Table Of ContentTamingIntuition
Thesuccessofdemocraticgovernancehingesonanelectorate’sability
torewardelectedofficialswhoactfaithfullyandpunishthosewhodo
not. Yet there is considerable variation among voters in their ability
to objectively evaluate representatives’ performance. In this book the
authorsdevelopatheoreticalmodel,theIntuitionistModelofPolitical
Reasoning, which posits that this variation across voters is the result
of individual differences in the predisposition to reflect on and to
override partisan impulses. Individuals differ in partisan intuitions
resulting from the strength of their attachments to parties, as well
as the degree to which they are willing to engage in the cognitively
taxing process of evaluating those intuitions. The balance of these
forces – the strength of intuitions and the willingness to second-guess
one’s self – determines the extent to which individuals update their
assessmentsofpoliticalpartiesandelectedofficialsinarationalmanner.
Kevin Arceneaux is Professor of Political Science, Faculty Affiliate
with the Institute for Public Affairs, and Director of the Behavioral
FoundationsLabatTempleUniversity.Hestudiespoliticalpsychology
andpoliticalcommunication,focusingonhowtheinteractionbetween
political messages and people’s political predispositions shapes
attitudesandbehavior.HeiscoauthorofChangingMindsorChanging
Channels (2013), which investigates the influence of ideologically
slanted news programming and received the 2014 Goldsmith Book
Prize from Harvard University. His work has also been published in
American Political Science Review, American Journal of Politics, and
elsewhere.
Ryan J. Vander Wielen is Associate Professor of Political Science and
(by courtesy) Economics, and Faculty Affiliate with the Behavioral
Foundations Lab at Temple University. His teaching and research
interests are in the areas of American political institutions, political
behavior, quantitative methodology, and formal modeling. His work
has been published in The American Journal of Political Science,
British Journal of Political Science, Legislative Studies Quarterly,
Political Analysis, Public Choice, and elsewhere. He is also the coau-
thor of Politics over Process (forthcoming), The American Congress
(Cambridge University Press, 2015), and The American Congress
Reader(CambridgeUniversityPress,2009).
Published online by Cambridge University Press
Published online by Cambridge University Press
Taming Intuition
How Reflection Minimizes Partisan Reasoning and
Promotes Democratic Accountability
KEVIN ARCENEAUX
TempleUniversity
RYAN J. VANDER WIELEN
TempleUniversity
Published online by Cambridge University Press
UniversityPrintingHouse,Cambridgecb28bs,UnitedKingdom
OneLibertyPlaza,20thFloor,NewYork,ny10006,usa
477WilliamstownRoad,PortMelbourne,VIC3207,Australia
4843/24,2ndFloor,AnsariRoad,Daryaganj,Delhi–110002,India
79AnsonRoad,#06-04/06,Singapore079906
CambridgeUniversityPressispartoftheUniversityofCambridge.
ItfurtherstheUniversity’smissionbydisseminatingknowledgeinthepursuitof
education,learning,andresearchatthehighestinternationallevelsofexcellence.
www.cambridge.org
Informationonthistitle:www.cambridge.org/9781108415101
DOI:10.1017/9781108227643
©CambridgeUniversityPress2017
Thispublicationisincopyright.Subjecttostatutoryexception
andtotheprovisionsofrelevantcollectivelicensingagreements,
noreproductionofanypartmaytakeplacewithoutthewritten
permissionofCambridgeUniversityPress.
Firstpublished2017
PrintedintheUnitedStatesofAmericabySheridanBooks,Inc.
AcataloguerecordforthispublicationisavailablefromtheBritishLibrary.
isbn978-1-108-41510-1Hardback
isbn978-1-108-40031-2Paperback
CambridgeUniversityPresshasnoresponsibilityforthepersistenceoraccuracyof
urlsforexternalorthird-partyinternetwebsitesreferredtointhispublication,
anddoesnotguaranteethatanycontentonsuchwebsitesis,orwillremain,
accurateorappropriate.
