Voting behavior

Voting behavior is a form of elect oral behavior. Underst anding vot ers' behavior can explain how
and why decisions were made eit her by public decision-makers, which has been a cent ral concern
for polit ical scient ist s,[1] or by t he elect orat e. To int erpret vot ing behavior bot h polit ical science
and psychology expert ise were necessary and t herefore t he field of polit ical psychology
emerged including elect oral psychology.[2] Polit ical psychology researchers st udy ways in which
affective influence may help vot ers make more informed vot ing choices, wit h some proposing
t hat affect may explain how t he elect orat e makes informed polit ical choices in spit e of low
overall levels of polit ical at t ent iveness and sophist icat ion. Conversely, Brut er and Harrison
suggest t hat elect oral psychology encompasses t he ways in which personalit y, memory,
emot ions, and ot her psychological fact ors affect cit izens' elect oral experience and behavior.[2]

To make inferences and predict ions about behavior concerning a vot ing decision, cert ain fact ors
such as gender, race, cult ure or religion must be considered. Furt hermore, a more t heoret ical
approach can be t aken when viewing elect oral behaviour; such as viewing wealt h and region in
which a vot er lives which will impact upon t heir elect oral choices. Moreover, key public influences
include t he role of emot ions, polit ical socializat ion, t olerance of diversit y of polit ical views and
t he media. The effect of t hese influences on vot ing behavior is best underst ood t hrough
t heories on t he format ion of at t it udes, beliefs, schema, knowledge st ruct ures and t he pract ice
of informat ion processing. For example, surveys from different count ries indicat e t hat people are
generally happier in individualist ic cult ures where t hey have right s such as t he right t o vot e.[3]
Addit ionally, social influence and peer effect s, as originat ing from family and friends, also play an
import ant role in elect ions and vot ing behavior.[4] The degree t o which vot ing decision is affect ed
by int ernal processes and ext ernal influences alt ers t he qualit y of making t ruly democrat ic
decisions. Brut er and Harrison also suggest t hat t he decision is not a mere expression of a
preference as t hey say t hat vot ers embrace a role in elect ions and different iat e bet ween
'referees' and 'support ers'.[5]

Voting behavior types

Vot er behavior is oft en influenced by vot er loyalt y.[6] There is a mix of sat isfact ion and how
issues are dealt wit h by t he part y. There is a correlat ion bet ween how t he vot er finds t he
sat isfact ion of what t he part y has achieved and dealt wit h a sit uat ion, and t hen t he int ent ion of
vot ing for t he same part y again. Somet hing t he aut hor calls sat isfact ion and int ent ion t o
purchase.[6] Informat ion is import ant t o discuss when t alking about vot ing in general. The
informat ion provided t o t he vot er, not only influences who t o vot e for, but if t hey are int ending t o
vot e or not .[7] Palfrey and Poole discuss t his in t heir paper on informat ion and vot ing behaviour.
These element s have a direct effect on where one's part y ident ificat ion lies. This is largely due
t o t he abilit y t o have t he part y agendas available and increase t he underst anding and recognit ion
of t he t opics which are being dealt wit h. This in combinat ion wit h Schofield and Reeves means
t hat t he progression of t he ident ificat ion comes from recognit ion and t he loyalt y is followed if
t hey find sat isfact ion in how t he part y performed, t hen t he likelihood of a re-occurring vot e in
t he next elect ion is high.

When speaking of vot ing behavior in relat ion t o cleavages, t here are some which are int erest ing
fact ors t o look int o. The t hree cleavage-based vot ing fact ors focused on in research are class,
gender and religion.[8] First ly, religion is oft en a fact or which influences one's part y choice. In
recent years t his vot ing cleavage has moved away from concerns of Prot est ant vs Cat holic t o
having a larger focus on religious vs non-religious leanings.[8] A second influent ial fact or is class. If
one is in what is considered t he working class, t hey are t ypically more likely t o vot e for a part y on
t he right side of t he polit ical scale, whereas middle class vot ers are more likely t o ident ify wit h a
part y on t he left side of t he polit ical scale.[8] Last ly, it is t he influence of gender. Women are
more likely t o support left -leaning part ies.[8] One explanat ion for t his is employment , as women
are more likely t o work in t he public sect or.[8] Part ies on t he left t end t o support a more involved
welfare st at e and more funding for public sect or jobs, and people dependent on a job wit hin
government -driven sect ors would benefit from a left ist part y polit ical agenda. Many cleavage-
based vot ing behaviors are int erconnect ed and frequent ly build on each ot her.[8] These fact ors
also t end t o hold different levels of weight depending on t he count ry in quest ion. There is no
universal explanat ion for a vot ing cleavage, and t here is no general answer which explains a
cleavage of all democrat ic count ries.[8] Each fact or will have a different level of import ance and
influence on one's vot e dependent on t he count ry one is vot ing in.

