Moderators of Candidate Name-Order Effects in Elections: An Experiment

Political Psychology

Volumn 36, Issue 5, 2015, Pages 525-542

  Kim, Nuri ^a   Krosnick, Jon ^a   Casasanto, Daniel ^b  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

Ambivalence; Ballot name order; Cognitive effort; Cognitive skill; Information; Primacy effect

Indexed keywords

EID: 84941025075     PISSN: 0162895X     EISSN: 14679221     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/pops.12178     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Anderson, N. H., & Hubert, S. (1963). Effects of concomitant verbal recall on order effects in personality impression formation. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 2, 379-391.
2. Alvarez, R. M., Sinclair, B., & Hasen, R. L. (2006). How much is enough? The "ballot order effect" and the use of social science research in election law disputes. Election Law Journal, 5, 40-56.
3. Angrist, J., & Pischke, J. (2009). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist's companion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
4. Asch, S. E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41, 1230-1240.
5. Atwell, C. R., & Wells, F. L. (1937). Wide range multiple choice vocabulary tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 21, 550-555.
6. Banducci, S. A., Karp, J. A., Thrasher, M., & Rallings, C. (2008). Ballot photographs as cues in low-information elections. Political Psychology, 29, 903-917.
7. Basinger, S. J., & Lavine, H. (2005). Ambivalence, information, and electoral choice. American Political Science Review, 99, 169-184.
8. Berger, J. (2011). Does presentation order impact choice after delay? Manuscript under review. http://marketing.wharton.upenn.edu/documents/research/Citations.pdf
9. Bruine de Bruin, W. (2005). Save the last dance for me: Unwanted serial position effects in jury evaluations. Acta Psychologica, 118, 245-260.
10. Brunyé, T., Gardony, A., Mahoney, C. R., & Taylor, H. A. (2012). Body-specific representations of spatial location. Cognition, 23, 229-239.
11. Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116-131.
12. Cacioppo, J. T., Gardner, W., & Berntson, G. G. (1997). Beyond bipolar conceptualizations and measures: The case of attitudes and evaluative space. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 3-25.
13. Casasanto, D. (2009). Embodiment of abstract concepts: Good and bad in right- and left-handers. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 138, 351-367.
14. Casasanto, D. (2011). Different bodies, different minds: The body-specificity of language and thought. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 378-383.
15. Casasanto, D., & Chrysikou, E. G. (2011). When Left is "Right": Motor fluency shapes abstract concepts. Psychological Science, 22, 419-422.
16. Casasanto, D., & Jasmin, K. (2010). Good and bad in the hands of politicians: Spontaneous gestures during positive and negative speech. PLoS ONE, 5(7), e11805.
17. Ceci, S. J. (1996). General intelligence and life success: An introduction to the special theme. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2, 403-417.
18. Christenfeld, N. (1995). Choices from identical options. Psychological Science, 6, 50-55.
19. Clark, E. L. (1956). General response pattern to five-choice items. Journal of Educational Psychology, 47, 110-117.
20. Coney, K. A. (1977). Order-bias: The special case of letter preference. Public Opinion Quarterly, 41, 385-388.
21. Dean, M. L. (1980). Presentation order effects in product taste tests. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 105, 107-110.
22. DeBell, M., & Krosnick, J. (2009). Computing weights for American National Election Study Survey Data, ANES Technical Report Series (No. nes012427). Ann Arbor, MI: American National Election Studies. Retrieved from http://www.electionstudies.org/resources/papers/nes012427.pdf
23. de la Vega, I., de Filippis, M., Lachmair, M., Dudschig, C., & Kaup, B. (2012). Emotional valence and physical space: limits of interaction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38, 375-385.
24. Dillman, D., Smyth, J., & Christian, L. (2009). Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
25. Fazio, R. H., Powell, M. C., & Williams, C. J. (1989). The role of attitude accessibility in the attitude-to-behavior process. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 280-288.
26. Forgas, J. P. (2011). Can negative affect eliminate the power of first impressions? Affective influences on primacy and recency effects in impression formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 425-429.
27. Freedman, D. A. (2008). Randomization does not justify logistic regression. Statistical Science, 23, 237-249.
28. Glenn, N. D., & Grimes, M. (1968). Aging, voting and political interest. American Sociological Review, 33, 563-575.
29. Haladyna, T., Downing, S., & Rodriguez, M. (2002). A review of multiple-choice item-writing guidelines for classroom assessment. Applied Measurement in Education, 15, 309-334.
