Substituting the End for the Whole: Why Voters Respond Primarily to the Election-Year Economy
Loyola Marymount University
Gabriel S. Lenz
University of California, Berkeley - Charles and Louise Travers Department of Political Science
APSA 2012 Annual Meeting Paper
According to numerous studies, the election-year economy influences presidential election results far more than cumulative growth throughout the term. Here we describe a series of surveys and experiments that point to an intriguing explanation for voter behavior that runs contrary to the standard explanations political science has offered, but one that accords with a large psychological literature. Voters, we find, actually intend to judge presidents on cumulative growth. However, since that characteristic is not readily available to them, voters inadvertently substitute election-year performance because it is more easily accessible. This “end-heuristic” explanation for voters’ election-year emphasis reflects a general tendency for people to simplify retrospective assessments by substituting conditions at the end for the whole. The end heuristic explanation also suggests a remedy, a way to align voters’ actions with their intentions. Providing people with the attribute they are seeking — cumulative growth — eliminates the election-year emphasis.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 43
Keywords: economy, retrospective voting, recency bias, attribute substitution, peak-end rule
Date posted: July 15, 2012 ; Last revised: October 9, 2012
© 2016 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollobot1 in 0.172 seconds