Dataset Information

Do implicit attitudes predict actual voting behavior particularly for undecided voters?

ABSTRACT: The prediction of voting behavior of undecided voters poses a challenge to psychologists and pollsters. Recently, researchers argued that implicit attitudes would predict voting behavior particularly for undecided voters whereas explicit attitudes would predict voting behavior particularly for decided voters. We tested this assumption in two studies in two countries with distinct political systems in the context of real political elections. Results revealed that (a) explicit attitudes predicted voting behavior better than implicit attitudes for both decided and undecided voters, and (b) implicit attitudes predicted voting behavior better for decided than undecided voters. We propose that greater elaboration of attitudes produces stronger convergence between implicit and explicit attitudes resulting in better predictive validity of both, and less incremental validity of implicit over explicit attitudes for the prediction of voting behavior. However, greater incremental predictive validity of implicit over explicit attitudes may be associated with less elaboration.

SUBMITTER: Friese M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3430672 | biostudies-literature | 2012

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Do implicit attitudes predict actual voting behavior particularly for undecided voters?

Friese Malte M Smith Colin Tucker CT Plischke Thomas T Bluemke Matthias M Nosek Brian A BA

PloS one 20120829 8

The prediction of voting behavior of undecided voters poses a challenge to psychologists and pollsters. Recently, researchers argued that implicit attitudes would predict voting behavior particularly for undecided voters whereas explicit attitudes would predict voting behavior particularly for decided voters. We tested this assumption in two studies in two countries with distinct political systems in the context of real political elections. Results revealed that (a) explicit attitudes predicted ...[more]

PMID: 22952898

Similar Datasets

Project description:Human rationality--the ability to behave in order to maximize the achievement of their presumed goals (i.e., their optimal choices)--is the foundation for democracy. Research evidence has suggested that voters may not make decisions after exhaustively processing relevant information; instead, our decision-making capacity may be restricted by our own biases and the environment. In this paper, we investigate the extent to which humans in a democratic society can be rational when making decisions in a serious, complex situation-voting in a local political election. We believe examining human rationality in a political election is important, because a well-functioning democracy rests largely upon the rational choices of individual voters. Previous research has shown that explicit political attitudes predict voting intention and choices (i.e., actual votes) in democratic societies, indicating that people are able to reason comprehensively when making voting decisions. Other work, though, has demonstrated that the attitudes of which we may not be aware, such as our implicit (e.g., subconscious) preferences, can predict voting choices, which may question the well-functioning democracy. In this study, we systematically examined predictors on voting intention and choices in the 2014 mayoral election in Taipei, Taiwan. Results indicate that explicit political party preferences had the largest impact on voting intention and choices. Moreover, implicit political party preferences interacted with explicit political party preferences in accounting for voting intention, and in turn predicted voting choices. Ethnic identity and perceived voting intention of significant others were found to predict voting choices, but not voting intention. In sum, to the comfort of democracy, voters appeared to engage mainly explicit, controlled processes in making their decisions; but findings on ethnic identity and perceived voting intention of significant others may suggest otherwise.

Project description:BackgroundStrategies to promote physical activity (PA) focus mainly on changing or fostering explicit cognitions and are only modestly effective. Contemporary studies suggest that, as well as explicit cognitions, implicit cognitions influence health behavior, such as PA, and that implicit processes interact with the intention to be active. Relatively little is known about whether implicit processes interact with other explicit cognitions which determine PA intention and behavior, i.e. self-efficacy. The aim of the current study was to investigate the direct effects of explicit cognitions and implicit attitudes on PA behavior as well as interactions between them regarding intention and behavior prediction.MethodsIn a longitudinal study, participants (N = 340) completed self-report measures of explicit cognitions (perceived pros, perceived cons, social norms, social modeling, self-efficacy, intention) and activity levels, as well as a Single-Category Implicit Association Task to measure implicit attitudes towards PA at baseline (T0), and at one (T1) and 3 months thereafter (T2).ResultsHierarchical multiple regressions revealed that T0-positive implicit attitudes moderated the relationship between T0 self-efficacy and T1 PA. Similarly, T0-neutral implicit attitudes were associated with the relationship between T0 intention and T1 PA. Negative implicit attitudes strengthened the negative relationship between perceived cons and intention at baseline; neutral or positive implicit attitudes strengthened the positive relationship between self-efficacy and intention. At the follow-ups, the relationship between social modeling and intention was strengthened by negative implicit attitudes.ConclusionThis study revealed important insights into how implicit attitudes and explicit cognitions synergistically predict PA intention and behavior. As well as targeting explicit cognitions, steering a person's implicit attitude towards a more positive one, i.e. by implicit cognitive trainings, could help to increase both PA intention and behavior.

Dataset Information

Do implicit attitudes predict actual voting behavior particularly for undecided voters?

Publications

Do implicit attitudes predict actual voting behavior particularly for undecided voters?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets