heuristics sat jan 16 2010 campaigns and elections

8/14/2019 Heuristics Sat Jan 16 2010 Campaigns and Elections

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/heuristics-sat-jan-16-2010-campaigns-and-elections 1/3

© A ©

Heuri

HeuristicsDefinition: Shortcuts voters use to decide between candidates

By Bryon Allen and Chris WilsonWilson Research Strategies

42 Politics * November/December 2009



see incumbents with low job approval but high favor- Tlic Washington Post endorsement of Creigh Deeds in theable ratings and ballot support—voters in those circum- Virginia Democratic primary for governor was an excel-stances are not making decisions based on facts about lent case study of how some voters applied an authorityperformance. Affect heuristic also helps partly explain the heuristic based on an assumption that the Post must beerror some campaigns and consultants make of fixating knowledgeable about Democratic politics,on name ID; positive afTect will correlate with name ID While there are many other heuristics that may be ap-and a misguided casual observation of races where voters plied by voters in crowded primaries, these offer insightswere applying an affect heuristic would lead to the con- into how voter behavior can be studied,

elusion that name ID translated to votes. In addition to knowing the types of heuristics a votermay use, it is critical for a campaign researcher to un-Single Factor Heuristic: When using a single factor derstand that heuristics are situational behaviors ratherheuristic a voter makes a decision based on which candi- than stable types.The nustake of assuming that there arcdate is best on a single factor. Often this is a specific issue voter types—single-issue voters, endorsement voters andbut it can also be a trait such as experience or hometown, ideological voters, for example—is almost as dangerousVoters may employ this heuristic in a variety of ways, as the assumption that all voters arc either fully rationalSome may screen candidates by rejecting candidates that or fully ignorant. In fact, this misunderstanding of thefail the single factor test and then apply another heuristic situational nature of decision-making is so widespreadto decide among acceptable candidates. Others may have and so misleading, that it has its own name—it is called

Some campaigns think of votersas mindlessly shuffling into the booth.

a mental factor hierarchy by which they test candidates the fundamental attribution error,on a variety of factors one at a time until they have re- The truth is that the same voter who makes a decisionjected all but one candidate. Another way that some vot- using a single factor today may apply an ideology heu-ers use this heuristic is to use the most obvious difference ristic in a different election, or even in the same election

between two candidates as a single decision factor. if the situation changes. Voters apply heuristics to maketheir decision easier—to pick a satisfactory candidateIdeology Heuristic: A heuristic somewhat related to with the minimum information gathering and cognitivethe single factor heuristics is what political scientists refer effort—they may switch from applying one heuristic toto as an ideology heuristic. When voters use this heuristic another if information becomes available that makes onethey choose the candidate they perceive as closest to them easier than another to apply.ideologically and vote for that candidate. The important Understanding voter heuristics is an invaluable addi-thing to understand about this heuristic is that voters are tion to a campaign.The first task in developing a messagenot making judgments about candidate ideology based and strategy for any campaign should be to answer theon a thorough assessment of specific issue positions—the question,"How are voters going to make their decisioncampaign that worries "How can they think he's conser- in this election?" Too often campaigns and consultantsvative? He voted for/against issue X!" is misunderstand- make implicit, or occasionally explicit, assumptions about

ing how voters employ this heuristic.When voters use an voter decision-making that simply don't reflect a modernideology heuristic they are relying on an impression of understanding of bounded rationality and the situationalcandidate ideology based on a variety of cues rather than heuristics that voters will really be applying to their deci-making an issue-based assessment. sion in an election.

