Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T09:27:56.112Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 6 - In ‘A League of Their Own?’

Judgement and Decision-Making by Politicians and Non-Politicians

from Part I - Of the People

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 February 2022

By
Barbara Vis  and
Sjoerd Stolwijk
Edited by
Ashley Weinberg
Ashley Weinberg
Affiliation:
University of Salford
Get access

Summary

Are there systematic differences between the behaviour of politicians – such as ministers, members of parliament or elected municipal council members – and that of ‘the rest of us’? Are politicians in a ‘league of their own’ in terms of how they take decisions and make judgements? In the existing literature, there is no overriding consensus or clear majority of findings on these questions. We add to this literature by leveraging results from an experiment with two samples: (1) Dutch locally elected politicians (n = 211) and (2) students (n = 260). The experiment examined whether these two groups displayed biases related to the representativeness heuristic and the availability heuristic – two so-called general purpose heuristics – and whether they displayed the reflection effect. Our findings demonstrate that politicians’ judgements and decisions are largely similar to those of the rest of us, indicating that there is little evidence of an elite-public gap in this respect. Under specific circumstances, however, politicians do differ in their judgement and decision making. These differences may have consequences for the functioning of representative democracy and for policy making. It is especially noteworthy that in this study political experience or expertise did not reduce decision-making biases.

