Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T19:22:17.372Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Nature of Utility Functions in Mass Publics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Henry E. Brady  and
Stephen Ansolabehere
Henry E. Brady
Affiliation:
University of Chicago
Stephen Ansolabehere
Affiliation:
Harvard University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Survey data are used to test the basic tenets of rational choice theory. We find that (1) voters' preferences are orderly but voters do not always have preferences. When the perceived difference between two candidates is below some threshold, voters are indifferent between them. (2) Most voters choose candidates whose issue positions are congruent with their own. (3) Lack of knowledge about candidates affects choice and utility through two routes—indifference and risk aversion.

Most voters have highly structured utility functions, but the thresholds and risk aversion in these functions place relatively unknown candidates at a disadvantage in presidential primaries and other electoral situations. Moreover, the importance of knowledge in these functions suggests that social choice theorists must take seriously the classic concerns of public opinion research—the operation of the media and the dynamics of information in elections.

Type
Articles
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 83 , Issue 1 , March 1989 , pp. 143 - 163
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Armstrong, William. 1950. “A Note on the Theory of Consumer's Behavior.” Oxford Economic Papers 2:119–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berndt, E., Hall, B., Hall, Robert, and Hausman, Jerry. 1974. “Estimation and Inference in Nonlinear Structural Models.” Annals of Economic and Social Measurement 3:653–65.Google Scholar
Brady, Henry, and Sniderman, Paul. 1985. “Attitude Attribution: A Group Basis of Political Reasoning.” American Political Science Review 79:819–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broyden, C. 1967. “Quasi-Newton Methods and Their Application to Function Minimization.” Mathematics of Computation 21:368–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calvert, Randall. 1984. “Models of Imperfect Information in Politics.” University of Rochester. Typescript.Google Scholar
Dummett, Michael. 1984. Voting Procedures. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Enelow, James, and Hinich, Melvin. 1984. The Spatial Theory of Voting: An Introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fishburn, Peter C. 1970a. “Intransitive Indifference in Preference Theory: A Survey.” Operations Research 18:207–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fishburn, Peter C. 1970b. “Intransitive Indifference with Unequal Indifference Intervals.” Journal of Mathematical Psychology 7:144–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fishburn, Peter C. 1970c. Utility Theory for Decisionmaking. New York: John Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fishburn, Peter C. 1972. Mathematics of Decision Theory. Brussels: Mouton.Google Scholar
Fishburn, Peter C. 1973. “Interval Representations for Interval Orders and Semiorders.” Journal of Mathematical Psychology 10:91–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herzberger, Hans G. 1973. “Ordinal Preference and Rational Choice.” Econometrica 41:187–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel, and Tversky, Amos. 1974. “Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.” Science 185:1124–31.Google Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel, and Tversky, Amos. 1979. “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk.” Econometrica 47:263–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krantz, David, Luce, Robert Duncan, Suppes, Patrick, and Tversky, Amos. 1971. Additive and Polynomial Representations Vol. 1 of Foundations of Measurement. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Luce, R. Duncan. 1956. “Semiorders and a Theory of Utility Discrimination.” Econometrica 24:178–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKelvey, Richard, and Ordeshook, Peter. 1985. “Sequential Elections with Limited Information.” American Journal of Political Science 29:480–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, Mancur. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ordeshook, Peter. 1986. Came Theory and Political Theory: An Introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riker, William H., and Ordeshook, Peter. 1968. “A Theory of the Calculus of Voting.” American Political Science Review 62:25–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Fred. 1970. “On Nontransitive Indifference.” Journal of Mathematical Psychology 7:243–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Fred. 1972. “What If Utility Functions Do not Exist?” Theory and Decision 3:126–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, Thomas. 1986. The Logic of Collective Choice. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, D., and Suppes, Patrick. 1958. “Foundational Aspects of Theories of Measurement.” Journal of Symbolic Logic 23:113–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, Amartya. 1973. “Behavior and the Concept of Preference.” Economica 40:241–59.Google Scholar
Sen, Amartya. 1977. “Rational Fools: A Critique of the Behavioral Foundations of Economic Theory.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 6:317–44.Google Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth. 1972. “The Strategy of Ambiguity: Uncertainty and Electoral Competition.” American Political Science Review 66:555–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth. 1984. “Institutional Equilibrium and Equilibrium Institutions.” In Political Science: The Science of Politics, ed. Weisberg, H.. New York: Agathon.Google Scholar
Suppes, Patrick, and Zinnes, Joseph. 1963. “Basic Measurement Theory.” In Handbook of Mathematical Psychology. Vol. 1. Ed. Luce, Robert Duncan, Bush, Robert R., and Galanter, E.. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Thompson, Dennis F. 1970. The Democratic Citizen: Social Science and Democratic Theory in the Twentieth Century. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tobin, James. 1958. “Liquidity Preference As Behavior Toward Risk.” Review of Economic Studies 25:65–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vincke, Peter. 1980. “Linear Utility Functions on Semiordered Mixture Spaces.” Econometrica 48:771–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witcover, Jules. 1977. Marathon: Pursuit of the Presidency, 1972–1976. New York: New American Library.Google Scholar