Good research designed to identify and monitor theAuthority or Liking Heuristic (Endorsements): heuristics voters are using to make their choice coupledVoters can use endorsements as a heuristic as well.These with an understanding of how to develop and implementcan be an authority heuristic when the opinions of peo- strategies and messages tailored to those heuristics canpie or entities whom voters perceive as in charge or pos- give any campaign a substantial and winning advantageessing special knowledge about the race are used as a on Election Day. IUeuristic. Endorsements can also serve as a liking heuris- -------------------------------------------------------------------ic when the endorsement of a figure who a voter is posi- Chris Urilson is the founder and chief executive officer of

ively disposed towards is used to reach a positive judg- Wilson Research Strategies, a Republican polling firm based inent about the endorsed candidate. The recent case of Washington, D.C. Bryon Allen is the chief operations officer

November/December 2009 * Politics 45



Many of the campaigns wc are involved So, if assuming that voters are perfect computers corn-in this time of the year are primary rac- paring all of the pluses and minuses of each candidatees with crowded fields. As researchers, is wrong and assuming that they are making superficialthese can be some of the most challeng- decisions based on no information is wrong, what is the

ing and most interesting races to study because of the right strategy? Something that economists and psycholo-variety of ways that voters process information and make gists call "bounded rationality." Without delving into thedecisions among multiple candidates. complex arguments taking place in fields like cognitiveOften campaigns and consultants make one of two mistak- psychology and behavioral economics, a working defini-

en assumptions about the way primary voters make choices tion of "bounded rationality" that serves our purposes asand diese lead to poor strategy and poor performance: campaign researchers is that voters are capable of consid¬ering a limited amount of information about candidates1) The "rational voter" assumption. Some cam- and they consider just enough information to reach apaigns and consultants seem to assume that voters decision that satisfies them.are paying close attention to the campaign and mea- The obvious question for a campaign researcher thensuring it on every single possible issue. Campaigns is: "What information do voters consider?"—or, in anthat make this mistake tend to try to talk about ev- important distinction that we will return to later: "Whatery single possible issue, "win" every single point information are voters going to consider in this race onand use every possible argument for their candidate. Election Day?" Fortunately for us, economists and psy-

Some campaigns assume that voters arepaying close attention to every issue.

Campaigns that make this assumption waste time, chologists have developed an extensive understandingeffort and resources putting out messages that simply of this "bounded rationality." (As an aside, pioneeringdon't matter. On the occasion that these campaigns researchers in this field such as Herbert Simon, Danielsucceed, it is only because they were lucky enough Kahneman, and Amos Tversky were all psychologists by

that some of the messages they put out did matter training who wrote extensively in the economics lit—and their opponents were equally unsophisticated in eraturc.) One thing they have discovered is that peopletheir understanding of voter behavior. use predictable cognitive shortcuts called heuristics tosimplify decision-making of all types. If we understand

2) The "ignorant voter" assumption. If the "ra- these heuristics we can easily see how they apply to votertional voter" assumption gives voters too much decision-making.credit, the "ignorant voter" assumption commits For the purposes of this discussion, we will limit our-the opposite sin. Campaigns and consultants who selves to those heuristics that voters often use in crowdedmake this assumption seem to think of voters as primaries.There is a different set of heuristics that votersmindlessly shuffling into the voting booth and are more likely to use in a two-candidate primary or in apulling the lever with almost no understanding general election campaign.of whom they are selecting. To these campaigns Below are some common heuristics that psychologistsand consultants name ID is often the critical goal and economists have uncovered, each with a few com¬as under their assumption voters are likely to ments about its relevance to crowded primary races,make a decision based on a simple "at least I'veheard of him" criterion. Much like the "rational Affect Heuristic: An affect is a feeling that occursvoter" assumption, the strategy suggested by this rapidly in response to a stimulus.The affect heuristic de-assumption can be a winning one, particularly in scribes the observation that people will often make a de-elections where only one campaign has sufficient cision based on either an immediate emotional reactionresources to develop name ID. Unfortunately for to stimulus or a first impression even when their ownmany candidates, a campaign or consultant who evaluation of already known or subsequently revealedassumes "ignorant voters" has only one strategy facts would lead them to a different decision. From theand will be unsuccessful when faced with a race standpoint of a campaign, voters applying an affect heu-where they are not alone in building name ID ristic support a candidate based on emotional attachment

or where name ID alone turns out not to be or repulsion rather than a consideration of facts and is-enough. sues. Affect heuristic helps explain why we sometimes44 Politics * November/December 2009

heuristics sat jan 16 2010 campaigns and elections

Documents