Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T20:36:20.151Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

8 - Rational Choice and Information Processing

from Part I - Foundations of Political Psychology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2022

By
Dennis Chong  and
Kevin J. Mullinix
Edited by
Danny Osborne  and
Chris G. Sibley
Danny Osborne
Affiliation:
University of Auckland
Chris G. Sibley
Affiliation:
University of Auckland
Get access

Summary

Rational choice theory explains and evaluates how individuals choose among alternative instruments to achieve their goals and objectives. Although much research on political decision-making highlights psychological biases that appear to interfere with rationality, the contrast between rational choice and the psychology of information processing is often narrowed by individual and contextual conditions that reduce cognitive biases and promote rational decision-making. This argument is developed by analysing research on heuristics (i.e., shortcuts and cues), motivated reasoning, and framing that pose challenges to rational choice. Three themes emerge from this review. First, there is systematic variation across individuals in the extent to which heuristics, biased reasoning, and framing produce unreasonable and suboptimal decisions. Second, there are definable informational and social contexts that provide incentives for people to engage in deliberate and accurate processing of information. Third, normative evaluations of empirical results have been hampered by inconsistent criteria for what constitutes good decision-making.

Keywords

Rational choiceMotivated reasoningFramingHeuristicsPartisan biasInformation processing
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Political Psychology , pp. 118 - 138
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

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.)