Individuals use different crit eria when we vot e, based on t he t ype of elect ion it is. Therefore,
vot ing behavior is also condit ional t o t he elect ion which is held. Different fact ors are in play in a
nat ional elect ion vs. a regional elect ion based on t he vot er's preferred out come. For each
individual, t he order of import ance of fact ors like loyalt y, sat isfact ion, employment , gender,
religion and class may look very different in a nat ional or regional elect ions, even when t he
elect ions occur wit h relat ively similar candidat es, issues and t ime frames. For example, religion
may play a larger role in a nat ional elect ion t han in regional one, or vice versa.

The exist ing lit erat ure does not provide an explicit classificat ion of vot ing behavior t ypes.
However, research following t he Cypriot referendum of 2004 ident ified four dist inct vot ing
behaviors depending on t he elect ion t ype. Cit izens use different decision crit eria if t hey are
called t o exercise t heir right t o vot e in president ial, legislat ive, local elect ions or in a
referendum.[9] In nat ional elect ions it is usually t he norm for people t o vot e based on t heir
polit ical beliefs. In local and regional elect ions, people t end t o elect t hose who seem more
capable t o cont ribut e t o t heir area. A referendum follows anot her logic as people are specifically
asked t o vot e for or against a clearly defined policy.[9]

Part isan (polit ics) vot ing is also an import ant mot ive behind an individual's vot e and can influence
vot ing behavior t o some ext ent . In 2000, a research st udy on part isanship vot ing in t he US found
evidence t hat part isan vot ing has a large effect . However, part isan vot ing has a larger effect on
nat ional elect ions, such as a president ial elect ion, t han it does on congressional elect ions.[10]
Furt hermore, t here is also a dist inct ion of part isan vot ing behavior relat ive t o a vot er's age and
educat ion. Those over 50 years old and t hose wit hout a high school diploma are more likely t o
vot e based on part isan loyalt y.[10] This research is based on t he US [10] and has not been
confirmed t o accurat ely predict vot ing pat t erns in ot her democracies.

A 1960 st udy of post war Japan found t hat urban cit izens were more likely t o be support ive of
socialist or progressive part ies, while rural cit izens were favorable of conservat ive part ies.[11]
Regardless of t he polit ical preference, t his is an int erest ing different iat ion t hat can be at t ribut ed
t o effect ive influence.

Vot ers have also been seen t o be affect ed by coalit ion and alliance polit ics, whet her such
coalit ions form before or aft er t he elect ion. In t hese cases, vot ers can be swayed by feelings on
coalit ion part ners when considering t heir feelings t oward t heir preferred part y.[12]
 Electoral ergonomics

The concept of elect oral ergonomics was creat ed by Michael Brut er and Sarah Harrison, who
defined it as t he int erface bet ween elect oral arrangement s and organisat ion and t he psychology
of vot ers.[2] In ot her words, it examines how t he st ruct ure of an elect ion or vot ing process
influences t he psychology of vot ers in a given elect ion.

It is import ant t o consider how elect oral arrangement s affect t he emot ions of t he vot er and
t herefore t heir elect oral behaviour. In t he week running up t o elect ions, 20 t o 30% of vot ers
eit her decide who t hey will vot e for or change t heir init ial decisions, wit h around half of t hem on
elect ion day.[2] One st udy has found t hat people are more likely t o vot e for conservat ive
candidat es if polling st at ions are locat ed in a church, and anot her st udy finds vot ers aged 18–24
are nearly t wice as likely t o vot e for part ies on t he ext reme right if vot ing is done t hrough t he
post .[2]

Affective influence

A growing body of lit erat ure on t he significance of affect in polit ics finds t hat affect ive st at es
play a role in public vot ing behavior t hat can be bot h beneficial and biasing. Affect here refers t o
t he experience of emot ion or feeling, which is oft en described in cont rast t o cognit ion. This work
largely follows from findings in psychology regarding t he ways in which affect ive st at es are
involved in human judgment and decision-making.[13]

Research in polit ical science has t radit ionally ignored non-rat ional considerat ions in it s t heories of
mass polit ical behavior, but t he incorporat ion of social psychology has become increasingly
common. In exploring t he benefit s of affect on vot ing, researchers have argued t hat affect ive
st at es such as anxiet y and ent husiasm encourage t he evaluat ion of new polit ical informat ion and
t hus benefit polit ical behavior by leading t o more considered choices.[14] Ot hers, however, have
discovered ways in which affect such as emot ion and mood can significant ly bias t he vot ing
choices of t he elect orat e. For example, evidence has shown t hat a variet y of event s t hat are
irrelevant t o t he evaluat ion of candidat es but can st ir emot ions, such as t he out come of foot ball
mat ches[15] and weat her,[16] can significant ly affect vot ing decisions.

