2005
DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00174.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Cognitive Heterogeneity and Economic Voting: A Comparative Analysis of Four Democratic Electorates

Abstract: This article examines the cognitive foundations of economic voting in four diverse

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

5
65
0
3

Year Published

2010
2010
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 120 publications
(73 citation statements)
references
References 59 publications
5
65
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Cutler's evidence suggests that they simply refocused on other, simpler, issues (34-5). The implication of this, that attributions of responsibility are clear and influential for a subset of the electorate, is in line with evidence presented by Gomez and Wilson (2006) that economic voting in Canada is largely the province of the more politically sophisticated.…”
Section: Attributions Of Responsibilitysupporting
confidence: 77%
“…Cutler's evidence suggests that they simply refocused on other, simpler, issues (34-5). The implication of this, that attributions of responsibility are clear and influential for a subset of the electorate, is in line with evidence presented by Gomez and Wilson (2006) that economic voting in Canada is largely the province of the more politically sophisticated.…”
Section: Attributions Of Responsibilitysupporting
confidence: 77%
“…Third, in theorizing about the effects of ideological congruence on citizen satisfaction we aim to add to existing work that, by giving serious consideration to citizen heterogeneity, eschews the idea that citizens are all cut from the same cloth (De Vries and Giger 2014; Gomez and Wilson 2006;Hakhverdian and Mayne 2012). In addition to examining the direct relationship between our five measures of congruence and citizen satisfaction, using a set of…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Depending on level of sophistication, voters employ different judgmental criteria (Sniderman et al 1991;Rivers, 1988;Gomez and Wilson 2001;Gomez and Wilson 2006). Individuals with more sophistication put more weight on issue positions and policy differences while those on the lower end of the sophistication scale pay more the attention to the candidates' personality traits (Converse 1964;Knight 1985;Sniderman et al 1991).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%