References

Achen, C., & Bartels, L. M. (2016). Democracy for realists: Why elections do not produce responsive government. Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aldrich, J. H. (1993). Rational choice and turnout. American Journal of Political Science, 37(1), 246–278.Google Scholar
Althaus, S. L. (1998). Information effects in collective preferences. American Political Science Review, 92(3), 545–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arceneaux, K. (2008). Can partisan cues diminish democratic accountability? Political Behavior, 30(2), 139–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arceneaux, K., & Johnson, M. (2013). Changing minds or changing channels? Partisan news in an age of choice. The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arceneaux, K., & Vander Wielen, R J. (2013). The effects of need for cognition and need for affect on partisan evaluations. Political Psychology, 34(1), 23–42.Google Scholar
Barker, D. C. (2005). Values, frames, and persuasion in presidential nomination campaigns. Political Behavior, 27(4), 375–394.Google Scholar
Bartels, L. M. (1996). Uninformed votes: Information effects in presidential elections. American Journal of Political Science, 40(1), 194–230.Google Scholar
Bartels, L. M. (2002). Beyond the running tally: Partisan bias in political perceptions. Political Behavior, 24(2), 117–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bechtel, M. M., Hainmueller, J., Hangartner, D., & Helbling, M. (2015). Reality bites: The limits of framing effects for salient and contested policy issues. Political Science Research and Methods, 3(3), 683–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, G. S. (1976). The economic approach to human behavior. The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bisgaard, M. (2015). Bias will find a way: Economic-perceptions, attributions of blame, and partisan-motivated reasoning during crisis. Journal of Politics, 77(3), 849–860.Google Scholar
Bisgaard, M., & Slothuus, R. (2018). Partisan elites as culprits? How party cues shape partisan perceptual gaps. American Journal of Political Science, 62(2), 456–469.Google Scholar
Bolsen, T., Druckman, J. N., Cook, F. L. (2014). The influence of partisan motivated reasoning on public opinion. Political Behavior, 36(2), 235–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boudreau, C., & MacKenzie, S. A. (2014). Informing the electorate? How party cues and policy information affect public opinion about initiatives. American Journal of Political Science, 58(1), 48–62.Google Scholar
Brady, H. E., & Sniderman, P. M. (1985). Attitude attribution: A group basis for political reasoning. American Political Science Review, 79(4), 1061–1078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bullock, J. G. (2011). Elite influence on public opinion in an informed electorate. American Political Science Review, 105(3), 496–515.Google Scholar
Bullock, J. G., Gerber, A. S., Hill, S. J., & Huber, G. A. (2015). Partisan bias in factual beliefs about politics. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 10(4), 519–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaiken, S., & Maheswaran, D. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(3), 460–473.Google Scholar
Chong, D. (1993). How people think, reason, and feel about rights and liberties. American Journal of Political Science, 37(3), 867–899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chong, D. (2000). Rational lives: Norms and values in politics and society. The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007a). Framing public opinion in competitive democracies. American Political Science Review, 101(4), 637–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007b). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10(1), 103–126.Google Scholar
Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2010). Dynamic public opinion: Communication effects over time. American Political Science Review, 104(4), 663–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chong, D., & Mullinix, K. J. (2019). Information and issue constraints on the influence of partisan cues. American Politics Research, 47(6), 1209–1238.Google Scholar
Chong, D., & Wolinsky-Nahmias, Y. (2005). Managing voter ambivalence in growth and conservation campaigns. In Martinez, S. C. & Martinez, M. D. (Eds.), Ambivalence, politics, and public policy (pp. 103–125). Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Ciuk, D. J., & Yost, B. A. (2016). The effects of issue salience, elite influence, and policy content on public opinion. Political Communication, 33(2), 328–345.Google Scholar
Cohen, G. L. (2003). Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(5), 808–822.Google Scholar
Conlisk, J. (1996). Why bounded rationality? Journal of Economic Literature, 34(2), 669–700.Google Scholar
Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In Apter, D. E. (Ed.), Ideology and discontent (pp. 206–261). Free Press.Google Scholar
Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Druckman, J. N. (2001a). The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Political Behavior, 23(3), 225–256.Google Scholar
Druckman, J. N. (2001b). Using credible advice to overcome framing effects. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 17(1), 62–82.Google Scholar
Druckman, J. N. (2001c). On the limits of framing effects: Who can frame? Journal of Politics, 63(4), 1041–1066.Google Scholar
Druckman, J. N. (2004). Political preference formation: Competition, deliberation, and the (ir)relevance of framing effects. American Political Science Review, 98(4), 671–686.Google Scholar
Druckman, J. N. (2012). The politics of motivation. Critical Review, 24(2), 199–216.Google Scholar
Druckman, J. N., & Leeper, T. J. (2012). Is public opinion stable? Resolving the micro/macro disconnect in studies of public opinion. Daedalus, 141(4), 50–68.Google Scholar
Druckman, J. N., Peterson, E., & Slothuus, R. (2013). How elite partisan polarization affects public opinion formation. American Political Science Review, 107(1), 57–79.Google Scholar
