The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Irrelevant events affect voters' evaluations of government performance
Open accessAbstract
Does information irrelevant to government performance affect voting behavior? If so, how does this help us understand the mechanisms underlying voters’ retrospective assessments of candidates’ performance in office? To precisely test for the effects of irrelevant information, we explore the electoral impact of local college football games just before an election, irrelevant events that government has nothing to do with and for which no government response would be expected. We find that a win in the 10 d before Election Day causes the incumbent to receive an additional 1.61 percentage points of the vote in Senate, gubernatorial, and presidential elections, with the effect being larger for teams with stronger fan support. In addition to conducting placebo tests based on postelection games, we demonstrate these effects by using the betting market's estimate of a team's probability of winning the game before it occurs to isolate the surprise component of game outcomes. We corroborate these aggregate-level results with a survey that we conducted during the 2009 NCAA men's college basketball tournament, where we find that surprising wins and losses affect presidential approval. An experiment embedded within the survey also indicates that personal well-being may influence voting decisions on a subconscious level. We find that making people more aware of the reasons for their current state of mind reduces the effect that irrelevant events have on their opinions. These findings underscore the subtle power of irrelevant events in shaping important real-world decisions and suggest ways in which decision making can be improved.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Lazarus, R. S. (1991) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780195069945.001.0001 · Cited by 12,691
Attachment and Loss. Vol. 1. Attachment
Rever, G. W. (1972) · Psychosomatic Medicine · doi:10.1097/00006842-197211000-00011 · Cited by 8,446 · cited 1×
“Theorists have found that emotions are adaptive (20, 21), facilitating evaluative judgments when affective reactions are caused by the object of evaluation (6, 22, 23) and promoting attentiveness and deliberation when one senses that a task is not going well (24).”
BackgroundStatus quo bias in decision making
Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988) · Journal of Risk and Uncertainty · doi:10.1007/bf00055564 · Cited by 5,897
Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1983) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.45.3.513 · Cited by 4,952
Bower, G. H. (1981) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.36.2.129 · Cited by 4,154
Mood and judgment: The affect infusion model (AIM).
Forgas, J. P. (1995) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.1.39 · Cited by 3,470
Point Shaving: Corruption in NCAA Basketball
Wolfers, J. (2006) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/000282806777211757 · Cited by 166
On the Probability of Winning a Football Game
Stern, H. (1991) · The American Statistician · doi:10.1080/00031305.1991.10475798 · Cited by 106
Cited by
Quantifying the influence of climate on human conflict
Hsiang, S. M., Burke, M., & Miguel, E. (2013) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1235367 · Cited by 1,827
The Elusive Backfire Effect: Mass Attitudes’ Steadfast Factual Adherence
Wood, T., & Porter, E. (2019) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-018-9443-y · Cited by 904
Retrospective Voting Reconsidered
Healy, A., & Malhotra, N. (2013) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-032211-212920 · Cited by 667
Self-citationHow Quickly We Forget: The Duration of Persuasion Effects From Mass Communication
Hill, S. J., Lo, J., Vavreck, L., & Zaller, J. (2013) · Political Communication · doi:10.1080/10584609.2013.828143 · Cited by 238
How Legislators Respond to Localized Economic Shocks: Evidence from Chinese Import Competition
Feigenbaum, J. J., & Hall, A. B. (2015) · The Journal of Politics · doi:10.1086/682151 · Cited by 178
Trial by Fire: A Natural Disaster's Impact on Support for the Authorities in Rural Russia
Lazarev, E., Sobolev, A., Soboleva, I. V., & Sokolov, B. (2014) · World Politics · doi:10.1017/s0043887114000215 · Cited by 106
How to study democratic backsliding
Druckman, J. N. (2024) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.12942 · Cited by 56
Motivated reasoning and democratic accountability
LITTLE, A. T., SCHNAKENBERG, K. E., & TURNER, I. R. (2022) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055421001209 · Cited by 41
Kikuta, K., & Uesugi, M. (2023) · International Organization · doi:10.1017/s0020818322000261 · Cited by 17
Metadata
- Authors
- Healy, A. J., Malhotra, N., & Mo, C. H.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2010-07-06
- Volume
- 107
- Issue
- 29
- Pages
- 12804-12809
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- OpenAlex
- W2112994583
- Cited by
- 425
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 81.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.