What Motivates Voters? Political Scientist
Peers into Voter Behavior
By Patrick Verel
On Nov. 4, Americans will go to the polls to determine which of the two major parties will control Congress.
If the day turns out to be anything like traditional midterm
elections, fewer than half of those eligible to cast a vote will
actually do so (40 percent, according to the Pew Charitable Trust).
For Costas Panagopoulos, Ph.D., an expert on national
elections, the million-dollar question that drives his research is, why?
Panagopoulos, a professor of political science and the
director of Fordham’s Center for Electoral Politics and the Master’s
Program in Elections and Campaign Management, specializes in the
political psychology of voting behavior.
In two articles, “I’ve Got My Eyes on You: Implicit
Social-Pressure Cues and Prosocial Behavior,” which appeared in the
journal Political Psychology, and “Watchful Eyes: Implicit Observability Cues and Voting,” published recently in the journal Evolution & Human Behavior, Panagopoulos measured voter behavior in Key West, Florida, and Lexington, Kentucky, respectively.
Psychologists and evolutionary anthropologists long ago
realized that if someone goes in intending to give blood and sees a
poster in the room featuring a pair of eyes, he or she is more likely go
through with it; the same is true for other public-spirited behaviors,
such as littering less.
Why, Panagopoulos theorized, couldn’t that behavior model be applied to voting?
He found that those who receive a postcard reminding them to
vote are more likely to do so if the card shows an image of a pair of
eyes, as opposed to more generic images like an American flag or a palm
tree. They’re also more likely to vote than someone who never receives a
card at all.
“These findings reinforce the idea that people vote partly
for the social implications, because they want to be perceived as
individuals who support the democratic process. That is possibly a
function of evolutionary mechanisms, where people evolved to care what
others think of them,” Panagopoulos said.
“Those people, the argument goes, developed a reputation for
being good citizens, and that helped them be less ostracized and be
embraced by their communities.”
Are people voting because they’re afraid others will look
down on them if they don’t vote? Or are they doing it because they want
to feel good about fulfilling their civic duty? That’s still an open
question.
“There’s much more work and research that needs to be done,”
he said. “But at least for now, we’re finding consistent results that
suggest people engage more frequently in pro-social behavior when they
know that they’re being watched or there’s a possibility that they’re
being monitored. Social pressure is a powerful motivator.”
Panagopoulos has also studied the effects of paying people
to vote, and an article on his findings, “Extrinsic Rewards, Intrinsic
Motivation and Voting,” was published in the Journal
of Politics.
The idea of paying people is not a new one. In 2006, Arizona
legislators proposed entering voters into a lottery for a cash prize.
It was rejected, but the idea was resurrected recently in Los Angeles.
In his research, Panagopoulos found that when incentives
ranging from $1 or $2 to $10 to $25 were offered, there was a slight
uptick in turnout. The lower amount had a marginal effect, whereas the
$10 or $25 stimulated turnout by 3 to 7 percentage points.
“We’re learning a great deal about why people vote and
engage in costly pro-social behaviors like voting,” Panagopoulos said.
“The more we know about the psychological mechanisms and the
other forces behind why people decide to vote or to abstain, the more
we can leverage that information.”
Panagopoulos is crafting field experiments related to
campaign finance, as part of a nearly $1 million grant he secured last
year from the Open Society Foundation and the Omidyar Network’s
Democracy Fund. The experiments, which are collaborations with
colleagues at Columbia and Binghamton universities, will measure
perceptions of how money influences politics, and whether or not there’s
a disproportionate influence of money on politicians and political
outcomes.
Recent Supreme Court decisions in cases such as 2010’s Citizens United and this year’s McCutcheon v. FEC,
have radically changed the ways that candidates pay for political
campaigns. As a result, concerns about possible corruption are rising.
“Voters are somewhat torn,” Panagopoulos said. “On the one
hand, they know campaigns are super expensive and have to be financed
somehow. But at the same time, they want to make sure there are
mechanisms in place to prevent corruption or even the appearance of
corruption, and sustain the legitimacy of the democratic process.”
On Nov. 4th, he’ll be joining analysts at NBC News’ Decision Desk,
as he has in every election cycle since 2006. As it is a midterm
election, the fate of congressional control will be determined more than
ever by sheer turnout numbers.
“Understanding the voter calculus is crucial, especially for
those interested in mobilizing voters in low-turnout elections like
these,” he said.
love is happiness.it gives comfort to someone
ආදරය happiness.it කෙනෙකුට සැප දෙන වේඅපමණ දුක්ගිනි නිවා සදහම් අමා දිය දහරින් සිත් සතන් සනසන අප සම්මා සම්බුදුරජාණන් වහන්සේ
උසස් පුද්ගලයෙකු බවට පත් වීමට නම්
අපගේ මනැස වැරැදි අයුරින් හසුරවයි නම් දිවි පැවැත්ම අස්වාභාවික බවට පත් වෙයි. එයින් සිය ජීවිතයටම විශාල බලපෑමක් ඇතිවිය හැකිය. කෙනෙකු ශ්රේෂ්ඨයකු බවට පත් වන්නේ ඔහුගේ මනැසෙහි ස්වභාවය අනුවමය. වර්ණයෙන් හෝ රූපයෙන් මිනිසා හඳුනා ගැනීම අපහසුය. එසේ එක් වරක් දුටු පමණින් මිනිසා විශ්වාස කළ නොහැකිය. අයහපත් ගතිපැවතුම් ඇති මිනිස්සු යහපත් මිනිසුන්ගේ ස්වරූපයෙන් පෙනී සිටින බැවිනි.
|
නැණවතෙකුට මනා සිහි නුවණින් දිගු කලක් කෙනෙකුගේ කතා ව්යවහාරයට අවධානය යොමු කිරීමෙන් ඔහුගේ පිරිසුදු බව දැනගත හැකිය.
පුද්ගලයෙකුට කරදර විපත් වලට මුහුණ දෙන ආකාරය සිහිනුවණින් බොහෝ කාලයක් විමර්ශනයට ලක් කිරීමෙන් ඔහුගේ ඥාන ශක්තිය, අභ්යන්තර ශක්තිය අවබෝධ කර ගත හැකිය.
නැණවතෙකුට ඉතා දීර්ඝ කාලයක් කෙනෙකු සමග සිහිනුවණින් සාකච්ඡා කිරීමෙන් ඔහුගේ පඤ්ඤාව හෙවත් අවබෝධඤාණය හඳුනාගත හැකිය
No comments:
Post a Comment
Have a fantastic day.