Jasper Van de Pol

Beyond young, highly educated males: A typology of VAA users

Voting Advice Applications (VAAs) are Web tools that are used to inform increasing numbers of voters during elections. This increasing usage indicates that VAAs fulfill voters’ needs, but what these needs are is unknown. Previous research has shown that such tools are primarily used by young males and highly educated citizens. This suggests that VAAs are generally used by citizens who are already well-informed about politics and may not need the assistance of a VAA to make voting decisions. To analyze the functions that VAAs have for their users, this study utilizes unique user data from a popular Dutch VAA to identify different user types according to their cognitive characteristics and motivations. A latent class analysis (LCA) resulted in three distinct user types that vary in efficacy, vote certainty, and interest: doubters, checkers, and seekers. Each group uses the VAA for different reasons at different points in time. Seekers’ use of VAAs increases as Election Day approaches; less efficacious and less certain voters are more likely to use the tool to become informed.

Positive vs. Negative : The Impact of Question Polarity in Voting Advice Applications

Online Voting Advice Applications (VAAs) are survey-like instruments that help citizens to shape their political preferences and compare them with those of political parties. Especially in multi-party democracies, their increasing popularity indicates that VAAs play an important role in opinion formation for citizens, as well as in the public debate prior to elections. Hence, the objectivity and transparency of VAAs are crucial. In the design of VAAs, many choices have to be made. Extant research in survey methodology shows that the seemingly arbitrary choice to word questions positively (e.g., ‘The city council should allow cars into the city centre’) or negatively (‘The city council should ban cars from the city centre’) systematically affects the answers. This asymmetry in answers is in line with work on negativity bias in other areas of linguistics and psychology. Building on these findings, this study investigated whether question polarity also affects the answers to VAA statements. In a field experiment (N = 31,112) during the Dutch municipal elections we analysed the effects of polarity for 16 out of 30 VAA statements with a large variety of linguistic contrasts. Analyses show a significant effect of question wording for questions containing a wide range of implicit negations (such as ‘forbid’ vs. ‘allow’), as well as for questions with explicit negations (e.g., ‘not’). These effects of question polarity are found especially for VAA users with lower levels of political sophistication. As these citizens are an important target group for Voting Advice Applications, this stresses the need for VAA builders to be sensitive to wording choices when designing VAAs. This study is the first to show such consistent wording effects not only for political attitude questions with implicit negations in VAAs, but also for political questions containing explicit negations.

I Don't Know. The Effect of Question Polarity on No-opinion Answers

A new type of political attitude survey that has gained popularity in Europe and in the United States is the voting advice application (VAA). VAAs provide users with a voting advice based on their answers to a set of attitude questions. In the calculation of this advice, no-opinion answers are excluded. We tested the hypothesis that negative VAA questions lead to more no-opinion answers than their positive equivalents. In a field experiment, visitors (N=41,505) of a VAA developed for the municipality of Utrecht in the Netherlands, were randomly guided to one of the versions of the tool in which the polarity of 16 questions was manipulated. Results do not show an overall effect of question polarity. This overall null finding appears to be caused by contrasting effects for two subtypes of negative questions: Explicit negatives (e.g. not allow) yield more no-opinion answers than their positive counterparts (e.g. allow) do, while the reverse holds for implicit negatives (e.g. forbid).

Genuine effects of vote advice applications on party choice: Filtering out factors that affect both the advice obtained and the vote

Previous research shows effects of the advice from voting advice applications (VAAs) on party choice. These effects could be spurious because common antecedent factors like prior voting, a voters prior issue positions and election campaign news may explain both party choice and the opinions someone reports to the VAA, and hence the voting advice obtained from the VAA. Often VAAs will advise users to opt for parties that they were already likely to vote for, based on antecedent factors. Here, three-wave panel surveys and media content data for the Dutch national election campaigns of 2010 and 2012 are employed. In spite of spurious correlations resulting from common antecedent factors, genuine VAA effects show up, especially for doubting voters. Party change based on positive VAA-advice for a party is least likely (a) for voters who already have an abundance of antecedent factors in favour of that party anyway, and (b) for those without a single antecedent factor in favour of that party. Genuine VAA effects imply that VAAs make it less easy for political parties to neglect each others owned issues, because VAAs weigh issues equally for each party.