Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-30T23:39:57.509Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ballot Initiatives and Status Quo Bias

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Joshua J. Dyck  and
Shanna Pearson-Merkowitz
Joshua J. Dyck
Affiliation:
University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, MA, USA
Shanna Pearson-Merkowitz
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, The University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Is there an opposition bias in ballot initiative campaigns? While some early research suggested that the “no” side was advantaged in ballot initiative campaigns, recent work has demonstrated that both opposition and support spending in ballot measure campaigns are effective. We offer a new way to conceptualize status quo orientation in ballot measure elections. Specifically, we argue that opposition arguments are more effective than support arguments because of the well-known framing negativity bias and not because the starting position for uninformed voters is to default to no. We present the results of two survey experiments to test the impact of support and opposition arguments in ballot initiative campaigns. We find consistent evidence that opposition arguments are effective in generating more “no” votes and that support arguments are ineffective in generating more “yes” votes.

Keywords

direct democracypolitical behaviorcampaignsabortion policypublic policyelectionspolitical communication
Type
Research Article
Information
State Politics & Policy Quarterly , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , June 2019 , pp. 180 - 207
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2018

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

Adams, Greg D. 1997. “Abortion: Evidence of an Issue Evolution.” American Journal of Political Science 41:718–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, and Rivers, Doug. 2013. “Cooperative Survey Research.” Annual Review of Political Science 16:307–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, and Schaffner, Brian F.. 2014. “Does Survey Mode Still Matter? Findings from a 2010 Multi-Mode Comparison.” Political Analysis 22 (3): 285–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arceneaux, Kevin. 2012. “Cognitive Biases and the Strength of Political Arguments.” American Journal of Political Science 56 (2): 271–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumeister, Roy F., Bratslavsky, Ellen, Finkenauer, Catrin, and Vohs, Kathleen D.. 2001. “Bad Is Stronger than Good.” Review of General Psychology 5 (4): 323–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biggers, Daniel R. 2014. Morality at the Ballot: Direct Democracy and Political Engagement in the United States. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binder, Mike. 2009. “Getting It Right or Playing It Safe? Correct Voting, Confusion and the Status Quo Bias in Direct Democracy.” (accessed November 13, 2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolsen, Toby, Druckman, James N., and Cook, Fay Lomax. 2014. “How Frames Can Undermine Support for Scientific Adaptations: Politicization and the Status-Quo Bias.” Public Opinion Quarterly 78 (1): 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowler, Shaun, and Donovan, Todd. 1998. Demanding Choices: Opinion, Voting and Direct Democracy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnett, Craig M., and Kogan, Vladimir. 2015. “When Does Ballot Language Influence Voter Choices? Evidence from a Survey Experiment.” Political Communication 32 (1): 109–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carmines, Edward G., and Stimson, James A.. 1980. “The Two Faces of Issue Voting.” American Political Science Review 74 (1): 78–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Childers, M., and Binder, M. 2012. “Engaged by the initiative? How the use of citizen initiatives increases voter turnout.” Political Research Quarterly 65(1): 93–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Figueiredo, John M., Ji, Chang Ho, and Kousser, Thad. 2011. “Financing Direct Democracy: Revisiting the Research on Campaign Spending and Citizen Initiatives.” The Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization 27 (3): 485–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dutwin, David, and Buskirk, Trent D.. 2017. “Apples to Oranges or Gala versus Golden Delicious? Comparing Data Quality of Nonprobability Internet Samples to Low Response Rate Probability Samples.” Public Opinion Quarterly 81 (S1): 213–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dyck, Joshua J., and Hagley, Annika. 2012. “Political Geography, Direct Democracy, and the Reasoning Voter: Spatial Proximity, Symbolic Politics, and Voting on California's Proposition 83.” Politics & Policy 40 (2): 195–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dyck, Joshua J., and Seabrook, Nicholas R.. 2010. “Mobilized by Direct Democracy: Short-Term versus Long-Term Effects and the Geography of Turnout in Ballot Measure Elections.” Social Science Quarterly 91 (1): 188–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Michael, and Pearson-Merkowitz, Shanna. 