Weitere Artikel dieser Ausgabe durch Wischen aufrufen
Explanations for the incumbency advantage in American elections have typically pointed to the institutional advantages that incumbents enjoy over challengers but overlook the role of individual traits that reinforce this bias. The institutional advantages enjoyed by incumbents give voters more certainty about who incumbents are and what they might do when (and if) they assume office. We argue that these institutional advantages make incumbents particularly attractive to risk-averse individuals, who shy away from uncertainty and embrace choices that provide more certainty. Using data from 2008 and 2010 Cooperative Congressional Election Study, we show that citizens who are more risk averse are more likely to support incumbent candidates, while citizens who are more risk accepting are more likely to vote for challengers. The foundations of the incumbency advantage, we find, lie not only in the institutional perks of office but also in the individual minds of voters.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
Abramowitz, A. I. (1975). Name familiarity, reputation, and the incumbency effect in a congressional election. The Western Political Quarterly, 28(4), 668–684. CrossRef
Abramowitz, A. I. (1980). A comparison of voting for U.S. senator and representative in 1978. American Political Science Review, 74, 633–640. CrossRef
Abramowitz, A. I. (1991). Incumbency, campaign spending, and the decline of competition in U.S. House elections. Journal of politics, 53(1), 34–56. CrossRef
Alvarez, R. M. (1997). Information and elections. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Ansolabehere, S., & Snyder, J. M., Jr. (2002). The incumbency advantage in U.S. elections: An analysis of state and federal offices, 1942–2000. Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy, 1(3), 315–338. CrossRef
Ansolabehere, S., Snyder, J. M., Jr, & Charles, S., I. I. I. (2000). Old voters, new voters, and the personal vote: Using redistricting to measure the incumbency advantage. American Journal of Political Science, 44(1), 17–34. CrossRef
Barsky R. B., Juster F. T., Kimball M. S., Shapiro M. D. (1997). Preference parameters and behavioral heterogeneity: An experimental approach in the Health and Retirement Study. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112, 537–579.
Bartels, L. M. (1986). Issue voting under uncertainty: An empirical test. American Journal of Political Science, 30(4), 709–728. CrossRef
Berinsky, A. J., & Lewis, J. B. (2007). An estimate of risk aversion in the U.S. electorate. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 2, 139–154. CrossRef
Blais, A.-R., & Weber, E. U. (2006). A domain-specific risk-taking (DOSPERT) scale for adult populations. Judgment and Decision Making, 1(1), 33–47.
Born, R. (1986). Strategic politicians and unresponsive voters. American Political Science Review, 80(2), 599–612. CrossRef
Cain, B., Ferejohn, J. A., & Fiorina, M. P. (1984). The constituency basis of the personal vote for U.S. representatives and British members of parliament. American Political Science Review, 78(1), 110–125. CrossRef
Cain, B., Ferejohn, J. A., & Fiorina, M. P. (1987). The personal vote. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. CrossRef
Campbell, J. E. (1983). The return of the incumbents: The nature of incumbency advantage. The Western Political Quarterly, 36(3), 434–444.
Carson, J. M., & Roberts, J. (2011). House and Senate elections. In E. Schickler & F. Lee (Eds.), Oxford handbook of the American Congress. Oxford: New York.
Cook, T. E. (1989). Making laws and making news: Media strategies in the U.S. House of Representatives. Brookings Institution Press.
Cover, A. D. (1977). One good term deserves another: The advantage of incumbency in congressional elections. American Journal of Political Science, 21(3), 523–541. CrossRef
Cover, A. D., & Brumberg, B. S. (1982). Baby books and ballots: The impact of congressional mail on constituent opinion. American Political Science Review, 76(2), 347–359. CrossRef
Cox, G. W., & Katz, J. N. (1996). Why did the incumbency advantage in U.S. House elections grow? American Journal of Political Science, 40(2), 478–497.
Cox, G. W., & Katz, J. (2002). Elbridge Gerry’s salamander: The electoral consequences of the reapportionment revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
Davis, O., Hinich, M., & Ordeshook, P. (1970). An expository development of a mathematical model of the electoral process. American Political Science Review, 64, 426–448. CrossRef
Desposato, S. W., & Petrocik, J. R. (2003). The variable incumbency advantage: new voters, redistricting, and the personal vote. American Journal of Political Science, 47(1), 18–32. CrossRef
Druckman, J. N., Kifer, M. J., & Parkin, M. (2009). Campaign communications in U.S. congressional elections. American Political Science Review, 103(3), 343–366. CrossRef
Eckles, D. L., & Schaffner, B. F. (2011). Risk tolerance and support for potential military interventions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75(3), 533–544. CrossRef
Ehrlich, S., & Maestas, C. (2010). Risk exposure, risk orientation, and policy opinions: The case of free trade. Political Psychology, 31(5), 657–684. CrossRef
Enelow, J., & Hinich, M. (1981). A new approach to voter uncertainty in the Downsian spatial model. American Journal of Political Science, 25, 483–493. CrossRef
Erikson, R. (1971). The advantage of incumbency in congressional elections. Polity, 3(3), 395–405. CrossRef
Erikson, R. (1972). Malapportionment, gerrymandering, and party fortunes in congressional elections. American Political Science Review, 66(4), 1234–1335. CrossRef
Eubank, R. B. (1985). Incumbent effects on individual-level voting behavior in congressional elections: A decade of exaggeration. The Journal of Politics, 47(3), 958–967. CrossRef
Fenno, R. F. (1977). U.S. House members in their constituencies: An exploration. American Political Science Review, 71(3), 883–917. CrossRef
Fenno, R. F., Jr. (1978). Home style: House members in their districts. New York: Harper Collins.
