Individual Submission Summary
Share...

Direct link:

(iPoster) Increasing Voter Motivation in Close Elections: An fMRI Experimental Study

Fri, September 12, 2:30 to 3:00pm PDT (2:30 to 3:00pm PDT), TBA

Abstract

As summarized by Jost et al. (2014), Schreiber (2017), and Haas et al. (2020), neuroscientific approaches have become one of the new methods for elucidating political psychology and political behavior. Neuro-political science has dealt with the effects of voters' ideology and partisanship(Mitchell et al., 2006 ; Amodio et al., 2007 ; Kaplan et al., 2007;Kanai et al., 2011 ; Krosch et al., 2013 ; Tusche et al., 2013), their trust and preferences for candidates and information(Knutson et al., 2006 ; Westen et al., 2006;Zamboni et al., 2009 ; Kato et al., 2009 ; Rule et al., 2010 ; Cloutier et al., 2011 ; Moore et al., 2021), the dynamics of voting behavior (Rocha et al., 2010; Falk et al., 2012; Çakar and Filiz, 2023), and normative behavior (Bischoff et al., 2013 ; Takesue et al., 2017). Unlike behavioral experiments and survey experiments, neuro-scientific experiments have the advantage and uniqueness of directly exploring the “black box” of the micro-mechanisms of human decision-making.
In this study, we focus on “P” in the classic model of voting participation organized by Riker and Ordeshook (1968), namely R (the benefit of individual voter participation) = P (the probability that one's vote can affect the election result) * B (the expected utility difference between political parties/candidates) - C (the cost of voting) + D (the benefit of voting itself, such as the long-term benefit of maintaining democracy and the satisfaction of civic duty). In actual elections, there are tens of thousands of eligible voters in each constituency, so the possibility of one voter having an impact on the election result is objectively very small. Nevertheless, it has often been pointed out that turnout increases in close elections (e.g. Cancel and Geys 2016). In elections with high political conflict and competitiveness, mobilization and the injection of political funds may have pushed up actual turnout. On the other hand, it has also been suggested that in close elections, voters may subjectively overestimate the influence of their own vote.
In a behavioral experiment conducted by Levine and Palfrey (2007) with a small number of participants, it was confirmed that turnout increased in elections with a high degree of closeness. So, in elections with a large number of voters, does the willingness of participants to vote increase under the condition of a close election? In this study, we asked participants to imagine a hypothetical constituency of 30,000 people and to participate in an experiment in which they would decide whether or not to vote for a candidate they supported by looking at newspaper headlines about election information. Using actual newspaper articles reporting on the state of the election, we prepared 120 different headlines to indicate whether the candidate supported by the subject was a) considerably dominant, b) considerably inferior, c) somewhat dominant or d) somewhat inferior. These were shown to over 20 subjects at random for a few seconds each, and their brain activity was imaged using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI).
The results of the experiment confirmed that when the participants saw headlines about close elections, especially when the candidate they supported was slightly inferior, the parts of their brain related to concentration of attention and preparation for action were activated. In addition, the effects of the participants' political psychology characteristics, ideological strength and political sophistication were also examined. This study approaches the micro-mechanisms that increase voters' motivation to participate in politics in highly competitive elections, and the image of voters who become excited in elections with an uncertain outcome.

Author