This chapter asks how voters react to political messaging and, crucially, sometimes change their minds. It begins by reviewing experimental psychology, neuroimaging, and artificial intelligence research showing that the brain reasons in two distinct ways: Recognizing patterns (fast or Type 1 thought) and constructing logical arguments (slow or type 2 thought). It then argues that the first mode almost always dominates political thought. The paradox is that humans have evolved to feel pleasure both in confirming old patterns and in being surprised by new ones. This means that while political messaging is often repetive, humans are also susceptible to messages that feature large departures from current orthodoxies. Because of majority rule, politicians will normally prefer messages that appeal to large numbers of voters. This explains how even highly-polarized electorates can sometimes realign around new issues to restore a more centrist politics.

Chapter 4, by Patrick Egan and Markus Prior, continues with the examination of electoral accountability and the psychology of citizen evaluation of incumbents by using R. Douglas Arnold’s The Logic of Congressional Action as a springboard. The authors carefully explicate Arnold’s assumptions about voter psychology and then evaluate them in light of recent scholarship and political developments. In their account, tighter voter association between incumbents and parties, decreased information about incumbents and policy outcomes, and heightened motivated reasoning require significant modification of Arnold’s classic assumptions. Still, they argue, a realistic appreciation of the new voter psychology of accountability does not imply Westminster-style accountability of legislators based exclusively on party labels. The real consequences of policies continue to matter to voters. But, the changes do imply that party labels and primaries matter more than formerly.