PLoS ONE 8 (4):e60554. doi:10.1371/journal.pone (2013)

Authors
Petter Johansson
Lund University
Abstract
Political candidates often believe they must focus their campaign efforts on a small number of swing voters open for ideological change. Based on the wisdom of opinion polls, this might seem like a good idea. But do most voters really hold their political attitudes so firmly that they are unreceptive to persuasion? We tested this premise during the most recent general election in Sweden, in which a left- and a right-wing coalition were locked in a close race. We asked our participants to state their voter intention, and presented them with a political survey of wedge issues between the two coalitions. Using a sleight-of-hand we then altered their replies to place them in the opposite political camp, and invited them to reason about their attitudes on the manipulated issues. Finally, we summarized their survey score, and asked for their voter intention again. The results showed that no more than 22% of the manipulated replies were detected, and that a full 92% of the participants accepted and endorsed our altered political survey score. Furthermore, the final voter intention question indicated that as many as 48% (69.2%) were willing to consider a left-right coalition shift. This can be contrasted with the established polls tracking the Swedish election, which registered maximally 10% voters open for a swing. Our results indicate that political attitudes and partisan divisions can be far more flexible than what is assumed by the polls, and that people can reason about the factual issues of the campaign with considerable openness to change.
Keywords Decision Making  Choice Blindness  Opinion Polls  Political Attitudes  Self-Knowledge  Confabulation   Introspection  Voter Intention  Political Survey  Sleight-of-Hand
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

How Actions Create – Not Just Reveal – Preferences.Dan Ariely & Michael I. Norton - 2008 - Trends in Cognitive Sciences 12 (1):13-16.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Confabulation and Rational Obligations for Self-Knowledge.Sophie Keeling - 2018 - Philosophical Psychology 31 (8):1215-1238.

View all 15 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Persuasiveness of Democratic Majorities.Robert E. Goodin & David Estlund - 2004 - Politics, Philosophy and Economics 3 (2):131-142.
Public Opinion, Elites, and Democracy.Robert Y. Shapiro - 1998 - Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society 12 (4):501-528.
Deliberation's Legitimation Crisis: Reply to Gleason.Michael A. Neblo - 2011 - Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society 23 (3):405-419.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2013-05-02

Total views
322 ( #28,157 of 2,448,683 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
14 ( #46,610 of 2,448,683 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes