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-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:17:34.669Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
Series:   Elements in Experimental Political Science

Quality Control

Experiments on the Microfoundations of Retrospective Voting

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 May 2023

Austin Ray Hart  and
J Scott Matthews
Austin Ray Hart
Affiliation:
School of International Service, American University
J Scott Matthews
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Memorial University of Newfoundland

Summary

Conventional models of voting behavior depict individuals who judge governments for how the world unfolds during their time in office. This phenomenon of retrospective voting requires that individuals integrate and appraise streams of performance information over time. Yet past experimental studies short-circuit this 'integration-appraisal' process. In this Element, we develop a new framework for studying retrospective voting and present eleven experiments building on that framework. Notably, when we allow integration and appraisal to unfold freely, we find little support for models of 'blind retrospection.' Although we observe clear recency bias, we find respondents who are quick to appraise and who make reasonable use of information cues. Critically, they regularly employ benchmarking strategies to manage complex, variable, and even confounded streams of performance information. The results highlight the importance of centering the integration-appraisal challenge in both theoretical models and experimental designs and begin to uncover the cognitive foundations of retrospective voting.
Get access

Keywords

retrospective votingvoting behaviorexperimental designdemocratic accountabilityexternal validity
Type
Element
Information
Series: Elements in Experimental Political Science
Online ISBN: 9781009357005
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication: 31 August 2023