Several variables have been proposed t hat may moderat e t he relat ionship bet ween emot ion and
vot ing. Researchers have shown t hat one such variable may be polit ical sophist icat ion, wit h
higher sophist icat ion vot ers more likely t o experience emot ions in response t o polit ical st imuli
and t hus more prone t o emot ional biases in vot ing choice.[17] Affect ive int ensit y has also been
shown t o moderat e t he relat ionship bet ween affect and vot ing, wit h one st udy finding a doubling
of est imat ed effect for higher-int ensit y affect ive shocks.[15]

Anot her variable which has been shown t o influence vot ing behaviour is t he weat her. Hot
t emperat ures can have divergent effect s on human behaviour,[18] due t o t he fact t hat it can lead
t o height ened arousal. As such, increases in arousal due t o increases in t emperat ure might impact
t he result of an elect ion, because of it s proposed impact on collect ive behaviours such as vot er
t urnout .[19] Previous st udies have found t hat hot t emperat ures increase anger,[20] which, in t urn,
mot ivat es people t o vot e.[21]

Mechanisms of affective influence on voting

The different ial effect of several specific emot ions have been st udied on vot ing behavior:

Surprise – Recent research suggest s t hat t he emot ion of surprise may magnify t he effect of
emot ions on vot ing. In assessing t he effect of home-t eam sport s vict ories on vot ing, Healy et al.
showed t hat surprising vict ories provided close t o t wice t he benefit t o t he incumbent part y
compared t o vict ories overall.[15]

Anger – Affect ive t heory would predict t hat anger increases t he use of generalized knowledge
and reliance upon st ereot ypes and ot her heurist ics. An experiment on st udent s at t he Universit y
of Massachuset t s Amherst showed t hat people who had been primed wit h an anger condit ion
relied less upon issue-concordance when choosing bet ween candidat es t han t hose who had
been primed wit h fear.[22] In a separat e laborat ory st udy, subject s primed wit h t he anger emot ion
were significant ly less likely t o seek informat ion about a candidat e and spent less t ime reviewing
a candidat e's policy posit ions on t he web.[23]

Anxiety – Affect ive int elligence t heory ident ifies anxiet y as an emot ion t hat increases polit ical
at t ent iveness while decreasing reliance on part y ident ificat ion when deciding bet ween
candidat es, t hus improving decision-making capabilit ies. Vot ers who report anxiet y regarding an
elect ion are more likely t o vot e for candidat es whose policies t hey prefer, and part y members
who report feeling anxious regarding a candidat e are t wice as likely t o defect and vot e for t he
opposit ion candidat e.[14] Ot hers have denied t hat anxiet y's indirect influence on vot ing behavior
has been proven t o t he exclusion of alt ernat ive explanat ions, such as t he possibilit y t hat less
preferred candidat es produce feelings of anxiet y, as opposed t o t he reverse.[24]

Fear – St udies in psychology has shown t hat people experiencing fear rely on more det ailed
processing when making choices.[25] One st udy found t hat subject s primed wit h fear spent more
t ime seeking informat ion on t he web before a hypot het ical vot ing exercise t han t hose primed
wit h anger.[22]

Pride – Result s from t he American Nat ional Elect ions Survey found t hat pride, along wit h hope
and fear, explained a significant amount of t he variance in peoples' 2008 vot ing choices. The size
of t he effect of expressions of pride on vot ing for McCain was roughly one t hird of t he size of
t he effect of part y ident ificat ion, t ypically t he st rongest predict or.[26] Appeals t o pride were
also found t o be effect ive in mot ivat ing vot er t urnout among high-propensit y vot ers, t hough t he
effect was not as st rong as appeals t o shame.[27]

Neuroticism- This is usually defined as emot ional

inst abilit y charact erized by more ext reme and
maladapt ive
responses t o st ressors and a higher likelihood of negat ive emot ions (e.g., anxiet y,
anger, and fear).[28] This has become a big influencer in recent elect ions and referendums, like t he
2016 EU referendum and 2016 President ial Elect ion, have been run from a populist st andpoint ,
where t hey have played upon vot ers fears.[28] This concept ion of neurot icism as a lowered
t hreshold for det ect ing and responding t o st imuli as t hreat ening or dangerous suggest s t hat
individuals high on t his t rait will be more recept ive t o campaigns, such as populism, which
specifically prey on fears of looming t hreat s and dangers. Research shows t hat once t hese fears
have been act ivat ed, t hey can affect decisions of all kinds, including vot ing behaviour.[29]

Effects of voting on emotion

The act of vot ing it self can produce emot ional responses t hat may bias t he choices vot ers
make and pot ent ially affect subsequent emot ional st at es.