Published online by Cambridge University Press
Contents
ListofFigures pageviii
ListofTables x
PrefaceandAcknowledgments xiii
1 DemocraticAccountabilityandthe“Rational”Citizen 1
1.1 DoPartisanAttachmentsUndermine
DemocraticAccountability? 6
1.2 OurTake:PeopleAreDifferent 10
1.3 ReflectionMakesRationalityPossible 12
1.4 PlanoftheBook 15
2 ATheoryofIndividualDifferencesinReflectionandthe
IntuitionistModelofPoliticalReasoning 18
2.1 OpeningtheBlackBox 19
2.2 VaryingDegreesofRationality 23
2.2.1 TwoPathwaystoRationality 24
2.2.2 CapturingIndividualDifferencesinReflection 27
2.3 TheInfluenceofPartisanAttachmentsandtheIntuitionist
ModelofPoliticalReasoning 35
2.4 OurContribution 40
3 MeasuringIndividualDifferencesinReflection 46
3.1 NeedforCognition 46
3.2 NeedforAffect 49
v
Published online by Cambridge University Press
vi Contents
3.3 DoNeedforAffectandNeedforCognitionMeasure
IndividualDifferencesinReflection? 53
3.3.1 TheData 54
3.3.2 DiscriminantValidity 63
3.3.3 ConvergentValidity 74
3.4 AreDemocratsMoreReflectivethanRepublicans? 85
3.5 Summary 87
4 ToeingtheLine:PartisanIdentitiesandPolicyAttitudes 88
4.1 Parties,Preferences,andAttitudes 90
4.2 TheRoleofReflectioninAttitudeFormation 94
4.3 PartyCueExperiments 96
4.3.1 PartyCuesonaLowSalienceIssue:Federalism 98
4.3.2 PartyCuesonaHighSalienceIssue:HealthCare 103
4.4 ExplainingVariationinPartisanStability 105
4.5 Summary 110
5 ThrowingtheRascalsOut:PartisanIdentitiesand
PoliticalEvaluations 113
5.1 AreFactsintheEyeoftheBeholder? 115
5.2 TheRoleofReflectioninPoliticalEvaluations 119
5.3 TheBeliefPerseveranceExperiment 121
5.4 TheEconomyandPresidentialEvaluations 124
5.5 WhoVotesthePartyLine? 130
5.6 Summary 133
6 Can’tWeDisagreewithoutBeingDisagreeable?TheRoleof
ReflectioninaPolarizedPolity 135
6.1 UsversusThem:TheAffectiveRootsofPolarization 137
6.2 ReflectionandPolarization 139
6.2.1 IssuePolarization 140
6.2.2 AffectivePolarization 143
6.3 PolarizingRhetoricContributestoAffectivePolarization 145
6.4 Summary 150
7 ReflectionsontheRoleofReflectioninDemocracies 152
7.1 ReflectionPromotesDemocraticAccountability 155
Published online by Cambridge University Press
Contents vii
7.2 ReflectionDoesNotAlwaysLeadtoNormatively
DesirableOutcomes 163
7.3 ScopeandLimitationsoftheIntuitionistModel 165
7.4 BroaderImplicationsandPathwaysforFutureResearch 168
7.4.1 PsychologicalFoundationsofMotivatedReasoning 168
7.4.2 StrategiestoMotivateReflection(orMinimizeIts
Importance) 171
7.4.3 ACallforBetterMeasurement 173
7.5 Conclusion 174
Appendix:DetailsofEmpiricalStudiesandStatisticalAnalyses 177
A.1 DescriptionofStudies 177
A.2 MeasuringNeedforAffectandNeedforCognitionand
ModelEstimationStrategy 186
A.3 QuestionWordingforCovariates 189
A.4 Image-LevelCorrelationswithNFC/NFAandDistributional
Analysis 191
A.5 ImplicitPartisanAffectTestPredictions 195
A.6 StatisticalTables 196
A.6.1 Chapter3Tables 196
A.6.2 Chapter4Tables 199
A.6.3 Chapter5Tables 202
A.6.4 Chapter6Tables 207
A.6.5 Chapter7Tables 212
Notes 213
References 221
Index 241
Published online by Cambridge University Press
Figures
2.1 Dual-ProcessModelofInformationProcessing page25
2.2 HypotheticalExampleofanAssociativeNetwork 29
2.3 PsychologicalMotivationsandtheDual-ProcessModelof
InformationProcessing 32
2.4 TheExpectedInfluenceofSystem1Forcefulnessand
System2EngagementonReflection 33
2.5 TheIntuitionistModelofPoliticalReasoning 38
3.1 DistributionsofNeedforAffectandNeedforCognition,
PartyCuesStudy 59
3.2 JointDistributionsofNeedforAffectandNeedfor
Cognition,PartyCuesStudy 60
3.3 PercentageofReflectiveandNonreflectiveTypesof
IndividualsacrossVariousCutPoints 61
3.4 BivariateCorrelationsamongNeedforAffectandNeed