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. H. & Bartels, L. M. (2016). Democracy for Realists. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Alcañiz, I. & Hellwig, T. (2011). Who’s to Blame? The Distribution of Responsibility in Developing Democracies. British Journal of Political Science 41(2): 389–411.Google Scholar
Alesina, A. & Rosenthal, H. (1995). Partisan Politics, Divided Government, and the Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Angrist, J. D. & Pischke, J. (2015). Mastering ‘Metrics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Arel-Bundock, V., Blais, A., & Dassonneville, R. (2019). Do Voters Benchmark Economic Performance? British Journal of Political Science 51(1): 1–13.Google Scholar
Ashraf, N., Berry, J., & Shapiro, J. M. (2010). Can Higher Prices Stimulate Product Use? Evidence from a Field Experiment in Zambia. American Economic Review 100(5): 2383–2413.Google Scholar
Aytaç, S. E. (2018). Relative Economic Performance and the Incumbent Vote: A Reference Point Theory. Journal of Politics 80(1): 16–29.Google Scholar
Banerjee, A. V. (2005). “New Development Economics” and the Challenge to Theory. Economic and Political Weekly 40(40): 4340–4344.Google Scholar
Banerjee, A. V. (2020). Field Experiments and the Practice of Economics. American Economic Review 110(7): 1937–1951.Google Scholar
Banerjee, A. V. & Duflo, E. (2009). The Experimental Approach to Development Economics. Annual Review of Economics 1: 151–178.Google Scholar
Banerjee, A. V. & Duflo, E. (2011). Poor Economics. New York: PublicAffairs.Google Scholar
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad Is Stronger Than Good. Review of General Psychology 5(4): 323–370.Google Scholar
Berry, C. R. & Howell, W. G. (2007). Accountability and Local Elections: Rethinking Retrospective Voting. Journal of Politics 69(3): 844–858.Google Scholar
Besley, T. & Case, A. (1995). Incumbent Behavior: Vote-Seeking, Tax-Setting, and Yardstick Competition. American Economic Review 85(1): 25–45.Google Scholar
Bhandari, A., Larreguy, H., & Marshall, J. (2023). Able and Mostly Willing: An Empirical Anatomy of Information’s Effect on Voter‐Driven Accountability in Senegal. American Journal of Political Science. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12591.Google Scholar
Bloom, H. S. & Price, H. D. (1975). Voter Response to Short-Run Economic Conditions: The Asymmetric Effect of Prosperity and Recession. American Political Science Review 69(4): 1240–1254.Google Scholar
Boudreau, C. (2009). Closing the Gap: When Do Cues Eliminate Differences between Sophisticated and Unsophisticated Citizens? Journal of Politics 71(3): 964–976.Google Scholar
Brutger, R., Kertzer, J., Renshon, J., & Weiss, C. (2022). Abstraction in Experimental Design: Testing the Tradeoffs (Elements in Experimental Political Science). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, D. T. & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Research. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Campello, D. & Zucco, C. (2016). Presidential Success and the World Economy. Journal of Politics, 78(2): 589–602.Google Scholar
Cartwright, N. (2007). Hunting Causes and Using Them. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Casey, L. S., Chandler, J., Levine, A. S., Proctor, A., & Strolovitch, D. Z. (2017). Intertemporal Differences among MTurk Workers: Time-Based Sample Variations and Implications for Online Data Collection. Sage Open 7(2).Google Scholar
Charbonneau, É. & Ryzin, G. G. V. (2015). Benchmarks and Citizen Judgments of Local Government Performance: Findings from a Survey Experiment. Public Management Review 17(2): 288–304.Google Scholar
Clinton, J. D. & Grissom, J. A. (2015). Public Information, Public Learning and Public Opinion: Democratic Accountability in Education Policy. Journal of Public Policy 35(3): 355–385.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. E. (2020). Relative Unemployment, Political Information, and the Job Approval Ratings of State Governors and Legislatures. State Politics & Policy Quarterly 20(4): 437–461.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. & Dupas, P. (2010). Free Distribution or Cost-Sharing? Evidence from a Randomized Malaria Prevention Experiment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 125(1): 1–45.Google Scholar
Cole, S., Healy, A., & Werker, E. (2012). Do Voters Demand Responsive Governments? Evidence from Indian Disaster Relief. Journal of Development Economics 97(2): 167–181.Google Scholar
Davis, C. & Mobarek, A. (2020). The Challenges of Scaling Effective Interventions: A Path Forward for Research and Policy. World Development 127: 104817.Google Scholar
Downs, A. (1957). An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Druckman, J. (2022). Experimental Thinking: A Primer on Social Science Experiments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Duch, R. M. & Stevenson, R. (2008). The Economic Vote: How Political and Economic Institutions Condition Election Results. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Duch, R. M. & Stevenson, R. (2010). The Global Economy, Competency, and the Economic Vote. Journal of Politics 72(1): 105–123.Google Scholar
Ebeid, M. & Rodden, J. (2006). Economic Geography and Economic Voting: Evidence from the US States. British Journal of Political Science 36(3)527–547.Google Scholar
Enelow, J. M. & Hinich, M. J. (1984). The Spatial Theory of Voting: An Introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ferejohn, J. (1986). Incumbent Performance and Electoral Control. Public Choice 50(1/3): 5–25.Google Scholar
Festinger, L. (1954). A Theory of Social Comparison Processes. Human Relations 7(2): 117–140.Google Scholar
Findley, M. G., Kikuta, K., & Denly, M. (2021). External Validity. Annual Review of Political Science 24: 365–393.Google Scholar
Fiorina, M. (1981). Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Fiorina, M. P. & Plott, C. R. (1978). Committee Decisions under Majority Rule: An Experimental Study. American Political Science Review 72(2): 575–598.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A. (1935). The Design of Experiments. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd.Google Scholar
Fowler, A. & Montagnes, B. P. (2015). College Football, Elections, and False-Positive Results in Observational Research. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112(45): 13800–13804.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. Journal of Politics 69(4): 957–974.Google Scholar
Gastorf, J. W. & Suls, J. (1978). Performance Evaluation via Social Comparison: Performance Similarity versus Related-Attribute Similarity. Social Psychology 41(4): 297–305.Google Scholar
Gelineau, F. & Remmer, K. (2006). Political Decentralization and Electoral Accountability: The Argentine Experience, 1983–2001. British Journal of Political Science 36(1): 133–157.Google Scholar
Gerber, A. S. & Green, D. P. (2012). Field Experiments. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.Google Scholar
Gilbert, D. T., Giesler, R. B., & Morris, K. A. (1995). When Comparisons Arise. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 69(2): 227–236.Google Scholar
Glennerster, R. & Takavarsha, K. (2013). Running Randomized Evaluations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gomez, B. T. & Hansford, T. G. (2015). Economic Retrospection and the Calculus of Voting. Political Behavior 37(2): 309–329.Google Scholar
Green, D. P. & Gerber, A. S. (2003). The Underprovision of Experiments in Political Science. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 589(1): 94–112.Google Scholar
Guala, F. (2005). The Methodology of Experimental Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hansen, K. M., Olsen, A. L., & Bech, M. (2015). Cross-National Yardstick Comparisons: A Choice Experiment on a Forgotten Voter Heuristic. Political Behavior 37(4): 767–789.Google Scholar
Hart, A. & Matthews, J. S. (2022). Unmasking Accountability: Judging Performance in an Interdependent World. Journal of Politics 84(3): 1607–1622.Google Scholar
Hart, A. & Middleton, J. A. (2014). Priming under Fire: Reverse Causality and the Classic Media Priming Hypothesis. Journal of Politics 76(2): 581–592.Google Scholar
Hayes, R. C., Imai, M., & Shelton, C. A. (2015). Attribution Error in Economic Voting: Evidence from Trade Shocks. Economic Inquiry 53(1): 258–275.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
Healy, A. & Malhotra, N. (2013). Retrospective Voting Reconsidered. Annual Review of Political Science 16: 285–306.Google Scholar
Healy, A., Malhotra, N., & Mo, C. H. (2010). Irrelevant Events Affect Voters’ Evaluations of Government Performance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(29): 12804–12809.Google Scholar
Hellwig, T. (2001). Interdependence, Government Constraints, and Economic Voting. Journal of Politics 63(4): 1141–1162.Google Scholar
Hellwig, T. (2008). Globalization, Policy Constraints, and Vote Choice. Journal of Politics 70(4): 1128–1141.Google Scholar
Holmstrom, B. R. (1982). Moral Hazard in Teams. Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science 13(2): 324–340.Google Scholar
Huber, G. A., Hill, S. J., & Lenz, G. S. (2012). Sources of Bias in Retrospective Decision Making: Experimental Evidence on Voters’ Limitations in Controlling Incumbents. American Political Science Review 106(4): 720–741.Google Scholar
Iyengar, S. & Kinder, D. R. (1987). News That Matters. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kayser, M. A. & Peress, M. (2012). Benchmarking across Borders: Electoral Accountability and the Necessity of Comparison. American Political Science Review 106(3): 661–684.Google Scholar
Key, V. O. (1966). The Responsible Electorate. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kiewiet, D. R. & Rivers, D. (1984). A Retrospective on Retrospective Voting. Political Behavior 6(4): 369–393.Google Scholar
Klašnja, M. & Tucker, J. A. (2013). The Economy, Corruption, and the Vote: Evidence from Experiments in Sweden and Moldova. Electoral Studies 32(3): 536–543.Google Scholar
Kuklinski, J. H. & Quirk, P. J. (2000). Reconsidering the Rational Public: Cognition, Heuristics, and Mass Opinion. In Lupia, A., McCubbins, M. D., & Popkin, S. L., eds., Elements of Reason: Cognition, Choice, and the Bounds of Rationality. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 153–182.Google Scholar
Larsen, M. (2019). Is the Relationship Between Political Responsibility and Electoral Accountability Causal, Adaptive and Policy-Specific? Political Behavior 41(4): 1071–1098.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (1984). Les microbes: Guerre et paix. Paris: Métailié [English translation: The Pasteurization of France. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.]Google Scholar
Lau, R. R. (1982). Negativity in Political Perception. Political Behavior 4(4): 353–377.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 Election Campaigns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Leigh, A. & McLeish, M. (2009). Are State Elections Affected by the National Economy? Evidence from Australia. Economic Record 85(269): 210–222.Google Scholar
León, S. (2012). How Do Citizens Attribute Responsibility in Multilevel States? Learning, Biases and Asymmetric Federalism. Evidence from Spain. Electoral Studies 31(1): 120–130.Google Scholar
Lodge, M., McGraw, K. M., & Stroh, P. (1989). An Impression-Driven Model of Candidate Evaluation. American Political Science Review 83(2): 399–419.Google Scholar
Lodge, M. & Taber, C. S. (2013). The Rationalizing Voter. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lucas, J. W. (2003). Theory-Testing, Generalization, and the Problem of External Validity. Sociological Theory 21(3): 236–253.Google Scholar