A recent st udy on vot ers in Israel found t hat vot ers' cort isol levels, t he so-called "st ress
hormone," were significant ly higher immediat ely before ent ering a polling place t han personal
baseline levels measured on a similar, non-elect ion day.[30] This may be significant for vot ing
choices since cort isol is known t o affect memory consolidat ion, memory ret rieval, and reward-
and risk-seeking behavior.[31] Acut e st ress may disrupt decision making and affect cognit ion.[32]

Addit ionally, research done on vot ers in Ann Arbor and Durham aft er t he US 2008 elect ions
showed part ial evidence t hat vot ing for t he losing candidat e may lead t o increased cort isol
levels relat ive t o levels among vot ers who chose t he winning candidat e.[33]

Moreover, Rui Ant unes indicat ed wit hin a 2010 academic st udy t hat a personal relat ionship
creat ed wit h t he polit ical part ies in America. This may be due t o t he st rong influence in t he USA
of t he development of t his relat ionship t hrough a socialisat ion process which is somewhat
caused by t he nat ure of t he individual's background.[34]

Practical implications

Political campaigns

The use of emot ional appeals in polit ical campaigns t o increase support for a candidat e or
decrease support for a challenger is a widely recognized pract ice and a common element of any
campaign st rat egy.[35] Campaigns oft en seek t o inst ill posit ive emot ions such as ent husiasm and
hopefulness about t heir candidat e among part y bases t o improve t urnout and polit ical act ivism
while seeking t o raise fear and anxiet y about t he challenger. Ent husiasm t ends t o reinforce
preferences, whereas fear and anxiet y t ends t o int errupt behavioral pat t erns and leads
individuals t o look for new sources of informat ion.[14]

Political surveys

Research findings illust rat e t hat it is possible t o influence a persons' at t it udes t oward a polit ical
candidat e using carefully craft ed survey quest ions, which in t urn may influence his or her vot ing
behavior.[36] A laborat ory st udy in t he UK focused on part icipant s' at t it ude t oward former Prime
Minist er Tony Blair during t he 2001 pre-elect ion period via a t elephone survey. Aft er gauging
part icipant s' int erest in polit ics, t he survey asked t he part icipant s t o list eit her i) t wo posit ive
charact erist ics of t he Prime Minist er, ii) five posit ive charact erist ics of t he Prime Minist er, iii) t wo
negat ive charact erist ics of t he Prime Minist er, or iv) five negat ive charact erist ics of t he Prime
Minist er. Part icipant s were t hen asked t o rat e t heir at t it ude t oward Blair on a scale from 1 t o 7
where higher values reflect ed higher favorabilit y.[37]

List ing five posit ive or negat ive charact erist ics for t he Prime Minist er was challenging; especially
for t hose wit h lit t le or no int erest in polit ics. The ones asked t o list five posit ive charact erist ics
were primed negat ively t owards t he polit icians because it was t oo hard t o name five good t rait s.
On t he cont rary, following t he same logic, t hose who were t o list five negat ive, came t o like t he
polit ician bet t er t han before. This conclusion was reflect ed in t he final survey st age when
part icipant s evaluat ed t heir at t it ude t oward t he Prime Minist er.[38]

Military voting behavior

Recent research int o whet her milit ary personnel vot e or behave polit ically t han t he general
populat ion has challenged some long-held convent ional wisdom. The polit ical behavior of officers
has been ext ensively st udied by Holst i,[39] Van Riper & Unwalla,[40] and Feaver & Kohn[41][42] In t he
Unit ed St at es, part icularly since t he end of t he Viet nam War, officers are st rongly conservat ive in
nat ure and t end t o ident ify wit h t he Republican Part y in t he Unit ed St at es.

Enlist ed personnel polit ical behavior has only been st udied more recent ly, not ably by
Dempsey,[43] and Inbody.[44][45][46] Enlist ed personnel, oft en t hought t o behave and vot e as did
officers, do not . They more nearly represent t he general populat ion. In general, t he usual
demographic predict ors of vot ing and ot her polit ical behavior apply t o milit ary personnel.

Technological implications

Access to technology

We are current ly living in an era wit hin which we are becoming increasingly reliant upon t he use of
t echnology; many of us have become accust omed t o using t echnology and t herefore would find
it very difficult t o funct ion and make decisions wit hout it . As a result of t his, vot ing behaviour has
been changing significant ly in recent years due t o t hese advancement s in t echnology and media,
"t racing t he rise of email, part y websit es, social media, online videos and gamificat ion, scholars
have shown, since t he 1990s, part ies have become heavily dependent on digit al t echnology."[47]
This port rays just how import ant access t o t echnology is, as many will alt er t heir views on which
polit ical part y t o vot e for, whet her t o vot e at all and whet her t hey encourage t he next
generat ion t o vot e based upon what t hey learn whilst using t echnology. Figures show t hat even
in a count ry like India, ravaged wit h povert y, t he high import ance of t echnology in comparison t o
t he import ance of hygiene as: "far more people in India have access t o a cell phone t han t o a
t oilet and improved sanit at ion."[48] Evident ly, access t o t echnology is not only import ant , it will
soon become essent ial t o allow a vot er t o gain a full underst anding of t heir vot ers right s as well
as helping t hem t o make t he import ant decision of whom t o vot e for since "cast ing a vot e is t he
main way in which people part icipat e in t he democrat ic process."[49]

Impacts of social media

Research has shown t hat due t o t he advancement s in t echnology over t he last t wo decades,
polit icians and t heir polit ical part ies are becoming heavily reliant on t echnology and in part icular
social media out let s such as Facebook, Inst agram, Twit t er and Snapchat . Mart in Moore (ht t ps://
oneworld-publicat ions.com/mart in-moore.ht ml) support ed t his view in his book, "A survey
conduct ed amongst Brit ish journalist s t hat summer found t hat sevent y per cent were using
Twit t er for report ing."[50] Therefore vot ers are now accessing informat ion from less convent ional
out let s; yet t he ease allows for polit icians t o expand t heir reach from t he eldest generat ions,
right down t o t he younger generat ions. Alt hough social media has many posit ive implicat ions, t he
lack of monit oring and accessibilit y opens a gat eway for foreign int erference in elect ions and
indoct rinat ion of vot ers.