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Enns, P. K., & McAvoy, G. E. (2012). The role of partisanship in aggregate opinion. Political Behavior, 34(4), 627–651.Google Scholar
Fiorina, M. P. (1981). Retrospective voting in American national elections. Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Gaines, B. J., Kuklinski, J. H., Quirk, P. J., Peyton, B., & Verkuilen, J. (2007). Same facts, different interpretations: Partisan motivation and opinion on Iraq. The Journal of Politics, 69(4), 957–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, E. R., & Phillips, J. H. (2003). Development ballot measures, interest group endorsements, and the political geography of growth preferences. American Journal of Political Science, 47(4), 625–639.Google Scholar
Gershkoff, A., & Kushner, S. (2005). Shaping public opinion: The 9/11-Iraq connection in the Bush administration’s rhetoric. Perspectives on Politics, 3(3), 525–537.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G., & Goldstein, D. G. (1996). Reasoning the fast and frugal way: Models of bounded rationality. Psychology Review, 103(4), 650–669.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gilens, M. (2001). Political ignorance and collective policy preferences. American Political Science Review, 95(2), 379–396.Google Scholar
Glazier, R. A., & Boydstun, A. E. (2012). The president, the press, and the war: A tale of two framing agendas. Political Communication, 29(4), 428–446.Google Scholar
Goren, P. (2002). Character weakness, partisan bias, and presidential evaluation. American Journal of Political Science, 46(3), 627–641.Google Scholar
Green, D., Palmquist, B., & Schickler, E. (2002). Partisan hearts and minds. Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Gross, K., & D’Ambrosio, L. (2004). Framing emotional response. Political Psychology, 25(1), 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guess, A., & Coppock, A. (2020). Does counter-attitudinal information cause backlash? Results from three large survey experiments. British Journal of Political Science, 50(4), 1497–1515.Google Scholar
Haider-Markel, D. P., & Joslyn, M. R. (2001). Gun opinion, tragedy, and blame attribution: The conditional influence of issue framing. Journal of Politics, 63(2), 520–543.Google Scholar
Hanggli, R., & Kriesi, H. (2010). Political framing strategies and their impact on media framing in a Swiss direct-democratic campaign. Political Communication, 27(2), 141–157.Google Scholar
Hardin, R. (2009). How do you know? The economics of ordinary knowledge. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hartman, T. K., & Weber, C. R. (2009). Who said what? The effects of source cues in issue frames. Political Behavior, 31(4), 537–558.Google Scholar
Healy, A., & Lenz, G S. (2014). Substituting the end for the whole: Why voters respond primarily to the election-year economy. American Journal of Political Science, 58(1), 31–47.Google Scholar
Hirschman, A. O. (1982). Shifting involvements: Private interest and public action. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hogarth, R. M., & Reder, M. W. (1987). Rational choice: The contrast between economics and psychology. The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics. American Economic Review, 93(4), 1449–1475.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39(4), 341–350.Google Scholar
Kam, C. D. (2005). Who toes the party line? Political Behavior, 27(2), 163–182.Google Scholar
Kernell, G., & Mullinix, K. J. (2019). Winners, losers, and perceptions of vote (mis)counting. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 31(1), 1–24.Google Scholar
Khanna, K., & Sood, G. (2018). Motivated responding in studies of factual learning. Political Behavior, 40(1), 79–101.Google Scholar
Kim, S.-Y., Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2010). A computational model of the citizen as motivated reasoner: Modeling the dynamics of the 2000 presidential election. Political Behavior, 32(1), 1–28.Google Scholar
Klar, S. (2014). Partisanship in a social setting. American Journal of Political Science, 58(3), 687–704.Google Scholar
Kuklinski, J. H., & Quirk, P. J. (2000). Reconsidering the rational public: Cognition, heuristics, and mass opinion. In Lupia, A., McCubbins, M., & Popkin, S. (Eds.), Elements of political reason (pp. 153–182). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498.Google Scholar
Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2001). Advantages and disadvantages of cognitive heuristics in political decision making. American Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 951–971.Google Scholar
Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2006). How voters decide: Information processing in an election campaign. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lavine, H., Johnston, C., & Steenbergen, M. (2012). The ambivalent partisan. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lebo, M. J., & Cassino, D. (2007). The aggregated consequences of motivated reasoning and the dynamics of partisan presidential approval. Political Psychology, 28(6), 719–746.Google Scholar
Leeper, T. J., & Slothuus, R. (2014). Political parties, motivated reasoning, and public opinion formation. Advances in Political Psychology 35(Suppl. 1), 129–156.Google Scholar
Lodge, M., & Taber, C. S. (2005). The automaticity of affect for political leaders, groups, and issues: an experimental test. Political Psychology, 26(3), 455–482.Google Scholar
Lodge, M., & Taber, C. S. (2013). The rationalizing voter. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Lupia, A. (1994). Shortcuts versus encyclopedias: Information and voting behavior in California insurance reform elections. American Political Science Review, 88(1), 63–76.Google Scholar