forCognitionandPersonalityDifferences 65
3.5 BivariateCorrelationsamongNeedforAffectandNeed
forCognitionandPoliticalCharacteristics 66
3.6 BivariateCorrelationsamongNeedforAffectandNeed
forCognitionandDemographicCharacteristics 67
3.7 BivariateCorrelationsbetweenNeedforAffectand
EmotionResponse,EmotionProcessingStudy 72
3.8 BivariateCorrelationsbetweenNeedforCognitionand
EmotionResponse,EmotionProcessingStudy 73
3.9 ExamplesofScreensfromImplicitPartisanAffectTest 77
3.10 AssociationsbetweenNeedforAffect,Needfor
Cognition,andImplicitPartisanAffectiveAttachmentfor
StrongPartisansandIndependents,EmotionProcessingStudy 79
viii
Published online by Cambridge University Press
Figures ix
3.11 NeedforAffectandNeedforCognitionPredict
PerformanceontheCognitiveReflectionTask,PartyCues
Study 81
3.12 AssociationsbetweenNeedforAffect,Needfor
Cognition,andRiskOptimization,PartyCuesStudy 84
3.13 PartisanDifferencesinNeedforAffectandNeedfor
Cognition,PartyCuesStudy 86
4.1 TheEffectsofPartyCuesversusPolicyInformationona
LowSalienceIssue,PartyCuesStudy 102
4.2 TheEffectsofPartyCuesversusPolicyInformationona
HighSalienceIssue,PartyCuesStudy 106
4.3 TheRelationshipbetweenWeakeningPartisanIdentity
andNeedforAffectandNeedforCognition,2012
CampaignStudy 109
5.1 PredictedChangeinEvaluationofGovernorby
Low-NFC/High-NFAandHigh-NFC/Low-NFA
Participants,GovernorEvaluationStudy 124
5.2 ShiftsinEconomicPerceptionsfrom2000to2004,
AmericanNationalElectionPanelStudy 126
5.3 TheEffectofShiftsinMonthlyUnemploymentonChange
inApprovalofPresidentObama,TheAmericanPanel
Survey2011–2015 129
5.4 TheRelationshipbetweenStraight-TicketVotingandNeed
forAffectandNeedforCognition,2012CampaignStudy 132
6.1 ReflectionandIssuePolarization,2012CampaignStudy
andIssuePolarizationStudy 142
6.2 ReflectionandAffectivePolarization,PartyCuesStudy 144
6.3 ReflectionandAttributionofPersonalityTraitstoInparty
andOutpartyMembers,PartyCuesStudy 146
6.4 ReflectionandtheEffectofPolarizedRhetoriconAnger,
PartyCuesStudy 149
7.1 ThePredictedEffectsofShirkingonSupportforInparty
RepresentativesamongReflectiveandUnreflectivePartisans 158
7.2 TheEffectsofShirkingandDistrict-LevelCompositionof
ReflectiveVotersonSupportforIncumbentRepresentatives 160
7.3 ThePsychologicalFoundationsofMotivatedReasoning 169
A.1 DistributionalComparisonofNFC/NFAacrossTertilesof
EmotionalRespones 192
A.2 AssociationsbetweenNeedforAffect,Needfor
Cognition,andImplicitPartisanAffectiveAttachmentfor
StrongPartisans,LeaningPartisans,WeakPartisans,and
Independents,EmotionProcessingStudy 195
Published online by Cambridge University Press
Tables
3.1 TheNeedforCognitionBattery page48
3.2 TheNeedforAffectBattery 51
3.3 SummaryofEmpiricalStudies 55
3.4 TheCognitiveReflectionTask 80
5.1 TextofStimuliinBeliefPerseveranceExperiment 123
6.1 TextofStimuliinPolarizedRhetoricExperiment 148
A.1 SummaryStatisticsforStudies 180
A.2 BalanceTestsfortheBeliefPreservationandPolarized
RhetoricExperiments 181
A.3 BalanceTestsfortheLowSalienceIssuePartyCue
Experiment 182
A.4 BalanceTestsfortheHighSalienceIssuePartyCue
Experiment 184
A.5 QuestionWordingforBigFiveTraits 189
A.6 QuestionWordingforDemographicControls 190
A.7 Image-LevelCorrelationswithNeedforAffectandNeed
forCognition 191
A.8 AssociationsbetweenNeedforAffect,Needfor
Cognition,andImplicitPartisanAffectiveAttachmentfor
StrongPartisansandIndependents,EmotionProcessing
Study 196
A.9 NeedforAffectandNeedforCognitionPredict
PerformanceontheCognitiveReflectionTask,PartyCues
Study 197
A.10 AssociationsbetweenNeedforAffect,Needfor
Cognition,andRiskOptimization,PartyCuesStudy 198
x
Published online by Cambridge University Press
