Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2016 Nov;20(11):794-804.
doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2016.08.013. Epub 2016 Oct 18.

Issues or Identity? Cognitive Foundations of Voter Choice

Libby Jenke  1 , Scott A Huettel  2
Affiliations
Review

Issues or Identity? Cognitive Foundations of Voter Choice

Libby Jenke et al. Trends Cogn Sci. 2016 Nov.

Abstract

Voter choice is one of the most important problems in political science. The most common models assume that voting is a rational choice based on policy positions (e.g., key issues) and nonpolicy information (e.g., social identity, personality). Though such models explain macroscopic features of elections, they also reveal important anomalies that have been resistant to explanation. We argue for a new approach that builds upon recent research in cognitive science and neuroscience; specifically, we contend that policy positions and social identities do not combine in merely an additive manner, but compete to determine voter preferences. This model not only explains several key anomalies in voter choice, but also suggests new directions for research in both political science and cognitive science.

Keywords: decision making; political science; social cognition; voting.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure I (in Box 1)
Figure I (in Box 1)
Proximity theory, Directional theory, and Discounting theory are all spatial models of voter choice; however, each interprets the space of issues differently. Shown are how the three models can make different predictions about the preferences of two voters (V1, V2) over three randomly-placed candidates (C1, C2, C3) who have different positions on an issue. For each model, the shaded areas indicate the maximally preferred candidate (see Key). In Proximity theory (upper panel), voters prefer the candidate nearest to their own position. Discounting theory (middle panel) adds the assumption that the current status quo (Q) influences what policy outcomes candidates could implement if elected (dashed lines); in the example shown, this assumption means that V1 would actually prefer a candidate (C2) who would otherwise be more distant. Directional theory (lower panel) assumes that voters prefer the candidate who adopts the most intense position on a given issue, given that this candidate is on their side of that issue. In the example shown, no voter would support the most moderate candidate (C2); this prediction of directional theory runs counter to that of the other models. Figure adapted from [68].
Figure 1 (Key Figure)
Figure 1 (Key Figure)
Building on recent work in neuroscience and cognitive science, we argue that voter choice can be modeled as a competition between policy and identity. Significant evidence now supports the idea that a domain-general neural system (including the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, shown at top left) tracks the values of economic outcomes (left column). Such values can enter into rational choice models – in economics as well as political science – as variables that are weighted according to their importance (i.e., decision weights, W). Yet, many decisions also involve tracking social information like how one’s actions reinforce social categories relative to one’s identity (e.g., community involvement, veteran status), a process for which social cognitive regions (e.g., the temporal-parietal junction, TPJ, shown at upper right) play a key role (right column). We develop a simple model in which policy variables and identity variables compete to determine voter choice. Policy variables provide utility according to the importance of the underlying issue; for example, a given voter might prioritize affordable healthcare and a strong national defense. Identity variables provide utility through the act of voting itself, such as by strengthening one’s ties to a social group (e.g., pride in one’s state) or by signaling one’s civic responsibility (e.g., “I voted”). Whether policy or identity exerts a dominant influence on choice is determined by a single tradeoff parameter (δ). Brain images adapted from [67] and [43]. Terms of Use: “house” by Deovolenti, “140606-F-NH180-364” by USAFE AFAFRICA, “U.S. Navy Douglas A-4E Skyhawk aircraft 1967” by Robert Huffstutter, “TSLAC Represents Texas at the National Book Festival (Washington DC) 9.21.13” by Texas State Library and Archives Commission, and “Voting” by Cali4beach are licensed under CC BY 2.0. “Money” by 401(K) 2012, “Immigration reform marchers” by Valerie Hinojosa (cropped from original) and “Stethoscope” by Jasleen_Kaur are licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Merrill S, Grofman B. A unified theory of voting: Directional and proximity spatial models. Cambridge University Press; 1999.
    1. Enelow JM, Hinich MJ. The spatial theory of voting: An introduction. Cambridge University Press; 1984.
    1. Downs A. An economic theory of democracy. Harper; 1957.
    1. Black D. The theory of committees and elections. University Press; 1958.
    1. Poole KT, Rosenthal H. A spatial model for legislative roll call analysis. American Journal of Political Science. 1985:357–384.

LinkOut - more resources