Statistics

In t he 2016 US President ial Elect ion, 61.4 percent of t he cit izen vot ing-age populat ion report ed
vot ing, a number not st at ist ically different from t he 61.8 percent who report ed vot ing in 2012. In
2016, t urnout increased t o 65.3 percent for non-Hispanic whit es, but decreased t o 59.6 percent
for non-Hispanic blacks. 2016 was only t he second elect ion ever where t he share of non-
Hispanic black vot ers decreased, from 12.9 percent in 2012 t o 11.9 percent in 2016. When
analyzed t oget her, report ed t urnout by age, race and Hispanic origin differed in 2016 as well. In
comparison t o 2012, younger non-Hispanic whit es bet ween t he ages of 18 t o 29 and bet ween
t he ages of 30 t o 44 report ed higher t urnout in 2016, while vot ing rat es for t he t wo oldest
groups of non-Hispanic whit es were not st at ist ically different . Meanwhile, for non-Hispanic
blacks, t urnout rat es decreased in 2016 for every age group. For ot her race non-Hispanics and
Hispanics of any race, vot ing rat es bet ween 2012 and 2016 were not st at ist ically different for
any age groups.[51]

Loss aversion

The loss aversion t heory[52] by Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman is oft en associat ed wit h
vot ing behavior as people are more likely t o use t heir vot e t o avoid t he effect of an unfavorable
policy rat her t han support ing a favorable policy. From a psychological perspect ive, value
references are crucial t o det ermine individual preferences.[53] Furt hermore, it could be argued
t hat t he
fact t hat loss aversion is found only in high st akes serves as a validat ion of loss
aversion, because it shows t hat even when people care much about t he out come of t heir
decision t hey are st ill biased.[54] This is evident when it comes t o elect ions and referendums, as
vot ers make t heir choices based on t he cost benefit analysis. For inst ance, it has been
suggest ed t hat t he loss aversion t heory can be used t o explain why negat ivit y bias played a
crucial role in t he 2014 campaign for t he Scot t ish independence referendum.[55]

See also

Alt ruism t heory of vot ing

Emot ion

Emot ional bias

Emot ions in decision making

Vot ing correct ly

Vot ing gender gap

Polit ical Cognit ion

References

1. Goldman, Sheldon (June 1966). "Voting behavior on the United States Courts of Appeals, 1961–1964".
The American Political Science Review. 60 (2): 374–383. doi:10.2307/1953364 (https://doi.org/10.230
7%2F1953364) . JSTOR 1953364 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/1953364) .

2. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/72596/1/Bruter_Understanding%20emotional%20act_2017.pdf

3. Diener, Ed (January 2000). "Subjective well-being: the science of happiness and a proposal for a
national index"
(https://semanticscholar.org/paper/1b2a60c638bb5ac8b982c2ece09140f971c8c608) . American
Psychologist. 55 (1): 34–43. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.55.1.34 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0003-066x.5
5.1.34) . PMID 11392863 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11392863) . S2CID 24085298 (https://a
pi.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:24085298) .

4. Beck, PA, et al. (2002). The social calculus of voting: Interpersonal, media, and organizational influences
on presidential choices. Am Polit Sci Rev 96 (1): 57–73.

5. Bruter, Michael; Harrison, Sarah (26 May 2020). Inside the Mind of a Voter (https://press.princeton.edu/
books/hardcover/9780691182896/inside-the-mind-of-a-voter) . ISBN 9780691182896.

6. Schofield, P. and Reeves, P. (2014). “Does the factor theory of satisfaction explain political voting
behaviour?”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49 No. 5/6, pp. 968-992, 0309-0566. DOI:
10.1108/EJM-08-2014-0524

7. Palfrey, T.R. and Poole, K.T. (1987). “The Relationship between Information, Ideology and Voting
Behavior”. American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 31, No. 3. pp. 511-530. DOI:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2111281

8. Brooks, C., Nieuwbeerta, P., and Manza, J. (2006). “Cleavage-based voting behavior in cross-national
perspective: Evidence from six postwar democracies”. Social Science Research, 35, 88–128, 35(1), 88.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2004.06.005

9. Andreadis, Ioannis; Chadjipadelis, Th (2006). Differences in voting behavior (http://paperroom.ipsa.org/

papers/paper_5402.pdf) (PDF). Fukuoka, Japan: Proceedings of the 20th IPSA World Congress.
pp. 1–13. July 9–13, 2006.
10. Bartels, L.M. (2000). “Partisanship and Voting Behavior, 1952-1996”. American Journal of Political
Science, Vol. 44, No. 1, pp. 35-50. URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2669291

11. Kyogoku, Jun'ichi; Ike, Nobutaka (October 1960). "Urban-rural differences in voting behavior in postwar
Japan". Economic Development and Cultural Change. 9 (1): 167–185. doi:10.1086/449885 (https://doi.
org/10.1086%2F449885) . JSTOR 1151841 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/1151841) .
S2CID 154258987 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:154258987) .