Keywords

Judgmentdecision makingpoliticianselite-public gaprepresentativeness heuristicreflection effect
Type
Chapter
Information
Psychology of Democracy
Of the People, By the People, For the People
 , pp. 124 - 145
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baumgartner, F. R. and Jones, B. D. (2015). The politics of information: Problem definition and the course of public policy in America. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bellur, S. and Sundar, S. S. (2014). How can we tell when a heuristic has been used? Design and analysis strategies for capturing the operation of heuristics. Communication Methods and Measures, 8(2), 116–137.Google Scholar
Besley, T. (2005). Political selection. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(3), 43–60.Google Scholar
Bovens, M. and Wille, A. (2017). Diploma democracy: The rise of political meritocracy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, B., Smith, A., Siverson, R. M. and Morrow, J. D. (2003). The logic of political survival. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Byman, D. L. and Pollack, K. M. (2001). Let us now praise great men: Bringing the statesman back in. International Security, 25(4), 107–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Copeland, D. C. (2001). Theory and history in the study of major war. Security Studies, 10(4), 212–239.Google Scholar
Evans, J. S. B. T. and Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 223–241.Google Scholar
Fatas, E., Neugebauer, T. and Tamborero, P. (2007). How politicians make decisions: A political choice experiment. Journal of Economics, 92(2), 167–196.Google Scholar
Fréchette, G. R. (20011). Laboratory experiments: Professionals versus student. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1939219 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1939219Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. and Selten, R. (Eds.) (2001). Bounded rationality: The adaptive toolbox. Cambridge, MA and London, UK: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gilovich, T., Griffin, D. and Kahneman, D. (Eds.) (2002). Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hafner-Burton, E. M., Alex Hughes, D. and Victor, D. G. (2013). The cognitive revolution and the political psychology of elite decision making. Perspectives on Politics, 11(2), 368–386. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592713001084Google Scholar
Hale, T., Webster, S., Petherick, A., Phillips, T. and Kira, B. (2020). Oxford COVID-19 government response tracker. Blavatnik School of Government. Available at: www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/research/research-projects/covid-19-government-response-tracker.Google Scholar
Hallsworth, M., Egan, M., Rutter, J. and McCrae, J. (2018). Behavioural government: Using behavioural science to improve how governments make decisions. London: The Behavioural Insights Team.Google Scholar
Heß, M., Scheve, C. von, Schupp, J. and Wagner, G. G. (2013). Members of German federal parliament more risk-loving than general population. SOEP Papers 546. Accessed at: www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.418993.de/diw_sp0546.pdf.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. and Frederick, S. (2002). Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., and Kahneman, D. (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 49–81). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–193.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1972). Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology, 3(3), 430–454.Google Scholar
Kelman, M. (2011). The heuristics debate. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kertzer, J. D. (2020). Re-assessing elite-public gaps in political behavior. American Journal of Political Science, https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12583Google Scholar
Linde, J. and Vis, B. (2017). Do politicians take risks like the rest of us? An experimental test of prospect theory under MPs. Political Psychology, 38(1), 101–117.Google Scholar
List, J. A. (2004). Neoclassical theory versus prospect theory: Evidence from the marketplace. Econometrica, 72(2), 615–625. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0262.2004.00502.xGoogle Scholar
Mattozzi, A. and Merlo, A. (2008). Political careers or career politicians? Journal of Public Economics, 92(3–4), 597–608.Google Scholar
Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties (2016). Staat van het Bestuur. Available at: https://kennisopenbaarbestuur.nl/media/254488/staat-van-het-bestuur-2016-webrichtlijnenproof.pdf.Google Scholar
Mintz, A., Redd, S. B. and Vedlitz, A. (2006). Can we generalize from student experiments to the real world in political science, military affairs, and international relations? Journal of Conflict Resolution, 50(5), 757–776.Google Scholar
Newell, B. R., Lagnado, D. A. and Shanks, D. R. (2015). Straight choices: The psychology of decision making (2nd ed.). Hove and New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Rahat, G. (2007). Candidate selection: The choice before the choice. Journal of Democracy, 18(1), 157–170.Google Scholar
Renshon, J. (2015). Losing face and sinking costs: Experimental evidence on the judgment of political and military leaders. International Organization, 69(3), 659–695.Google Scholar
Sheffer, L. (2018). Behavioural foundations of elite politics: How individual-level characteristics shape the decision making of elected politicians. PhD Dissertation: University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Sheffer, L., Loewen, P. J., Soroka, S., Walgrave, S. and Shaefer, T. (2018). Nonrepresentative representatives: An experimental study of the decision making of elected politicians. American Political Science Review, 112(2), 302–321.Google Scholar
Simonson, I. and Tversky, A. (1992). Choice in context: Tradeoff contrast and extremeness aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(3), 231–295.Google Scholar
Stolwijk, S. (2019). The representativeness heuristic in political decision making. In Redlawsk, D. P., Erisen, C., Hennes, E., Oxley, Z., Schreiber, D. and Vis, B. (Eds.), The Oxford research encyclopedia of politics. Available at: https://oxfordre.com/politics/browse?page=60&pageSize=20&sort=authorsort&subSite=politics.Google Scholar
Stolwijk, S. and Vis, B. (2020). Politicians, the representativeness heuristic and decision-making Biases. Political Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-020-09594-6Google Scholar
Stolwijk, S. and Vis, B. (2018). Political decision making and the availability heuristic. Paper prepared for the seventy-sixth Annual MPSA Conference, Chicago, USA, 5–8 April.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review, 90(4), 293–315.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5(2), 207–232.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. and Simonson, I. (1993). Context-dependent preferences. Management Science, 39(10), 1179–1189.Google Scholar
Vieider, F. and Vis, B. (2019). Prospect theory in political decision making. In Redlawsk, D., Erisen, C., Hennes, E., Oxley, Z., Schreiber, D. and Vis, B. (Eds.), Oxford research encyclopedia of politics. Available at: https://oxfordre.com/politics/browse?page=60&pageSize=20&sort=authorsort&subSite=politics.Google Scholar
Vis, B. (2019). Heuristics and political elites’ judgment and decision making. Political Studies Review, 17(1), 41–52.Google Scholar
Von Neumann, J. and Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Walgrave, S., Epping, L. and Sevenan, J. (2013). Het Informatiemenu van politici en hun medewerkers: Resultaten van Interviews met Federale Parlementsleden, Ministers, Partijvoorzitters en hun Persoonlijke Medewerkers. Antwerp: University of Antwerp.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×