Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Political Behavior
Erschienen in: Political Behavior 2/2021

01.08.2019 | Original Paper

Risk Attitudes and Independence Vote Choice

verfasst von: Robert Liñeira, Ailsa Henderson

Erschienen in: Political Behavior | Ausgabe 2/2021

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

In this article, we examine the impact of risk attitudes on vote choice in the context of a salient referendum with high levels of uncertainty about the consequences of the ballot proposal. Using data from a pre- and post-referendum panel survey conducted in the context of the 2014 independence referendum in Scotland, and a specific battery to measure attitudes to risk, we determine how these attitudes operate in such political contexts. We reach two main conclusions. First, risk attitudes have a direct effect on vote choice, even after controlling for alternative explanations of vote choice such as party identification and leaders’ evaluations. In the aggregate, the effect of risk attitudes on the vote choice contributes to the status quo bias found in referendums. Second, we find that information moderates the effect of risk attitudes on vote choice. Voters who are politically knowledgeable have a greater capacity to predict the consequences of political outcomes and, therefore, they are less affected by their risk attitudes when making their ballot choices.
Vorheriger Artikel Party Animals? Extreme Partisan Polarization and Dehumanization
Nächster Artikel A Matter of Principle? On the Relationship Between Racial Resentment and Ideology

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Fußnoten
1
The massive turnout levels achieved in the independence referendums of Quebec and Scotland indicate the saliency of the choice. In Quebec, turnout was 85.6% in 1980 and 93.5% in 1995. In Scotland 2014, turnout was 84.6%. Both the 1995 referendum and the 2014 established turnout records in Quebec and Scotland respectively.
 
2
Although the no-vote usually implies no changes, this is not necessarily the case. In order to take into account the possibility that a vote against the proposal does not lead to a continuation of the pre-existing status quo, the literature distinguishes between the ballot proposal and the reversion point—the situation that prevails in the event of a no-vote—as the main alternatives of a binary-choice referendum (Hobolt 2009, pp. 45–46). In the context of independence referendums, a vote against secession does not necessarily mean that changes will not occur, but it is difficult to think of a context in which the uncertainties related to a no-vote can be compared to the unknowns associated to a yes-vote.
 
3
The clear road to the referendum enhanced the legitimacy of the vote further. The referendum was triggered by the Scottish National Party (SNP) victory in the May 2011 elections to the Scottish Parliament. The SNP, which included the promise of holding an independence referendum in its manifesto, was the first party ever to achieve a majority in the Scottish Parliament, elected through an additional member system. This majority was interpreted by both the Scottish and the UK government as a mandate to hold an independence referendum.
 
4
The polls gathered in Fig. 1 signal the peak support for independence 1 week before the vote, a support that slightly dropped in the final days of the campaign. Actually, 5 out of the 6 polling companies that measured surveys in the last weeks of the campaign show a drop in the support to independence between the penultimate and the last survey; the other polling company showed no change between the last two surveys.
 
5
In the Scotland independence referendum, the electoral franchise was extended to include 16- and 17-year-olds.
 
6
The online fieldwork was conducted by ICM. The pre-referendum data were collected from 9 June 2014 to 30 June 2014, whereas the post-referendum data were collected from 2 December 2014 to 23 December 2014. The data can be downloaded from http://​doi.​org/​10.​5255/​UKDA-SN-8247-1.
 
7
Collinearity tests reveal no multicollinearity issues. None of the independent variables specified in Tables 1 and 2 show a variance inflation factor higher than 1.9.
 
8
See Table 3 in the “Appendix” section for details on the measurement of independent variables and descriptive statistics.
 
9
This is an important point because one of the main criticisms of Clarke et al. (2004) of the model produced by Nadeau et al. (1999) in the context of the 1995 Quebec referendum was that key variables political variables such as party identification and feelings about party leaders were absent in their model specification. They also criticize the fact that Nadeau et al. (1999) find interactive but not main effects of risk attitudes, noting that ‘it is difficult to argue that general orientations to risk impact on referendum choices but that there is no main effect’ (Clarke et al. 2004, p. 349).
 
10
Holding variables at their means indicates that we use the sample mean in the case of cardinal-level variables and sample proportions for the other types of variables to calculate our probabilities.
 
11
Three of the items involved showing pictures of different political leaders to our respondents and giving them four options about the office that each leader occupies. Only one option was correct. The political figures were Iain Duncan Smith (then Secretary of State for Work and Pensions); Hermann Van Rompuy (then President of the European Council); and Ruth Davidson (leader of the Scottish Conservative Party). Two additional questions also offered voters four options: ‘In which year did New Labour under Tony Blair first form a government?’ (correct answer ‘1997’), and ‘Which of the following positions does the Conservative Party hold in Westminster?’ (correct answer was ‘The Conservative party heads a coalition government’).
 
12
Figure 4 in the “Appendix” section displays the average marginal effects (Ai and Norton 2003; Clarke et al. 2015; Karaca-Mandic et al. 2012).
 
Literatur
Ai, C., & Norton, E. C. (2003). Interaction terms in logit and probit models. Economics Letters, 80(1), 123–129.
Alvarez, R. M. (1997). Information and elections. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.
Alvarez, R. M., & Brehm, J. (2002). Hard choices, easy answers: Values, information, and American public opinion. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Bartels, L. M. (1986). Issue voting under uncertainty: An empirical test. American Journal of Political Science, 30(4), 709–728.
Bélanger, É., & Perrella, A. M. L. (2008). Facteurs d’appui à la souveraineté du Québec chez les jeunes: Une comparaison entre francophones, anglophones et allophones. Politique et Sociétés, 27(3), 13–40.
Berger, M. M., Munger, M. C., & Potthoff, R. F. (2000). The Downsian model predicts divergence. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 12(2), 228–240.
Berinski, A. J., & Lewis, J. B. (2007). An estimate of risk aversion in the U.S. electorate. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 2, 139–154.
Blais, A., & Nadeau, R. (1992). To be or not to be sovereignist: Quebeckers’ perennial dilemma. Canadian Public Policy/Analyse de Politiques, 18(1), 89–103.
Bond, R. (2000). Squaring the circles: Demonstrating and explaining the political “non-alignment” of Scottish national identity. Scottish Affairs, 32(Summer), 15–36.
Bowler, S., & Donovan, T. (1998). Demanding choices. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.
Byrnes, J. P., Miller, D. C., & Schafer, W. D. (1999). Gender differences in risk taking: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125(3), 367–383.
Carducci, B. J., & Wong, A. S. (1998). Type A and risk taking in everyday money matters. Journal of Business and Psychology, 12(3), 355–359.
Carey, S. (2002). Undivided loyalties is national identity an obstacle to European integration? European Union Politics, 3(4), 387–413.
Cesarini, D., Dawes, C. T., Johannesson, M., Lichtenstein, P., & Wallace, B. (2009). Genetic variation in preferences for giving and risk taking. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124(2), 809–842.
Christin, T., Hug, S., & Sciarini, P. (2002). Interests and information in referendum voting: An analysis of Swiss voters. European Journal of Political Research, 41(6), 759–776.
Clarke, H. D., Elliott, E., & Stewart, M. C. (2015). Heuristics, heterogeneity and green choices voting on California’s proposition 23. Political Science Research and Methods, 5(4), 755–774.
Clarke, H. D., & Kornberg, A. (1994). The politics and economics of constitutional choice: Voting in Canada’s 1992 national referendum. The Journal of Politics, 56(04), 940–962.
Clarke, H. D., & Kornberg, A. (1996). Choosing Canada? The 1995 Quebec sovereignty referendum. Political Science & Politics, 29(04), 676–682.
Clarke, H. D., Kornberg, A., & Stewart, M. C. (2004). Referendum voting as political choice: The case of Quebec. British Journal of Political Science, 34(02), 345–355.
Converse, P. E. (1964). The Nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. E. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and discontent (pp. 206–261). New York: The Free Press of Glencoe.
Converse, P. E. (1975). Public opinion and voting behaviour. In F. I. Greenstein & N. W. Polsby (Eds.), Handbook of political science nongovernmental politics (Vol. 4, pp. 75–169). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Converse, P. E. (2000). Assessing the capacity of mass electorates. Annual Review of Political Science, 3, 331–353.
Dahlbäck, O. (1990). Personality and risk-taking. Personality and Individual Differences, 11(12), 1235–1242.
Dahlbäck, O. (1991). Saving and risk taking. Journal of Economic Psychology, 12(3), 479–500.
Dalton, R. J. (1999). Political support in advanced democracies. In P. Norris (Ed.), Critical citizens: Global support for democratic government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dalton, R. J. (2004). Democratic challenges, democratic choices: The erosion of political support in advanced industrial democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
de Vreese, C. H. (Ed.). (2007). The Dynamics of referendum campaigns: An international perspective. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
de Vreese, C. H., & Semetko, H. A. (2004). Political campaigning in referendums: Framing the referendum issue. London: Routledge.
Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Dohmen, T., Falk, A., Huffman, D., Sunde, U., Schupp, J., & Wagner, G. G. (2011). Individual risk attitudes: Measurement, determinants, and behavioral consequences. Journal of the European Economic Association, 9(3), 522–550.
