Naomi Kamoen

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.

The effect of voting advice applications on political knowledge and vote choice

Abstract In many countries with multiparty systems, a decline in class voting has increased volatility and the need for comprehensive information about the political landscape among voters. Voting Advice Applications (VAAs) are online tools that match users to political parties and, as such, they hold a promise of reinforcing informational transparency and democratic representation. The current research investigated whether VAAs live up to this expectation by investigating to what extent VAAs affected users political knowledge and vote choice in the Dutch national elections of 2012. Results show that VAA users feel that the VAA improved their political knowledge. In addition, those groups of VAA users who experienced a large knowledge increase, also relatively often indicated that their vote choice had been affected. This suggests that VAAs contribute to informational transparency by increasing knowledge among a potentially wide audience, and also that VAAs might increase democratic representation to the extent that VAAs persuade people to vote for the candidate that best represents their opinions. On the other hand, we found discrepancies between behavioural and perceptual measurements of the effect of VAAs on vote choice. This raises doubts about whether VAAs shape actual voting behaviours and knowledge, or rather perceptions of that.

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).

Inwisselbaar of niet

In Stemwijzer, the Netherlands’ most popular Voting Advice Application, users express their opinions to political statement on a three-point scale (agree, neither of both, disagree) supplemented with a no-opinion answer (skip this question). Based on these answers, Stemwijzer gives a voting advice: it computes which political party’s or parties’ viewpoints have most similarities with the user’s views. The current research is aimed at determining whether VAA users use the middle response option and the non-response option the way they are meant; the middle response option should indicate an attitude in the middle of the scale, expressing ambivalence or a dilemma. This attitude is included in the voting advice, whereas the non-response option indicates a non-attitudinal response that is not taken into account in the voting advice. To investigate how the middle response option and non-response option are used, inhabitants of the city of Helmond were asked to fill out a VAA (N = 55); some while thinking aloud (N = 20). In addition, all participants were interviewed about their answer choices afterwards. Results show that functions of the middle response option and non-response option are interchangeable. However, when explicitly asked to describe these functions, VAA users are better able to make a distinction. Results also show that VAA users are unaware of the consequences a choice for the middle response option or the non-response option has for the voting advice. All in all, the findings show that users too often choose the middle response instead of the non-response option.