. Perspectives on Politics 3 (1): 15–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 2008. Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press (forthcoming).
Converse, Philip E. 1990. Popular representation and the distribution of information. In Information and Democratic Processes, ed. John A. Ferejohn and James H. Kuklinski.. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Greenwald, Anthony G. 1980. The totalitarian ego: Fabrication and revision of personal history. American Psychologist 35 (7): 603–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, Edward E., and Richard E. Nisbett. 1972. The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of the causes of behavior. In Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behavior, ed. Edward E. Jones, D. Kanouse, Harold H. Kelley, Richard E. Nisbett, Stuart Valins, and Bernard Weiner. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
Kahneman, Daniel. 2000. New challenges to the rationality assumption. In Choices, Values, and Frames, ed. Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky. New York: Russell Sage Foundation and Cambridge University Press.
Kahneman, Daniel, and Amos Tversky. 1982. On the study of statistical intuitions. In Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, ed. Daniel Kahneman, Paul Slovic, and Amos Tversky. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Loughlin, Sean, and Robert Yoon. 2003. “Millionaires Populate U.S. Senate.” CNN, June 13. http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/06/13/senators.finances.
Lupia, Arthur. 1994. Short cuts versus encyclopedias: Information and voting behavior in California insurance reform elections. American Political Science Review 88: 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luskin, Robert C. 2002. “From Denial to Extenuation (and Finally Beyond): Political Sophistication and Citizen Performance.” In Thinking about Political Psychology, ed. James H. Kuklinski. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Nisbett, Richard E., and Timothy D. Wilson. 1977. Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review 84: 231–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nitschke, Lori. 2001. “Senate Tax Bill Trade-Offs Leave a Fragile Coalition.” CQ Weekly, May 19, 1251.
Shani, Danielle. 2006. “Knowing Your Colors: Can Knowledge Correct for Partisan Bias in Political Perceptions?” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, April 20–23.
Valins, Stuart. 1966. Cognitive effects of false heart-rate feedback. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 4: 400–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wand, Jonathan N., Kenneth W. Shotts, Jasjeet S. Sekhon, Walter R. Mebane, Jr., and Henry E. Brady. 2001. The butterfly did it: The aberrant vote for Buchanan in Palm Beach County, Florida. American Political Science Review 95 (4): 793–810.Google Scholar
Wilson, Timothy D. 2002. Strangers to Ourselves: Discovering the Adaptive Unconscious. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Zaller, John R. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.