12. Bergman, Matthew Edward (4 May 2020). "Sorting between and within coalitions: the Italian case
(2001–2008)" (https://doi.org/10.1017%2Fipo.2020.12) . Italian Political Science Review / Rivista
Italiana di Scienza Politica. 51: 42–66. doi:10.1017/ipo.2020.12 (https://doi.org/10.1017%2Fipo.202
0.12) . ISSN 0048-8402 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0048-8402) .

13. Winkielman, Piotr; Knutson, Brian; Paulus, Martin; Trujillo, Jennifer L. (June 2007). "Affective influence
on judgments and decisions: moving towards core mechanisms". Review of General Psychology. 11 (2):
179–192. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.11.2.179 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F1089-2680.11.2.179) .
S2CID 15618397 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:15618397) .

14. Marcus, George E.; Neuman, W. Russell; MacKuen, Michael (2000). Affective intelligence and political
judgment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 9780226504698.

15. Healy, Andrew J.; Malhotra, Neil; Hyunjung Mo, Cecilia; Laitin, David (20 July 2010). "Irrelevant events
affect voters' evaluations of government performance" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PM
C2919954) . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 107 (29): 12804–12809.
Bibcode:2010PNAS..10712804H (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010PNAS..10712804H) .
doi:10.1073/pnas.1007420107 (https://doi.org/10.1073%2Fpnas.1007420107) . JSTOR 25708619 (h
ttps://www.jstor.org/stable/25708619) . PMC 2919954 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P
MC2919954) . PMID 20615955 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20615955) .

16. Gomez, Brad T.; Hansford, Thomas G.; Krause, George A. (August 2007). "The Republicans should pray
for rain: weather, turnout, and voting in U.S. Presidential elections". The Journal of Politics. 69 (3): 649–
663. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.550.7559 (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.550.755
9) . doi:10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00565.x (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1468-2508.2007.00565.x) .
JSTOR 10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00565.x (https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00
565.x) . S2CID 1021987 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:1021987) .

17. Miller, Patrick R. (August 2011). "The emotional citizen: emotion as a function of political
sophistication". Political Psychology. 32 (4): 575–600. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2011.00824.x (https://d
oi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1467-9221.2011.00824.x) . JSTOR 41262881 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/4126
2881) .

18. Oishi, Shigehiro (2014). "Socioecological Psychology". Annual Review of Psychology. 65 (29): 581–609.
doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-030413-152156 (https://doi.org/10.1146%2Fannurev-psych-030413-1521
56) . PMID 23987114 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23987114) .
19. Van Assche, Jasper (2017). "When the Heat Is On: The Effect of Temperature on Voter Behavior in
Presidential Elections" (https://doaj.org/article/86f82074ae61495984f8921e0d9e6af6) . Frontiers in
Psychology. 8: 929. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00929 (https://doi.org/10.3389%2Ffpsyg.2017.00929) .
PMC 5463178 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5463178) . PMID 28642723 (https://p
ubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28642723) .

20. "Bushman, B. J., Wang, M. C., and Anderson, C. A. (2005). Is the curve relating temperature to
aggression linear or curvilinear? Assaults and temperature in Minneapolis reexamined. J. Pers. Soc.
Psychol. 89, 62–66."

21. "Van Zomeren, M. (2016). Building a tower of Babel? Integrating core motivations and features of social
structure into the political psychology of action. Polit. Psychol. 37, 87–114"

22. Parker, Michael T.; Isbell, Linda M. (April 2010). "How I vote depends on how I feel: the differential
impact of anger and fear on political information processing". Psychological Science. 21 (4): 548–550.
doi:10.1177/0956797610364006 (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0956797610364006) . PMID 20424100
(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20424100) . S2CID 45105395 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/Cor
pusID:45105395) .

23. Valentino, Nicholas A.; Hutchings, Vincent L.; Banks, Antoine J.; Davis, Anne K. (April 2008). "Is a
worried citizen a good citizen? Emotions, political information seeking, and learning via the internet".
Political Psychology. 29 (2): 247–273. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2008.00625.x (https://doi.org/10.111
1%2Fj.1467-9221.2008.00625.x) . JSTOR 20447114 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/20447114) .

24. Ladd, Jonathan McDonald; Lenz, Gabriel S. (April 2011). "Does anxiety improve voters' decision
making?". Political Psychology. 32 (2): 347–361. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00805.x (https://doi.or
g/10.1111%2Fj.1467-9221.2010.00805.x) . JSTOR 41262900 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/412629
00) .

