Risk Attitudes, Candidate Characteristics, and Vote Choice
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 6367484 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Cindy D Kam (0000-0001-9013-4077, US National Science Foundation, corresponding author), Elizabeth N Simas (0000-0003-4629-473X, US National Science Foundation) |
| Year | 2012 |
| Volume | 76 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 747-760 |
| Publication date | 2012-12-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Public Opinion Quarterly (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0033-362X • E-ISSN: 1537-5331 |
| Publisher | Oxford University Press (OUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1093/poq/nfs055 |
| OpenAlex | W2168591374 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 37 |
| References cited | 22 |
The act of voting is much like a gamble: Voters can never be certain about where candidates stand or what they will actually do once in office. In this note, we argue that there is theoretically interesting heterogeneity in risk attitudes among the mass public—heterogeneity that has important electoral consequences. We hypothesize that risk-averse voters will be drawn to candidates who offer certainty and stability, whereas risk-accepting voters will be more willing to support candidates characterized by uncertainty and change. Utilizing data from the 2008–2009 ANES Panel Study, we show that individual risk attitudes significantly influence support for challenger candidates in the 2008 U.S. House races. We then unpack this empirical relationship between risk attitudes and willingness to support challenger candidates using two additional data sets. These supplementary analyses suggest that the relationship between risk attitudes and willingness to support challengers may be partly attributable to the fact that challengers represent a departure from the status quo and typically have less governing experience. In short, challengers represent a gamble that the more risk accepting are more willing to take
Actuarial science · Certainty · Econometrics · Economics · Panel data · Political science · Public economics · Public opinion · Status quo · Status quo bias · Voting · Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics · Electoral Systems and Political Participation · Psychology · Sports Analytics and Performance · Law · Social Psychology
Is There an Ideological Asymmetry in the Incumbency Effect? Evidence From U.S. Congressional Elections
The Circumplex of Personality Metatraits and political behavior
(Sympathy for) the Devil You Know
Amendment Culture in the United States
Risk aversion and strategic voting
Political taste
Using Psychological Theory to Predict Voting Intentions
Achieving Efficiency Without Losing Accuracy
Risk attitudes and the propensity to vote for a new party in multi-party systems
Ambiguous Rhetoric and Legislative Accountability
Women Running for Office Are Less Risk Averse than Men
The Populist Appeal
Choosing the Risky Option
Panel Conditioning in a Longitudinal Study of Illicit Behaviors
Voter uncertainty, political institutions, and legislative turnover
Institutional Prospects
The Contingent, Contextual Nature of the Relationship Between Needs for Security and Certainty and Political Preferences
Stay Loyal or Exit the Party? How Openness to Experience and Extroversion Explain Vote Switching
Do Politicians Take Risks Like the Rest of Us? An Experimental Test of Prospect Theory Under MPs
Support for the Populist Radical Right
Strategic Alignment in Times of Crisis
The Dead Hand of the Past? Toward an Understanding of “Constitutional Veneration
Risk Preferences in the Delegation Process
Risk Attitudes and Independence Vote Choice
But Can She Make America Great Again? Threat, Stability, and Support for Female Candidates in the United States
Risk Attitudes and the Incumbency Advantage
Advances in Public Opinion and Policy Attitudes Research
The psychological roots of populist voting
Depression and attitudes to change in referendums
First-time voters and honest political leaders
Ambition without democracy
Risk Attitudes and Political Participation
How Does Uncertainty Affect Voters' Preferences
Measuring and Manipulating Constitutional Evaluations in the States
Medicare for All, Some, or None? Testing the Effects of Ambiguity in the Context of the 2020 Presidential Election
Moderate, extreme, or both? How voters respond to ideologically unpredictable candidates
Flight to Safety
Reliability and validity of a brief measure of sensation seeking
The 2006 Cooperative Congressional Election Study
An Estimate of Risk Aversion in the U.S. Electorate
Decomposing the Sources of Incumbency Advantage in the U. S. House
Campaign Communications in U.S. Congressional Elections
Why Did the Incumbency Advantage in U.S. House Elections Grow
Risk Orientations and Policy Frames
Better the Devil You Know Than the Saint You Don't? Risk Propensity and Vote Choice in Mexico
Risk Tolerance and Support for Potential Military Interventions
The Advantage of Incumbency in Congressional Elections
Risk Orientation, Risk Exposure, and Policy Opinions
The Downsian Model Predicts Divergence
Issue Voting Under Uncertainty
"Rebuttal to Jacobson's "New Evidence for Old Arguments
A New Approach to Voter Uncertainty in the Downsian Spatial Model
Risk Attitudes and Political Participation
The Effects of Campaign Spending in House Elections
Constituency Service and Incumbency Advantage
The 2008 Presidential and Congressional Elections
An Expository Development of a Mathematical Model of the Electoral Process
The Electoral Implications of Candidate Ambiguity
| Unique citing works | 37 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 2,64 |
| Citation span | 2012 - 2026 (15) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 37 |