Ferejohn, J. (1977). On the decline of competition in congressional elections. American Political Science Review, 71(1), 166–176. CrossRef
Fiorina, M. P. (1977). The case of the vanishing marginals: The bureaucracy did it. American Political Science Review, 71(1), 177–181.
Fiorina, M. P. (1981). Some problems in studying the effects of resource allocation in congressional elections. American Journal of Political Science, 25(3), 543–567.
Healy, A., & Malhotra, N. (2009). Myopic voters and natural disaster policy. American Political Science Review, 103(3), 387–406. CrossRef
Hood, M. V., I. I. I., & McKee, S. C. (2010). Stranger danger: Redistricting, incumbent recognition, and vote choice. Social Science Quarterly, 91(2), 344–358. CrossRef
Jacobson, G. C. (1981). Incumbents’ advantages in the 1978 U.S. congressional elections. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 6(2), 183–200. CrossRef
Jacobson, G. C. (1987a). The marginals never vanished: incumbency and competition in elections to the U.S. house of representatives, 1952–82. American Journal of Political Science, 31(1), 126–141. CrossRef
Jacobson, G. C. (1987b). The politics of congressional elections. Boston, MA: Little Brown.
Jacobson, G. C. (1989). Strategic politicians and the dynamics of U.S. house elections, 1946–86. The American Political Science Review, 83(3), 773–793. CrossRef
Jacobson, G. C., & Kernell, S. (1983). Strategy and choice in congressional elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Johannes, J. R., & McAdams, J. C. (1981). The congressional incumbency effect: Is it casework, policy compatibility, or something else? An examination of the 1978 election. American Journal of Political Science, 25(3), 512–542. CrossRef
Kahn, K. F., & Kennedy, P. J. (1999). The spectacle of U.S. senate campaigns. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Kam, C. D. (2012). Risk attitudes and political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 56(4), 817–836. CrossRef
Kam, C. D., & Simas, E. N. (2010). Risk orientations and policy frames. Journal of Politics, 72(2), 1–16. CrossRef
Kam, C. D., & Simas, E. N. (2012). Risk attitudes, candidate characteristics, and vote choice. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(4), 747–760. CrossRef
Kinder, D. R., & Kiewiet, R. D. (1979). Economic discontent and political behavior: The role of personal grievances and collective economic judgments in congressional voting. American Journal of Political Science, 23(3), 495–527. CrossRef
Mann, T., & Wolfinger, R. (1980). Candidates and parties in congressional elections. American Political Science Review, 71(3), 177–181.
McKelvey, R. D., & Riezman, R. (1992). Seniority in legislatures. American Political Science Review, 86(4), 951–965. CrossRef
Morgenstern, S., & Zechmeister, E. (2001). Better the devil you know than the saint you don’t? Risk propensity and vote choice in Mexico. Journal of Politics, 63(1), 93–119. CrossRef
Muthukrishnan, A. V. (1995). Decision ambiguity and incumbent brand advantage. Journal of Consumer Research, 22(1), 98–109. CrossRef
Nelson, C. J. (1978). The effect of incumbency on voting in congressional elections, 1964–1974. Political Science Quarterly, 3(4), 665–678. CrossRef
Prior, M. (2006). The incumbent in the living room: The rise of television and the incumbency advantage in U.S. House elections. Journal of Politics, 68(3), 657–673.
Quattrone, G. A., & Tversky, A. (2000). Contrasting rational and psychological analyses of political choice. In K. Daniel & T. Amos (Eds.), Choices, values, frames. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ragsdale, L. (1981). Incumbent popularity, challenger invisibility, and congressional voters. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 6(2), 201–218. CrossRef
Romero, D. W., & Sanders, F. (1994). Loosened partisan attachments and receptivity to incumbent behaviors: A panel analysis. Political Research Quarterly, 47(1), 177–192. CrossRef
Shepsle, K. (1972). The strategy of ambiguity: Uncertainty and electoral competition. American Political Science Review, 66, 555–568. CrossRef
Stone, W. J., Fulton, S., Maestas, C., & Maisel, L. S. (2010). Incumbency reconsidered: Prospects, strategic entry, and incumbent quality in U.S. House elections. Journal of Politics, 72(1), 178–190. CrossRef
Stone, W. J., Maisel, L. S., & Maestas, C. (2004). Quality counts: Extending the strategic polician model of incumbent deterrence. American Journal of Political Science, 48(3), 479–495. CrossRef
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, 263–290. CrossRef
Yiannakis, D. E. (1981). The grateful electorate: Casework and congressional elections. American Journal of Political Science, 25(3), 569–580. CrossRef
Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge university press.
- Risk Attitudes and the Incumbency Advantage
David L. Eckles
Cindy D. Kam
Cherie L. Maestas
Brian F. Schaffner
- Springer US
Neuer Inhalt/© Stellmach, Neuer Inhalt/© Maturus, Pluta Logo/© Pluta