25. Tiedens, Larissa Z.; Linton, Susan (December 2001). "Judgment under emotional certainty and
uncertainty: the effects of specific emotions on information processing". Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology. 81 (6): 973–988. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.973 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F002
2-3514.81.6.973) . PMID 11761319 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11761319) .

26. Finn, Christopher; Glaser, Jack (December 2010). "Voter affect and the 2008 US Presidential election:
hope and race mattered". Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy. 10 (1): 262–275.
doi:10.1111/j.1530-2415.2010.01206.x (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1530-2415.2010.01206.x) .

27. Panagopoulos, Costas (September 2010). "Affect, social pressure and prosocial motivation: field
experimental evidence of the mobilizing effects of pride, shame and publicizing voting behavior".
Political Behavior. 32 (3): 369–386. doi:10.1007/s11109-010-9114-0 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs1110
9-010-9114-0) . S2CID 144606264 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:144606264) .
28. Obschonka, Martin; Stuetzer, Michael; Rentfrow, Peter J.; Lee, Neil; Potter, Jeff; Gosling, Samuel D. (April
2019). "Fear, Populism, and the Geopolitical Landscape: The "Sleeper Effect" of Neurotic Personality
Traits on Regional Voting Behavior in the 2016 Brexit and Trump Elections" (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/864
82/1/Lee_Fear%2C%20populism%2C%20geopolitical%20landscape_2018.pdf) (PDF). Social
Psychological and Personality Science. 9 (3): 285–298. doi:10.1177/1948550618755874 (https://doi.or
g/10.1177%2F1948550618755874) . S2CID 148899088 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:14
8899088) .

29. Alesina, Alberto (2015). Loss aversion in politics (https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true

&db=cat07845a&AN=uea.907403524&athens.asp&site=eds-live&scope=site) . Cambridge: National
Bureau of Economic Research.

30. Waismel-Manor, Israel; Ifergane, Gal; Cohen, Hagit (November 2011). "When endocrinology and
democracy collide: Emotions, cortisol and voting at national elections". European
Neuropsychopharmacology. 21 (11): 789–795. doi:10.1016/j.euroneuro.2011.03.003 (https://doi.org/1
0.1016%2Fj.euroneuro.2011.03.003) . PMID 21482457 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2148245
7) . S2CID 25446311 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:25446311) .

31. Putman, Peter; Antypa, Niki; Crysovergi, Panagiota; van der Does, Willem A.J. (February 2010).
"Exogenous cortisol acutely influences motivated decision making in healthy young men" (https://www.n
cbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2797621) . Psychopharmacology. 208 (2): 257–263.
doi:10.1007/s00213-009-1725-y (https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs00213-009-1725-y) . PMC 2797621 (htt
ps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2797621) . PMID 19953227 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.ni
h.gov/19953227) .

32. Porcelli, Anthony J.; Delgado, Mauricio R. (March 2009). "Acute stress modulates risk taking in financial
decision making" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4882097) . Psychological Science.
20 (3): 278–283. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02288.x (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1467-9280.200
9.02288.x) . PMC 4882097 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4882097) .
PMID 19207694 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19207694) .

33. Stanton, Steven J.; LaBar, Kevin S.; Saini, Ekjyot K.; Kuhn, Cynthia M.; Beehner, Jacinta C. (June 2010).
"Stressful politics: voters' cortisol responses to the outcome of the 2008 United States Presidential
election". Psychoneuroendocrinology. 35 (5): 768–774. doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2009.10.018 (https://do
i.org/10.1016%2Fj.psyneuen.2009.10.018) . PMID 19962831 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/199
62831) . S2CID 16201542 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:16201542) .

34. Antunes,R. (2010) Theoretical models of voting behaviour[online]. Lisbon, Polytechnic Institute of
Coimbra

35. Brader, Ted (September 15, 2006). Campaigning for Hearts and Minds: How Emotional Appeals in
Political Ads Work (https://books.google.com/books?id=CKQJA2RgS8sC&pg=PA2) . University of
Chicago Press. ISBN 9780226069883. Retrieved September 15, 2019 – via Google Books.

36. Gerrig, Richard J.; Zimbardo, Philip G. (2010), "Research methods in psychology", in Gerrig, Richard J.;
Zimbardo, Philip G. (eds.), Psychology and life, Boston: Allyn & Bacon, p. 32, ISBN 9780205743438.
37. Haddock, Geoffrey (May 2002). "It's easy to like or dislike Tony Blair: accessibility experiences and the
favourability of attitude judgments". British Journal of Psychology. 93 (2): 257–267.
doi:10.1348/000712602162571 (https://doi.org/10.1348%2F000712602162571) . PMID 12031151 (h
ttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12031151) .

38. Schwartz, Shalom H.; Bardi, Anat (October 2003). "Values and behavior: strength and structure of
relations". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 29 (10): 1207–1220.
doi:10.1177/0146167203254602 (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0146167203254602) . PMID 15189583
(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15189583) . S2CID 9773753 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/Corp
usID:9773753) .

