Dr. Jon Krosnick, a Stanford University professor specializing in political psychology, dives deep into the psychology behind voter behavior just before a presidential election. He discusses the impact of emotional appeals and personal interactions in campaign strategies. Krosnick explains how voter opinions can shift dramatically as election day approaches, particularly regarding key figures like Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. He also reveals how ballot order can sway decisions, and critiques the reliability of polling in capturing the electorate's mood.
Voter ambivalence influences election decisions, making campaigns' understanding of conflicted opinions essential for effectively engaging undecided voters.
The decision to vote is intertwined with candidate preference, highlighting the importance of personal engagement in boosting voter turnout compared to traditional methods.
Deep dives
The Psychology of Voter Ambivalence
Voter ambivalence plays a significant role in shaping opinions during an election. Many members of the electorate may possess conflicting feelings toward candidates, particularly when the candidates are relatively new or present complex positions. This ambivalence leads to indecision and makes voters more susceptible to influence as they consider how their views may shift based on the messages from campaign strategies. Understanding this ambivalence is crucial for political campaigns, as it provides insight into how to approach undecided voters effectively.
Motivating Voter Turnout
Research indicates that there is an intricate connection between the decision to vote and the choice of candidate. Historically, it was believed that these decisions were separate; however, recent studies show that attitudes toward candidates can significantly influence voter turnout. For example, experiments demonstrate that simply asking individuals if they plan to vote can increase participation rates, as this prompts a self-fulfilling prophecy. Campaign strategies that include personal engagement methods, such as face-to-face interactions, have proven to be more effective than phone calls or mailings in increasing voter turnout.
Polling Accuracy and Misconceptions
Accurate polling is essential for understanding public opinion, but many contemporary polls use flawed methodologies. Research illustrates that random sampling yields far more reliable results than non-random samples, which often lead to significant inaccuracies. In past elections, inaccuracies in polling were particularly pronounced with methods that did not account for all eligible voters, which could skew predictions dramatically. Although established techniques exist for conducting accurate polls, their application has dwindled, resulting in widespread reliance on less effective polling practices.
We’re one month away from the presidential election. The campaigns are in high gear, trying to get their messages out, and hoping that those messages will be enough to motivate voters to both go to the polls—and to vote in their favor.
But just how solid are people’s political opinions at this point? Can anyone be swayed at this point by another debate, campaign ad, or stump speech talking point? And how do campaigns judge the mood of the electorate to better position their messages?
Dr. Jon Krosnick, director of the Political Psychology Research Group at Stanford University, joins Ira Flatow to talk about political decision-making, the ways campaigns can influence voters, the effectiveness of polling, and what researchers know about how people make and hold opinions.
Transcripts for each segment will be available after the show airs on sciencefriday.com.