2012. “Perpetuating the Myth of the Culture War Court? Issue Attention in Newspaper Coverage of US Supreme Court Nominations.” American Politics Research 40 (6): 1026–1066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Elisabeth R. 1999. The Populist Paradox: Interest Group Influence and the Promise of Direct Legislation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Greene, William H. 2012. Econometric Analysis. 7th ed. Boston: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Hansen, Christine H., and Hansen, Ranald D.. 1988. “Finding the Face in the Crowd: An Anger Superiority Test.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54:917–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hibbing, John R., Smith, Kevin B., and Alford, John R.. 2014. “Differences in Negativity Bias Underlie Variations in Political Ideology.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 37 (3): 297–307.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kahn, Kim Fridkin, and Kenney, Patrick J.. 1999. The Spectacle of US Senate Campaigns. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel, Knetsch, Jack L., and Thaler, Richard H.. 1991. “Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias.” The Journal of Economic Perspectives 5 (1): 193–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel, and Tversky, Amos. 1979. “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk.” Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society 47 (2): 263–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel, and Tversky, Amos. 1984. “Choices, Values, and Frames.” American Psychologist 39 (4): 341–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowenstein, Daniel H. 1982. “Campaign Spending and Ballot Propositions: Recent Experience, Public Choice Theory and the First Amendment.” UCLA Law Review 29 (3): 505–641.Google Scholar
Lupia, Arthur. 1994. “Shortcuts versus Encyclopedias: Information and Voting Behavior in California Insurance Reform Elections.” American Political Science Review 88 (March): 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupia, Arthur. 2015. Uninformed: Why People Know So Little About Politics and What We Can Do About It. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lupia, Arthur, and Matsusaka, John G.. 2004. “Direct Democracy: New Approaches to Old Questions.” Annual Review of Political Science 7:463–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupia, Arthur, and McCubbins, Mathew D.. 1998. The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need to Know? New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Magleby, David B. 1984. Direct Legislation: Voting on Ballot Propositions in the United States. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Matsusaka, John G. 2004. For the Many or the Few: The Initiative, Public Policy, and American Democracy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McTague, John, and Pearson-Merkowitz, Shanna. 2013. “Voting from the Pew: The Effect of Senators' Religious Identities on Partisan Polarization in the US Senate.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 38 (3): 405–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nossiff, Rosemary. 2000. Before Roe. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Reilly, Shauna, and Richey, Sean. 2011. “Ballot Question Readability and Roll-off: The Impact of Language Complexity.” Political Research Quarterly 64 (1): 59–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reilly, Shauna, and Yonk, Ryan M., eds. 2012. Direct Democracy in the United States: Petitioners as a Reflection of Society. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodgers, Todd, and Middleton, Joel. 2015. “Are Ballot Initiative Outcomes Influenced by the Campaigns of Independent Groups? A Precinct-Randomized Field Experiment Showing That They Are.” Political Behavior 37 (3): 567–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rozin, Raul, and Royzman, Edward B.. 2001. “Negativity Bias, Negativity Dominance, and Contagion.” Personality and Social Psychology Review 4:296–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuelson, William, and Zeckhauser, Richard. 1988. “Status Quo Bias in Decision Making.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1 (1): 7–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stratmann, Thomas. 2006. “Is Spending More Potent For or against a Proposition? Evidence from Ballot Measures.” American Journal of Political Science 50 (3): 788–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokes, Donald E. 1963. “Spatial Models of Party Competition.” The American Political Science Review 57 (2): 368–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokes, Donald E. 1992. “Valence Politics.” In Electoral Politics, ed. Kavanagh, Dennis. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 141–164.Google Scholar
Zaller, John. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Dyck and Pearson-Merkowitz Supplementary Material

Appendix

Download Dyck and Pearson-Merkowitz Supplementary Material(PDF)
PDF 403.2 KB