30. Haugtvedt, C. P., & Wegener, D. T. (1994). Message order effects in persuasion: An attitude strength perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 205-218.
31. Hovland, C. I., Campbell, E. H., & Brock, T. C. (1957). The effects of "commitment" on opinion change following communication. In C. I. Hovland etal. (Eds.), The order of presentation in persuasion (pp. 23-32). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
32. Ho, D. E., & Imai, K. (2006). Randomization inference with natural experiments: An analysis of ballot effects in the 2003 California recall election. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 101, 888-900.
33. Ho, D. E., & Imai, K. (2008). Estimating causal effects of ballot order from a randomized natural experiment: The California alphabet lottery, 1978-2002. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72, 216-240.
34. Holbrook, A. L., & Krosnick, J. A. (2005). Meta-psychological versus operative measures of ambivalence. In S. C. Criag & M. D. Martinez (Eds.), Ambivalence and the structure of public opinion (pp. 73-103). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
35. Jones, E. E., & Goethals, G. R. (1972). Order effects in impression formation: Attribution context and the nature of the entity. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, H. H. Kelley, R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins, & B. Weiner (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior (pp. 27-46). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
36. King, A., & Leigh, A. (2009). Are ballot order effects heterogeneous? Social Science Quarterly, 90, 71-87.
37. Koppell, J. G., & Steen, J. A. (2004). The effects of ballot position on election outcomes. Journal of Politics, 66, 267-281.
38. Krosnick, J. A., & Alwin, D. F. (1987). An evaluation of a cognitive theory of response order effects in survey measurement. Public Opinion Quarterly, 51, 201-219.
39. Krosnick, J. A., Miller, J. M., & Tichy, M. P. (2004). An unrecognized need for ballot reform. In A. Crigler, M. Just, & E. McCaffery (Eds.), Rethinking the Vote (pp. 51-74). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
40. Lavine, H. (2001). The electoral consequences of ambivalence toward presidential candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 915-929.
41. Maass, A., Pagani, D., & Berta, E. (2007). How beautiful is the goal and how violent is the fist fight? Spatial bias in the interpretation of human behavior. Social Cognition, 25, 833-852.
42. Mantonakis, A., Rodero, P., Lesschaeve, I., & Hastie, R. (2009). Order in choice: Effects of serial position on preferences. Psychological Science, 20, 1309-1312.
43. Meier, B. P., & Robinson, M. D. (2004). Why the sunny side is up: Associations between affect and vertical position. Psychological Science, 15, 243-247.
44. Miller, J. M., & Krosnick, J. A. (1998). The impact of candidate name order on election outcomes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 62, 291-330.
45. Mogilner, C., Shiv, B., & Iyengar, S. S. (2013). Eternal quest for the best: Sequential (vs. simultaneous) option presentation undermines choice commitment. Journal of Consumer Research, 39, 1300-1312.
46. Pasek, J. (2010). ANESrake: ANES Raking Implementation. Comprehensive R Archive Network. Version 0.4 [July 12, 2010]. Retrieved from http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/anesrake/index.html
47. Pasek, J., DeBell, M., & Krosnick, J. A. (2010, May). Toward a standardization of survey weights: The American National Election Studies weighting system. Paper presented at the 65th annual conference of AAPOR, Chicago.
48. Stepper, S., & Strack, F. (1993). Proprioceptive determinants of emotional and nonemotional feelings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 211-220.
49. Thompson, M., Zanna, M., & Griffin, D. (1995). Let's not be indifferent about (attitudinal) ambivalence. In R. Petty & J. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 361-386). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
50. Tourangeau, R., Couper, M. P., & Conrad, F. G. (2013). "Up means good": The effect of screen position on evaluative ratings in web surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 77, 69-88.
51. U. S. Census Bureau. (2009, March). Current population survey: Annual social and economic supplement. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstc/cps_table_creator.html
52. U. S. Census Bureau. (2010, April). Genealogy data: Frequently occurring surnames from Census 1990. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/genealogy/www/data/1990surnames/names_files.html
53. Webster, D. M., Richter, L., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1996). On leaping to conclusions when feeling tired: Mental fatigue effects on impressional primacy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 181-195.