Gabriel S. Lenz

Sources of Bias in Retrospective Decision Making: Experimental Evidence on Voters' Limitations in Controlling Incumbents

Are citizens competent to assess the performance of incumbent politicians? Observational studies cast doubt on voter competence by documenting several biases in retrospective assessments of performance. However, these studies are open to alternative interpretations because of the complexity of the real world. In this article, we show that these biases in retrospective evaluations occur even in the simplified setting of experimental games. In three experiments, our participants (1) overweighted recent relative to overall incumbent performance when made aware of an election closer rather than more distant from that event, (2) allowed an unrelated lottery that affected their welfare to influence their choices, and (3) were influenced by rhetoric to give more weight to recent rather than overall incumbent performance. These biases were apparent even though we informed and incentivized respondents to weight all performance equally. Our findings point to key limitations in voters’ ability to use a retrospective decision rule.

Presidential Voting and the Local Economy: Evidence from Two Population-Based Data Sets

We show that standard economic measures based on samples and richer newly available ones based on populations lead to different conclusions about democratic accountability. Previous research, which has primarily relied on sample-based measures, has mostly missed an important determinant of presidential election outcomes: the local economy. We detect the local economy’s impact with two unique data sets, one of which includes data on all consumer loans made in California and the other a census of businesses. In contrast to measures subject to sampling error, these population-based measures indicate that economic conditions at the ZIP code and county level have an impact on presidential election outcomes. Presidents therefore face incentives to focus on electorally important geographic regions.

The Importance of Knowing “What Goes with What”: Reinterpreting the Evidence on Policy Attitude Stability

What share of citizens hold meaningful views about public policy? Despite decades of scholarship, researchers have failed to reach a consensus. Researchers agree that policy opinions in surveys are unstable but disagree about whether that instability is real or just measurement error. In this article, we revisit this debate with a concept neglected in the literature: knowledge of which issue positions “go together” ideologically—or what Philip Converse called knowledge of “what goes with what.” Using surveys spanning decades in the United States and the United Kingdom, we find that individuals hold stable views primarily when they possess this knowledge and agree with their party. These results imply that observed opinion instability arises not primarily from measurement error but from instability in the opinions themselves. We find many US citizens lack knowledge of “what goes with what” and that only about 20%–40% hold stable views on many policy issues.

Californians' Beliefs About Income Inequality

Rising income inequality and wealth in America have attracted substantial public attention in recent years. As evidence has mounted that the gap betwen the affluent and the poor has been increasing, elected officials, scholars, journalists, and even figures from popular culture have discussed the causes and effects of this phenomenon. The focus of the debate has often been the economic trends rather than the views of a broad sampling of Americans. But public opinion can condition policy responses, and it is important to measure public opinion on economic inequality, its causes, and potential remedies. This IGS Research Brief seeks to understand public opinion in California about this issue. It describes and analyzes the results of an IGS Poll on income inequality, its perceived causes, and the views of Californians regarding possible responses.