Lupia, A., & McCubbins, M. D. (1998). The Democratic dilemma: Can citizens learn what they need to know? Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Malhotra, N., & Kuo, A. G. (2008). Attributing blame: The public’s response to Hurricane Katrina. Journal of Politics, 70(1), 120–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, J. M., Saunders, K. L., & Farhart, C. E. (2016). Conspiracy endorsement as motivated reasoning: The moderator roles of political knowledge and trust. American Journal of Political Science, 60(4), 824–844.Google Scholar
Mullinix, K. J. (2016). Partisanship and preference formation: Elite polarization, issue importance, and competing motivations. Political Behavior, 38(2), 383–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mutz, D. C. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nelson, J. L., & Webster, J. G. (2017). The myth of partisan selective exposure: A portrait of the online political news audience. Social Media + Society, 3(3), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, T. E., Clawson, R. A., & Oxley, Z. M. (1997). Media framing of a civil liberties conflict and its effect on tolerance. American Political Science Review, 91(3), 567–583.Google Scholar
Nelson, T. E., & Oxley, Z. M. (1999). Issue framing effects on belief importance and opinion. Journal of Politics, 61(4), 1040–1067.Google Scholar
Nicholson, S. P., & Howard, R. M. (2003). Framing support for the Supreme Court in the aftermath of Bush v Gore. Journal of Politics, 65(3), 676–695.Google Scholar
Nir, L. (2011). Motivated reasoning and public opinion perception. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75(3), 504–532.Google Scholar
Nisbett, R., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
O’Keefe, D. J. (2016). Persuasion: Theory and research (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action. Schocken Books.Google Scholar
Parker-Stephen, E. (2013). Tides of disagreement: How reality facilitates (and inhibits) partisan public opinion. Journal of Politics, 75(4), 1077–1088.Google Scholar
Petersen, M. B., Skov, M., Serritzlew, S., & Ramsoy, T. (2013). Motivated reasoning and political parties: Evidence for increased processing in the face of party cues. Political Behavior, 35(4), 831–854.Google Scholar
Petty, R. E., & Brinol, P. (2012). The elaboration likelihood model. In Van Lange, P. A. M., Kruglanski, A. W., & Higgins, E. T. (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 224–245). Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1984). The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(1), 69–81.Google Scholar
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 123–205). Academic Press.Google Scholar
Popkin, S. L. (1994). The reasoning voter: Communication and persuasion in presidential campaigns. The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Prior, M. (2013). Media and political polarization. Annual Review of Political Science, 16(1), 101–127.Google Scholar
Prior, M., Sood, G., & Khanna, K. (2015). You cannot be serious: The impact of accuracy incentives on partisan bias in reports of economic perceptions. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 10(4), 489–518.Google Scholar
Rahn, W. M. (1993). The role of partisan stereotypes in information processing about political candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 37(2), 472–496.Google Scholar
Redlawsk, D. P. (2002). Hot cognition or cool consideration? Testing the effects of motivated reasoning on political decision making. Journal of Politics, 64(4), 1021–1044.Google Scholar
Redlawsk, D. P. (2004). What voters do: Information search during election campaigns. Political Psychology, 25(4), 595–610.Google Scholar
Redlawsk, D. P., Civettini, A. J. W., & Emmerson, K. M. (2010). The affective tipping point: Do motivated reasoners ever ‘get it’? Political Psychology, 31(4), 563–593.Google Scholar
Riker, W. H., & Ordeshook, P. C. (1968). A theory of the calculus of voting. American Political Science Review, 65(1), 25–43.Google Scholar
Riggle, E. D., Ottati, V. C., Wyer, R. S., Kuklinski, J., & Schwarz, N. (1992). Bases of political judgments: The role of stereotypic and nonstereotypic information. Political Behavior, 14(1), 67–87.Google Scholar
Robison, J., & Mullinix, K. J. (2016). Elite polarization and public opinion. Political Communication, 33(2), 261–282.Google Scholar
Rubenstein, A. (1998). Modeling bounded rationality. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sides, J. (2006). The origins of campaign agendas. British Journal of Political Science, 36(3), 407–436.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1957). Models of man: Social and rational. Wiley.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1995). Rationality in political behavior. Political Psychology, 16(1), 45–61.Google Scholar
Slothuus, R., & de Vreese, C. H. (2010). Political parties, motivated reasoning, and issue framing effects. Journal of Politics, 72(3), 630–645.Google Scholar
Sniderman, P. M., Brody, R. A., & Tetlock, P. E. (1991). Reasoning and choice: Explorations in political psychology. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sniderman, P. M., & Theriault, S. M. (2004). The structure of political argument and the logic of issue framing. In Morris, A. D. & Mueller, C. M. (Eds.), Studies in public opinion (pp. 456–472). Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Taber, C. S., Cann, D., & Kucsova, S. (2009). The motivated processing of political arguments. Political Behavior, 31(2), 137–155.Google Scholar
Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755–769.Google Scholar
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458.Google Scholar
Weingast, B. R. (1979). A rational choice perspective on congressional norms. American Journal of Political Science, 23(2), 245–262.Google Scholar
Wise, D., & Brewer, P. R. (2010). Competing frames for a public health issue and their effects on public opinion. Mass Communication and Society, 13(4), 435–457.Google Scholar
Wood, T., & Porter, E. (2019). The elusive backfire effect: Mass attitudes’ steadfast factual adherence. Political Behavior, 41(1), 135–163.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×