Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-hfldf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-15T01:36:30.979Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

You Want to Spend My Money How? Framing Effects on Tax Increases via Ballot Propositions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Travis Braidwood Open the ORCID record for Travis Braidwood [Opens in a new window]
Travis Braidwood*
Affiliation:
Texas A&M University–Kingsville, Kingsville, TX, USA
*
Travis Braidwood, Texas A&M University–Kingsville, 317 Rhode Hall, 165 MSC, 700 University Blvd., Kingsville, TX 78363, USA. Email: travis.braidwood@tamuk.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent scholarly work has discovered that modest changes in the framing of the titles and summaries of ballot measures can have dramatic effects on voter approval. This work expands upon these findings by exploring the effect of language specificity on support for ballot propositions that require the voter to pay for the measure with tax dollars. Although extensive research has explored ballot measure language complexity (e.g., position on the ballot, electoral effects, and prepossessed knowledge have all been shown to play a role in the outcome for propositions), left unanswered is the role of detailed language in altering support. Utilizing original experimental data, this work explores the framing effects of increasing specificity of proposed use of tax expenditures on support for ballot questions. Ultimately, this research finds that propositions providing more information to voters substantially increases the likelihood of support for those measures. Moreover, this increased specificity also bolsters certainty as to how the money will be spent, and intensifies how strongly voters feel about the issues being considered.

Keywords

direct democracypolitical behaviorvoting behaviorbudgetingpublic policysurvey experimentexperimental methodsmethodologypublic choicesurvey research
Type
Research Article
Information
State Politics & Policy Quarterly , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , March 2019 , pp. 29 - 52
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2018