Eckles, D. L., Kam, C. D., Maestas, C. L., & Schaffner, B. F. (2013). Risk attitudes and the incumbency advantage. Political Behavior, 36(4), 731–749.
Eckles, D. L., & Schaffner, B. F. (2011). Risk tolerance and support for potential military interventions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75(3), 533–544.
Ehrlich, S., & Maestas, C. (2010). Risk orientation, risk exposure, and policy opinions: The Case of free trade. Political Psychology, 31(5), 657–684.
Eidelman, S., & Crandall, C. S. (2009). Psychological Advantage for the status quo. In J. T. Jost, A. C. Kay, & H. Thorisdottir (Eds.), Social and psychological bases of ideology and system justification. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Eidelman, S., & Crandall, C. S. (2012). Bias in favor of the status quo. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6(3), 270–281.
Enelow, J., & Hinich, M. J. (1981). A new approach to voter uncertainty in the Downsian spatial model. American Journal of Political Science, 25(3), 483–493.
Filbeck, G., Hatfield, P., & Horvath, P. (2005). Risk aversion and personality type. Journal of Behavioral Finance, 6(4), 170–180.
Franklin, M. N., van der Eijk, C., & Marsh, M. (1995). Referendum outcomes and trust in government: Public support for Europe in the wake of Maastricht. West European Politics, 18(3), 101–117.
Halek, M., & Eisenhauer, J. G. (2001). Demography of risk aversion. The Journal of Risk and Insurance, 68(1), 1–24.
Henderson, A. (2014). The myth of meritocratic Scotland: political cultures in the UK. In P. Cowley & R. Ford (Eds.), Sex, lies and the ballot box: 50 things you need to know about British elections (pp. 103–107). London: Biteback.
Hobolt, S. B. (2009). Europe in question. Referendums on European Integration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hug, S., & Sciarini, P. (2000). Referendums on European integration do institutions matter in the voter’s decision? Comparative Political Studies, 33(1), 3–36.
Johns, R. (2016). It wasn’t “The Vow” wot won it: the Scottish independence referendum. In P. Cowley & R. Ford (Eds.), More sex, lies and the ballot box: Another 50 things you need to know about elections (pp. 185–189). London: Biteback.
Johnston, R., Blais, A., Gidengil, E., & Nevitte, N. (1992). Challenge of direct democracy: The 1992 Canadian referendum. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291.
Kam, C. D. (2012). Risk attitudes and political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 56(4), 817–836.
Kam, C. D., & Simas, E. N. (2010). Risk orientations and policy frames. The Journal of Politics, 72(02), 381–396.
Kam, C. D., & Simas, E. N. (2012). Risk attitudes, candidate characteristics, and vote choice. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(4), 747–760.
Karaca-Mandic, P., Norton, E. C., & Dowd, B. (2012). Interaction terms in nonlinear models. Health Services Research, 47(1 Pt 1), 255–274.
Kay, A. C., Jimenez, M. C., & Jost, J. T. (2002). Sour grapes, sweet lemons, and the anticipatory rationalization of the status quo. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(9), 1300–1312.
Keating, M. (Ed.). (2017). Debating Scotland: Issues of independence and union in the 2014 referendum. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Kowert, P. A., & Hermann, M. G. (1997). Who takes risks? Daring and caution in foreign policy making. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41(5), 611–637.
LeDuc, L. (2002a). Referendums and elections. How do campaigns differ? In D. M. Farrell & R. Schmitt-Beck (Eds.), Do political campaigns matter? Campaign effects in elections and referendums (pp. 145–162). London: Routledge.
LeDuc, L. (2002b). Opinion change and voting behaviour in referendums. European Journal of Political Research, 41(6), 711–732.
LeDuc, L. (2003). The politics of direct democracy: Referendums in global perspective. Peterborough: Broadview Press.
Loewenstein, G. (1994). The psychology of curiosity: A review and reinterpretation. Psychological Bulletin, 116(1), 75–98.
Lupia, A. (1994). Shortcuts versus encyclopedias: Information and voting behavior in California insurance reform elections. The American Political Science Review, 88(1), 63–76.
Lupia, A., & McCubbins, M. D. (1998). The democratic dilemma: Can citizens learn what they need to know?. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
MacCrimmon, K. R., Wehrung, D. A., & Stanbury, W. T. (1986). Taking risks: The management of uncertainty. New York: Free Press.
McCrone, D., & Paterson, L. (2002). The conundrum of Scottish independence. Scottish Affairs, 40(1), 54–75.
McLean, I., Lodge, G., & Gallagher, J. (2013). Scotland’s choices: The Referendum and what happens afterwards. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Meertens, R. M., & Lion, R. (2008). Measuring an individual’s tendency to take risks: The risk propensity scale. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(6), 1506–1520.
