The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Cognitive Heuristics in Political Decision Making
Abstract
This paper challenges the often untested assumption that cognitive “heuristics ” improve the decision making abilities of everyday voters. The potential benefits and costs of five common political heuristics are discussed. A new dynamic process tracing methodology is employed to directly observe the use of these five heuristics by voters in a mock presidential election campaign. We find that cognitive heuristics are at times employed by almost all voters, and that they are particularly likely to be used when the choice situation facing voters is complex. A hypothesized interaction between political sophistication and heuristic use on the quality of decision making is obtained across several different experiments, however. As predicted, heuristic use generally increases the probability of a correct vote by political experts but decreases the probability of a correct vote by novices. A situation in which experts can be led astray by heuristic use is also illustrated. Discussion focuses on the implications of these findings for strategies to increase input from under-represented groups into the political process.
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
Lupia, A. (1994) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.2307/2944882 · Cited by 1,850
Human Nature in Politics: The Dialogue of Psychology with Political Science
Simon, H. A. (1985) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.2307/1956650 · Cited by 1,359
How People Organize the Political World: A Schematic Model
Conover, P. J., & Feldman, S. (1984) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.2307/2110789 · Cited by 378
Cited by
When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions
Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2010) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2 · Cited by 3,173
Political Ideology: Its Structure, Functions, and Elective Affinities
Jost, J. T., Federico, C. M., & Napier, J. L. (2009) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163600 · Cited by 2,125
The Nature and Origins of Misperceptions: Understanding False and Unsupported Beliefs About Politics
Flynn, D. J., Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2017) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.12394 · Cited by 1,183
MOTIVATED SKEPTICISM IN THE EVALUATION OF POLITICAL BELIEFS (2006)
Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2012) · Critical Review · doi:10.1080/08913811.2012.711019 · Cited by 760
Political Parties, Motivated Reasoning, and Public Opinion Formation
Leeper, T. J., & Slothuus, R. (2014) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.12164 · Cited by 722
Metadata
- Authors
- Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. P.
- Venue
- American Journal of Political Science
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 2001-10
- Volume
- 45
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 951
- ISSN
- 0092-5853 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2172299554
- Cited by
- 1,421
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 10.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Advantages and Disadvantages of Cognitive Heuristics in Political Decision Making. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/2669334
- The paper
- Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2001). Advantages and Disadvantages of Cognitive Heuristics in Political Decision Making. American Journal of Political Science. https://doi.org/10.2307/2669334
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.