Lupia, A. & McCubbins, M. D. (1998). The Democratic Dilemma. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Malhotra, N. & Margalit, Y. (2014). Expectation Setting and Retrospective Voting. Journal of Politics 76(4): 1000–1016.Google Scholar
McDermott, R. (2002). Experimental Methodology in Political Science. Political Analysis 10(4): 325–342.Google Scholar
Mook, D. G. (1983). In Defense of External Invalidity. American Psychologist 38(4): 379–387.Google Scholar
Moore, D. A. & Klein, W. M. P. (2008). Use of Absolute and Comparative Performance Feedback in Absolute and Comparative Judgments and Decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 107(1): 60–74.Google Scholar
Mussweiler, T. (2003). Comparison Processes in Social Judgment: Mechanisms and Consequences. Psychological Review 110(3): 472–489.Google Scholar
Mutz, D. C. (2011). Population-Based Survey Experiments. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Olsen, A. L. (2017). Compared to What? How Social and Historical Reference Points Affect Citizens’ Performance Evaluations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 27(4): 562–580.Google Scholar
Orr, L. L., Olsen, R. B., Bell, S. H. et al. (2019). Using the Results from Rigorous Multisite Evaluations to Inform Local Policy Decisions. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 38: 978–1003. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.22154.Google Scholar
Park, B. B. (2019). Compared to What? Media-Guided Reference Points and Relative Economic Voting. Electoral Studies 62: 102085.Google Scholar
Pereira, M. M. & Waterbury, N. W. (2019). Do Voters Discount Political Scandals over Time? Political Research Quarterly 72(3): 584–595.Google Scholar
Pérez, E. (2016). Unspoken Politics: Implicit Attitudes and Political Thinking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pierce, G. L., Braga, A. A., Hyatt, R. R., & Koper, C. S. (2004). Characteristics and Dynamics of Illegal Firearms Markets: Implications for a Supply-Side Enforcement Strategy. Justice Quarterly 21(2): 391–422.Google Scholar
Plott, C. R. (1991). Will Economics Become an Experimental Science? Southern Economic Journal 57(4): 901–919.Google Scholar
Popkin, S. L. (1991). The Reasoning Voter. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Powell, G. B. (2000). Elections As Instruments of Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Pozzoni, G. & Kaidesoja, T. (2021). Context in Mechanism-Based Explanation. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 51(6): 523–554.Google Scholar
Quinn, D. P. & Woolley, J. T. (2001). Democracy and National Economic Performance: The Preference for Stability. American Journal of Political Science 45(3): 634–657.Google Scholar
Rodrik, D. (2008). The New Development Economics: We Shall Experiment, but How Shall We Learn? Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Working Paper No. RWP08-055, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1296115.Google Scholar
Roth, A. E. (1995). Introduction to Experimental Economics. In Kagel, J. H. & Roth, A. E., eds., The Handbook of Experimental Economics (pp. 3–109). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sigelman, L., Sigelman, C. K., & Bullock, D. (1991). Reconsidering Pocketbook Voting: An Experimental Approach. Political Behavior 13(2): 129–149.Google Scholar
Simonovits, G. (2015). An Experimental Approach to Economic Voting. Political Behavior 37(4): 977–994.Google Scholar
Smith, V. L. (1962). An Experimental Study of Competitive Market Behavior. Journal of Political Economy 70(2): 111–137.Google Scholar
Sniderman, P. M., Brody, R. A., & Tetlock, P. E. (1991). Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Soroka, S. (2014). Negativity in Democratic Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Soroka, S., Fournier, P., & Nir, L. (2019). Cross-National Evidence of Negativity Bias in Psychophysiological Reactions to News. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116: 18888–18892.Google Scholar
Stiers, D., Dassonneville, R., & Lewis-Beck, M. S. (2020). The Abiding Voter: The Lengthy Horizon of Retrospective Evaluations. European Journal of Political Research 59(3): 646–668.Google Scholar
Thye, S. E. (2007). Logical and Philosophical Foundations of Experimental Research in the Social Sciences. In Webster, M. & Sell, J., eds., Laboratory Experiments in the Social Sciences (pp. 57–86). Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Tilley, J. & Hobolt, S. B. (2011). Is the Government to Blame? An Experimental Test of How Partisanship Shapes Perceptions of Performance and Responsibility. Journal of Politics 73(2): 316–330.Google Scholar
Zelditch, M. (2007). The External Validity of Experiments That Test Theories. In Webster, M. & Sell, J., eds., Laboratory Experiments in the Social Sciences(pp. 87–112). Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Save element to Kindle

To save this element 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.

Quality Control
  • Austin Ray Hart, School of International Service, American University, J Scott Matthews, Department of Political Science, Memorial University of Newfoundland
  • Online ISBN: 9781009357005
Available formats
×

Save element 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.

Quality Control
  • Austin Ray Hart, School of International Service, American University, J Scott Matthews, Department of Political Science, Memorial University of Newfoundland
  • Online ISBN: 9781009357005
Available formats
×

Save element 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.

Quality Control
  • Austin Ray Hart, School of International Service, American University, J Scott Matthews, Department of Political Science, Memorial University of Newfoundland
  • Online ISBN: 9781009357005
Available formats
×