39. Holsti, Ole R. (Winter 1998–1999). "A widening gap between the U.S. military and civilian society?: Some
evidence, 1976–96". International Security. 23 (3): 5–42. doi:10.2307/2539337 (https://doi.org/10.230
7%2F2539337) . JSTOR 2539337 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/2539337) .

40. van Riper, Paul P.; Unwalla, Darab B. (March 1965). "Voting patterns among high-ranking military
officers". Political Science Quarterly. 80 (1): 48–61. doi:10.2307/2147183 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2F2
147183) . JSTOR 2147183 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/2147183) .

41. Feaver, Peter D.; Kohn, Richard H. (2001). Soldiers and civilians: the civil-military gap and American
national security. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. ISBN 9780262561426.

42. Feaver, Peter D.; Kohn, Richard H. (Fall 2000). "The gap" (http://nationalinterest.org/article/the-gap-12
07) . The National Interest. 61: 29–37.

43. Dempsey, Jason (2010). Our army soldiers, politics, and American civil-military relations. Princeton:
Princeton University Press. ISBN 9780691142258.
See also: "Works by Jason K. Dempsey" (http://works.bepress.com/jason_dempsey/) .

44. Inbody, Donald S. (2016). The soldier vote: war, politics, and the ballot in America. Houndmills,
Basingstoke, Hampshire New York, New York: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 9781137519191.
See also: "Works by Donald S. Inbody" (http://www.polisci.txstate.edu/people/faculty/inbody.htm
l) . 2018-06-26.

45. Inbody, Donald S. (2009). Grand army of the Republic or grand army of the Republicans? Political party
and ideological preferences of American enlisted personnel (https://digital.library.txstate.edu/handle/10
877/3972) (Ph.D. thesis). Texas State University. OCLC 462853721 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/4
62853721) . Pdf. (https://digital.library.txstate.edu/bitstream/handle/10877/3972/fulltext.pdf?sequ
ence=1)

46. Inbody, Donald S. (2008), "Partisanship and the military", in Reveron, Derek S.; Hicks Stiehm, Judith
(eds.), Inside defense: understanding the U.S. military in the 21st century, New York: Palgrave
Macmillan, pp. 139–150, ISBN 9780230602601.

47. Tonge, Jonathan; Leston-Bandeira, Cristina; Wilks-Heeg, Stuart (2018). Britain Votes 2017. New York:
Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780198820307.
48. "Greater Access to Cell Phones Than Toilets in India: UN" (https://unu.edu/media-relations/releases/gre
ater-access-to-cell-phones-than-toilets-in-india.html) . United Nations University. 14 April 2010.
Retrieved 10 December 2019.

49. Catt, Helena (1996). Voting Behaviour: A Radical Critique. London: Leicester University Press.
ISBN 9780718522322.

50. Moore, Martin (2018). Democracy Hacked: Political Turmoil and Information Warfare in the Digital Age.
London: Oneworld Publications. ISBN 9781786075758.

51. File, Thom (May 10, 2017). "Voting in America: A Look at the 2016 Presidential Election" (https://www.ce
nsus.gov/newsroom/blogs/random-samplings/2017/05/voting_in_america.html) . The United States
Census Bureau. US Census Bureau. Retrieved February 9, 2021. This article incorporates text from
this source, which is in the public domain.

52. Kahneman, Daniel; Tversky, Amos (April 1984). "Choices, values, and frames". American Psychologist.
39 (4): 341–350. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.39.4.341 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0003-066x.39.4.341) .
Pdf. (http://dirkbergemann.commons.yale.edu/files/kahnemann-1984-choices-values-frames.pdf)
See also: Kahneman, Daniel; Tversky, Amos, eds. (2000). Choices, values, and frames. New York
Cambridge, UK: Russell sage Foundation Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521627498.

53. Kahneman, Daniel; Tversky, Amos (November 1991). "Loss aversion in riskless choice: a reference-
dependent model". The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 106 (4): 1039–1061.
CiteSeerX 10.1.1.703.2614 (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.703.2614) .
doi:10.2307/2937956 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2F2937956) . JSTOR 2937956 (https://www.jstor.org/
stable/2937956) .

54. Yechiam, Eldad (October 2019). "Acceptable losses: the debatable origins of loss aversion".
Psychological Research. 83 (7): 1327–1339. doi:10.1007/s00426-018-1013-8 (https://doi.org/10.100
7%2Fs00426-018-1013-8) . PMID 29663131 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29663131) .
S2CID 4903825 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:4903825) .

55. Brie, Evelyne (July 2018). "Tones from a Narrowing Race: Polling and Online Political Communication
during the 2014 Scottish Referendum Campaign" (https://doi.org/10.1017%2FS0007123417000606) .
British Journal of Political Science. 50 (2): 497–509. doi:10.1017/S0007123417000606 (https://doi.or
g/10.1017%2FS0007123417000606) .

Retrieved from
"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Voting_behavior&oldid=1077072089"

Last edited 1 day ago by BrownHairedGirl