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

Anzia, Sarah. F. 2011. “Election Timing and the Electoral Influence of Interest Groups.” The Journal of Politics 73 (2): 412–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ausderan, Jacob. 2014. “How Naming and Shaming Affects Human Rights Perceptions in the Shamed Country.” Journal of Peace Research 51 (1): 81–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balogh, Brian. 2009. A Government Out of Sight: The Mystery of National Authority in Nineteenth-Century America. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barabas, Jason, and Jerit, Jennifer. 2009. “Estimating the Causal Effects of Media Coverage on Policy-Specific Knowledge.” American Journal of Political Science 53:73–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, John A., and Lanza, Brian A.. 2013. “Conducting Psychology Student Research via the Mechanical Turk Crowdsourcing Service.” North American Journal of Psychology 15 (2): 385–394.Google Scholar
Berinsky, Adam J., Huber, Gregory A., and Lenz, Gabriel S.. 2012. “Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.coms Mechanical Turk.” Political Analysis 20 (2): 351–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biggers, Daniel. 2011. “When Ballot Issues Matter: Social Issue Ballot Measures and Their Impact on Turnout.” Political Behavior 33:3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bishop, George, Tuchfarber, Alfred, and Oldendick, Robert. 1978. “Change in the Structure of American Political Attitudes: The Nagging Question of Question Wording.” American Journal of Political Science 22 (2): 250–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowler, Shaun, and Donovan, Todd. 1994. “Information and Opinion Change on Ballot Propositions.” Political Behavior 16 (4): 411–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowler, Shaun, and Donovan, Todd. 1995. “Popular Responsiveness to Taxation.” Political Research Quarterly 48:79–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Branton, Regina. 2003. “Examining Individual-Level Voting Behavior on State Ballot Propositions.” Political Research Quarterly 56 (3): 367–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhrmester, Michael D., Kwang, Tracy, and Gosling, Samuel D.. 2011. “Amazons Mechanical Turk: A New Source of Inexpensive, yet High-Quality, Data? Perspectives on Psychological Science 6:3–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnett, Craig. M. 2013. “Does Campaign Spending Help Voters Learn about Ballot Measures? Electoral Studies 31:78–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnett, Craig M., and Kogan, Vladimir. 2015. “When Does Ballot Language Influence Voter Choices? Evidence from a Survey Experiment.” Political Communication 32 (1): 109–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnett, Craig M., and McCubbins, Mathew D.. 2013. “When Common Wisdom Is Neither Common nor Wisdom: Exploring Voters Limited Use of Endorsements on Three Ballot Measures.” Minnesota Law Review 57 (5): 1557–1595.Google Scholar
Campbell, Andrea Louise. 2009. “What Americans Think of Taxes.” In The New Fiscal Sociology: Taxation in Historical and Comparative Perspective, eds. Isaac, William Martin, Mehrotra, Ajay K., and Prasad, Monica. New York: Cambridge University Press, 48–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Andrea. L., and Morgan, Kimberly J.. 2005. “Financing the Welfare State: Elite Politics and the Decline of the Social Insurance Model in America.” Studies in American Political Development 19 (2): 173–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chong, Dennis, and Druckman, James. 2013. “Counterframing Effects.” The Journal of Politics 75 (1): 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clifford, Scott, Jewell, Ryan M., and Waggoner, Philip D.. 2015. “Are Samples Drawn from Mechanical Turk Valid for Research on Political Ideology?” Research & Politics 2 (4): 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collingwood, Loren. 2012. “Levels of Education and Support for Direct Democracy.” American Politics Research 40 (4): 571–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowan, Nelson. 2010. “The Magical Mystery Four: How Is Working Memory Capacity Limited, and Why?” Current Directions in Psychological Science 19 (1): 51–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diamond, Gregory A. 2001. “Implications of a Latitude-Theory Model of Citizen Attitudes for Political Campaigning, Debate, and Representation.” In Citizens and Politics: Perspectives from Political Psychology, ed. Kuklinski, James. New York: Cambridge University Press, 289–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, James N. 2001. “The Implications of Framing Effects for Citizen Competence.” Political Behavior 23 (3): 225–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, James N. 2004. “Political Preference Formation: Competition, Deliberation, and (Ir) relevance of Framing Effects.” American Political Science Review 98:671–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, James N., Peterson, Erik, and Slothuus, Rune. 2013. “How Elite Partisan Polarization Affects Public Opinion Formation.” American Political Science Review 107 (1): 57–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farnham, Paul G. 1990. “The Impact of Citizen Influence on Local Government Expenditure.” Public Choice 64:201–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gafke, Roger, and Leuthold, David. 1979. “The Effect on Voters of Misleading, Confusing, and Difficult Ballot Titles.” Public Opinion Quarterly 43 (3): 394–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Alan, Huber, Gregory A., and Doherty, David. 2013. “Big Five Personality Traits and Responses to Persuasive Appeals: Results from Voter Turnout Experiments.” Political Behavior 34:687–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gong, Huan, and Rogers, Cynthia L.. 2014. “Does Voter Turnout Influence School Bond Elections? Southern Economic Journal 81 (1): 247–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, James T., and Ladd, Helen F.. 1996. “Biased Ballots? The Impact of Ballot Structure on North Carolina Elections in 1992.” Public Choice 87:259–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hastings, Jeff, and Cann, Damon. 2014. “Ballot Titles and Voter Decision Making on Ballot Questions.” State and Local Government Review 46 (2): 118–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hibbing, John R., and Theiss-Morse, Elizabeth. 2002. Stealth Democracy: Americans' Beliefs about How Government Should Work. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacob, Rafael 2017. “Party, People, or Policy? Uncovering the Impact of Advertisement on Voter Behavior in Ballot Initiative and Candidate-Centered Campaigns.” Ph.D. thesis, Temple University, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Jacoby, William 2000. “Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending.” American Journal of Political Science 44 (4): 750–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jonides, John, Lewis, Richard L., Nee, Derek E., Lustig, Cindy A., Berman, Mark G., and Moore, Katherine S.. 2008. “The Mind and Brain of Short-Term Memory.” Annual Review of Psychology 59:193–224.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kahneman, Daniel, Slovic, Paul, and Tversky, Amos, eds. 1982. Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kidder, Jeffrey L., and Martin, Issac William. 2012. “What We Talk about When We Talk about Taxes.” Symbolic Interaction 35 (2): 123–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krupnikov, Yanna, and Bauer, Nichole M.. 2014. “The Relationship between Campaign Negativity, Gender and Campaign Context.” Political Behavior 36:167–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuklinski, James, and Jerit, Jennifer. 2001. “Commentary: The Meaning of ‘Attitude’ in Representative Democracies.” In Citizens and Politics: Perspectives from Political Psychology, ed. Kuklinski, James. New York: Cambridge University Press, 341–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lacey, Robert J. 2005. “The Electoral Allure of Direct Democracy: The Effect of Initiative Salience on Voting, 1990–96.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 5 (2): 168–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lax, Jeffrey R., and Phillips, Justin H.. 2009. “Gay Rights in the States: Public Opinion and Policy Responsiveness.” American Political Science Review 103:367–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, E. C. 1978. “California.” In Referendums: A Comparative Study of Practices and Theory, eds. Butler, David and Ranney, Austin. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 87–122.Google Scholar
