IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsoctx/v9y2019i4p82-d291021.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Electoral Ergonomics: Three Empirical Examples of the Interface between Electoral Psychology and Design

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Bruter

    (Department of Government, The London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Sreet, London, WC2A2AE, UK)

Abstract

Electoral ergonomics pertains to the interface between electoral psychology and electoral design. It moves beyond traditional models of electoral organisation that often focus on mechanical effects or changes to who actually votes to investigate the ways in which different forms of electoral organisation will switch on and off various electoral psychology buttons (in terms of personality, memory, emotions and identity) so that the very same person’s electoral experience, thinking process, and ultimately electoral behaviour will change based on the design of electoral processes. This article illustrated this phenomenon based on two case studies, one which showed that young people seemed more likely to vote for radical right parties if they voted postally than in person at the polling station based on panel study evidence from the UK, and another which showed that the time citizens deliberate about their vote varied from 1 to 3 depending on whether they were asked to vote using materialised or dematerialised mono-papers or poly-paper ballots. The article suggested that electoral ergonomics, as the interface between electoral psychology and election design, exceeded the sum of its parts.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael Bruter, 2019. "Electoral Ergonomics: Three Empirical Examples of the Interface between Electoral Psychology and Design," Societies, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-10, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsoctx:v:9:y:2019:i:4:p:82-:d:291021
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/9/4/82/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/9/4/82/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joshua J. Dyck & James G. Gimpel, 2005. "Distance, Turnout, and the Convenience of Voting," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 86(3), pages 531-548, September.
    2. Lee Sproull & Sara Kiesler, 1986. "Reducing Social Context Cues: Electronic Mail in Organizational Communication," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(11), pages 1492-1512, November.
    3. Erikson, Robert S., 1972. "Malapportionment, Gerrymandering, and Party Fortunes in Congressional Elections," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 66(4), pages 1234-1245, December.
    4. Michael Bruter & Sarah Harrison, 2017. "Understanding the emotional act of voting," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 1(1), pages 1-3, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Harry P. Sophocleous & Andreas N. Masouras & Sofia D. Anastasiadou, 2024. "The Impact of Political Marketing on Voting Behaviour of Cypriot Voters," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-16, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nault, Kelly A. & Sezer, Ovul & Klein, Nadav, 2023. "It’s the journey, not just the destination: Conveying interpersonal warmth in written introductions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    2. Jennifer D. Parlamis & Ingmar Geiger, 2015. "Mind the Medium: A Qualitative Analysis of Email Negotiation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 359-381, March.
    3. Timothy Besley & Torsten Persson, 2011. "Pillars of Prosperity: The Political Economics of Development Clusters," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 9624.
    4. Natalia Levina & Manuel Arriaga, 2014. "Distinction and Status Production on User-Generated Content Platforms: Using Bourdieu’s Theory of Cultural Production to Understand Social Dynamics in Online Fields," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 25(3), pages 468-488, September.
    5. Angelo Antoci & Alexia Delfino & Fabio Paglieri & Fabrizio Panebianco & Fabio Sabatini, 2016. "Civility vs. Incivility in Online Social Interactions: An Evolutionary Approach," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(11), pages 1-17, November.
    6. Alison J. Bianchi & Soong Moon Kang & Daniel Stewart, 2012. "The Organizational Selection of Status Characteristics: Status Evaluations in an Open Source Community," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(2), pages 341-354, April.
    7. Stefan Hoffmann & Tom Joerß & Robert Mai & Payam Akbar, 2022. "Augmented reality-delivered product information at the point of sale: when information controllability backfires," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 50(4), pages 743-776, July.
    8. Larry Samuelson, 1984. "Electoral equilibria with restricted strategies," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 307-327, January.
    9. Catherine Durnell Cramton, 2001. "The Mutual Knowledge Problem and Its Consequences for Dispersed Collaboration," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(3), pages 346-371, June.
    10. Tangirala, Subrahmaniam & Alge, Bradley J., 2006. "Reactions to unfair events in computer-mediated groups: A test of uncertainty management theory," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 100(1), pages 1-20, May.
    11. Antoci, Angelo & Bonelli, Laura & Paglieri, Fabio & Reggiani, Tommaso & Sabatini, Fabio, 2019. "Civility and trust in social media," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 83-99.
    12. Giurge, Laura M. & Bohns, Vanessa K., 2021. "You don’t need to answer right away! Receivers overestimate how quickly senders expect responses to non-urgent work emails," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 114-128.
    13. Jordan Carpenter & Daniel Preotiuc-Pietro & Jenna Clark & Lucie Flekova & Laura Smith & Margaret L. Kern & Anneke Buffone & Lyle Ungar & Martin Seligman, 2018. "The impact of actively open-minded thinking on social media communication," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13(6), pages 562-574, November.
    14. Fabio Sabatini & Francesco Sarracino, 2017. "Online Networks and Subjective Well-Being," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 70(3), pages 456-480, August.
    15. Meissner, Jens O., 2005. "Relationship Quality in the Context of Computer-Mediated Communication - A social constructionist approach," Working papers 2005/15, Faculty of Business and Economics - University of Basel.
    16. Kenneth Benoit & Michael Marsh, 2008. "The Campaign Value of Incumbency: A New Solution to the Puzzle of Less Effective Incumbent Spending," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 52(4), pages 874-890, October.
    17. Robi Ragan, 2013. "Institutional sources of policy bias: A computational investigation," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 25(4), pages 467-491, October.
    18. Abid, Aman & Harrigan, Paul, 2020. "An exploration of social media-enabled voter relationships through uses and gratifications theory, psychological contract and service-dominant orientation," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 71-82.
    19. Sumita Raghuram & Philipp Tuertscher & Raghu Garud, 2010. "Research Note ---Mapping the Field of Virtual Work: A Cocitation Analysis," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 21(4), pages 983-999, December.
    20. Masoom Muhammad Rehan & Alam Md Nahid & Arif Rubaiyat Bin, 2016. "The Social Presences in Text-Based Collaborations Via Electronic Devices: Measuring the ‘Online-Self’ of the Young Generation in Bangladesh," European Review of Applied Sociology, Sciendo, vol. 9(13), pages 39-53, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsoctx:v:9:y:2019:i:4:p:82-:d:291021. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.