Morgenstern, S., & Zechmeister, E. (2001). Better the devil you know than the saint you don’t? Risk propensity and vote choice in Mexico. The Journal of Politics, 63(1), 93–119.
Nadeau, R., & Fleury, C. J. (1995). Gains linguistiques anticipés et appui à la souveraineté du Québec. Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue Canadienne de Science Politique, 28(01), 35–50.
Nadeau, R., Martin, P., & Blais, A. (1999). Attitude towards risk-taking and individual choice in the Quebec referendum on sovereignty. British Journal of Political Science, 29(03), 523–539.
Nicholson, N., Soane, E., Fenton-O’Creevy, M., & Willman, P. (2005). Personality and domain-specific risk taking. Journal of Risk Research, 8(2), 157–176.
Quattrone, G. A., & Tversky, A. (1988). Contrasting rational and psychological analyses of political choice. American Political Science Review, 82(3), 719–736.
Renwick, A. (2014). Don’t trust your poll lead: How public opinion changes during referendum campaigns. In P. Cowley & R. Ford (Eds.), Sex, lies and the ballot box: 50 things you need to know about British elections (pp. 79–84). London: Biteback.
Renwick, A. (2017). Referendums. In K. Arzheimer, J. Evans, & M. S. Lewis-Beck (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of electoral behaviour (pp. 433–458). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Riley, W. B., Jr., & Chow, K. V. (1992). Asset allocation and individual risk aversion. Financial Analysts Journal, 48(6), 32–37.
Roiser, J. P., de Martino, B., Tan, G. C. Y., Kumaran, D., Seymour, B., Wood, N. W., et al. (2009). A genetically mediated bias in decision making driven by failure of amygdala control. Journal of Neuroscience, 29(18), 5985–5991.
Rosen, A. B., Tsai, J. S., & Downs, S. M. (2003). Variations in risk attitude across race, gender, and education. Medical Decision Making, 23(6), 511–517.
Schneider, G., & Weitsman, P. A. (1996). The punishment trap integration referendums as popularity contests. Comparative Political Studies, 28(4), 582–607.
Scottish Government. (2013). Scotland’s future. Your Guide to an independent Scotland. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.
Shepsle, K. A. (1972). The strategy of ambiguity: Uncertainty and electoral competition. American Political Science Review, 66(2), 555–568.
Steenbergen, M. R., & Siczek, T. (2017). Better the devil you know? Risk-taking, globalization and populism in Great Britain. European Union Politics, 18(1), 119–136.
Sung, J., & Hanna, S. (1996). Factors related to risk tolerance. Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning, 7, 11–19.
Tomz, M., & Van Houweling, R. P. (2009). The electoral implications of candidate ambiguity. The American Political Science Review, 103(1), 83–98.
Weber, E. U., Blais, A.-R., & Betz, N. E. (2002). A domain-specific risk-attitude scale: Measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15(4), 263–290.
Weinstein, E., & Martin, J. (1969). Generality of willingness to take risks. Psychological Reports, 24(2), 499–501.
Whiteley, P., Clarke, H. D., Sanders, D., & Stewart, M. C. (2012). Britain says NO: Voting in the AV ballot referendum. Parliamentary Affairs, 65(2), 301–322.
Zaleskiewicz, T. (2001). Beyond risk seeking and risk aversion: Personality and the dual nature of economic risk taking. European Journal of Personality, 15(S1), S105–S122.
Zaller, J. R. (1992). The Nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zuckerman, M. (1979). Sensation seeking: Beyond the optimal level of arousal. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis Group.
Zuckerman, M., & Kuhlman, D. M. (2000). Personality and risk-taking: Common bisocial factors. Journal of Personality, 68(6), 999–1029.
Metadaten
Titel
Risk Attitudes and Independence Vote Choice
verfasst von
Robert Liñeira
Ailsa Henderson
Publikationsdatum
01.08.2019
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Political Behavior / Ausgabe 2/2021
Print ISSN: 0190-9320
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-6687
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-019-09560-x

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2021

Political Behavior 2/2021 Zur Ausgabe

Original Paper

The Higher Power of Religiosity Over Personality on Political Ideology

Original Paper

Intergenerational Transmission of Party Affiliation Within Political Families

Original Paper

Which Party Represents My Group? The Group Foundations of Partisan Choice and Polarization

Original Paper

In-Group Love Versus Out-Group Hate: Which Is More Important to Partisans and When?

Original Paper

The Effect of Distributive Politics on Electoral Participation: Evidence from 70 Million Agricultural Payments

Original Paper

Extreme Pessimists? Expected Socioeconomic Downward Mobility and the Political Attitudes of Young Adults