Levay, Kevin E., Freese, Jeremy, and Druckman, James N.. 2016. “The Demographic and Political Composition of Mechanical Turk Samples.” Sage Open 6 (1): 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, Irwin P., Schneider, Sandra L., and Gaeth, Gary J.. 1998. “All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 76 (2): 149–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieberman, Evan S. 2001. “National Political Community and the Politics of Income Taxation in Brazil and South Africa in the Twentieth Century.” Politics & Society 29:515–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magelby, David B. 1984. Direct Legislation: Voting on Ballot Propositions in the United States. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Marcinkiewicz, Kamil, and Stegmaier, Mary. 2014. “Ballot Position Effects under Compulsory and Optional Preferential-List PR Electoral Systems.” Political Behavior 37 (2): 465–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsusaka, John G. 1995. “Fiscal Effects of the Voter Initiative: Evidence from the Last 30 Years.” Journal of Political Economy 103 (3): 587–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsusaka, John G. 2005. “Direct Democracy Works.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 19:185–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsusaka, John G. 2010. “Popular Control of Public Policy: A Quantitative Approach.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 5 (2): 133–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsusaka, John G. 2015. “Ballot Order Effects in Referendum Elections.” Unpublished manuscript: Marshall School of Business Working Paper No. FBE: 1-31. <>CrossRef>Google Scholar
Meredith, Marc. 2009. “The Strategic Timing of Direct Democracy.” Economics & Politics 21 (1): 159–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michalski, Karen. B., and Guile, Michael N.. 1990. “Readability of Simulated State Question Ballots Affects Voting Behavior.” Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 28:239–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muir, Edward, and Schneider, Krista. 1999. “State Initiatives and Referenda on Bonds: A Comparative Analysis of One Solution for the School Infrastructure Crisis.” Journal of Education Finance 24 (4): 415–433.Google Scholar
Mullinix, Kevin J., Leeper, Thomas J., Druckman, James N., and Freese, Jeremy. 2015. “The Generalizability of Survey Experiments.” Journal of Experimental Political Science 2 (2): 109–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, Thomas E., and Kinder, Donald R.. 1996. “Issue Frames and Group-Centrism in American Public Opinion.” The Journal of Politics 58:1055–1078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholson, Stephen 2003. “The Political Environment and Ballot Proposition Awareness.” American Journal of Political Science 47 (3): 403–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, Benjamin I., and Shapiro, Robert Y.. 1992. The Rational Public: Fifty Years of Trends in Americans' Policy Preferences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, Elizabeth. 2014. “Saying Yes to Taxes: The Politics of Tax Reform Campaigns in Three Northwestern States, 1965–1973.” American Journal of Sociology 119 (5): 1279–1323.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prasad, Monica. 2012. The Land of Too Much: American Abundance and the Paradox of Poverty. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasinski, Kenneth. 1989. “The Effect of Question Wording on Public Support for Government Spending.” Public Opinion Quarterly 53:388–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reilly, Shauna, and Richey, Sean. 2011. “Ballot Question Readability and Roll-Off: The Impact of Language Complexity.” Political Research Quarterly 64 (1): 59–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, Arthur. 1988. “Rationality, Self-interest, and Public Attitudes on Public Spending.” Social Science Quarterly 69 (2): 311–324.Google Scholar
Sears, David, and Citrin, Jack. 1982. Tax Revolt: Something for Nothing in California. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Daniel. A. 2001. “Special Interests and Direct Democracy: An Historical Glance.” In The Battle over Citizen Lawmaking, ed. Waters, M. Dane Durham: Carolina Academic Press, 59–71.Google Scholar
Smith, Daniel A., and Tolbert, Caroline. 2007. “The Instrumental and Educative Effects of Ballot Measures: Research on Direct Democracy in the American States.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 7 (4): 416–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tolbert, Caroline J. 1998. “Changing Rules for State Legislatures: Direct Democracy and Governance Policies.” In Citizens as Legislators: Direct Democracy in the United States, eds. Donovan, Todd and Tolbert, Caroline. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 171–190.Google Scholar
Tolbert, Caroline J., Bowen, Daniel C., and Donovan, Todd. 2009. “Initiative Campaigns: Direct Democracy and Voter Mobilization.” American Politics Research 37 (1): 155–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tolbert, Caroline J., and Smith, Daniel A.. 2005. “The Educative Effects of Ballot Initiatives on Voter Turnout.” American Politics Research 33 (2): 289–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomz, Michael, and Weeks, Jessica. 2013. “Public Opinion and the Democratic Peace.” American Political Science Review 107 (4): 849–865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, Amos, and Kahneman, Daniel. 1981. “The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice.” Science 211 (January): 453–458.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tversky, Amons, and Kahneman, Daniel. 1982. Question Framing and Response Consistency. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Ventry, Dennis J. 2011. “Americans Don't Hate Taxes, They Hate Paying Taxes.” University of British Columbia Law Review 44 (3): 835–889.Google Scholar
Welch, Susan. 1985. “The ‘More for Less’ Paradox: Public Attitudes on Taxing and Spending.” Public Opinion Quarterly 49 (3): 310–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wettstein, Martin. 2012. “Frame Adoption in Referendum Campaigns: The Effect of New Coverage on the Public Salience of Issue Interpretations.” American Behavioral Scientist 56 (3): 318–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilensky, Harold L. 2002. Rich Democracies: Political Economy, Public Policy, and Performance. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winter, Soren, and Mouritzen, Poul E.. 2001. “Why People Want Something for Nothing: The Role of Asymmetrical Illusions.” European Journal of Political Research 39 (1): 109–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaller, John. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zax, Jeffery S. 1989. “Initiatives and Government Expenditures.” Public Choice 63:267–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Braidwood supplementary material

Appendix

Download Braidwood supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 590.8 KB