IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/eeupol/v25y2024i1p106-129.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do political duos diminish discriminatory voter preferences? Evidence from a combined conjoint experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Alberto López Ortega

Abstract

In Europe, more and more parties and governments are led by a pair of leaders. What consequences does the presence of duos have on voter preferences? I argue that voters have less discriminatory preferences against untraditional candidates when they choose two leaders instead of only one. However, discriminatory preferences do not entirely vanish; rather, traditionally excluded candidates are often relegated to secondary positions, and there exists a certain threshold of tolerated ticket diversity. Through a novel combined conjoint experiment, I find relative support for this conjecture, especially in the case of ethnic minority candidates. In view of the increasing number of new types of leadership, the results of this study have important implications for the study of political behaviour and elite diversity.

Suggested Citation

  • Alberto López Ortega, 2024. "Do political duos diminish discriminatory voter preferences? Evidence from a combined conjoint experiment," European Union Politics, , vol. 25(1), pages 106-129, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:eeupol:v:25:y:2024:i:1:p:106-129
    DOI: 10.1177/14651165231206388
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/14651165231206388
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/14651165231206388?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carnes, Nicholas & Lupu, Noam, 2016. "Do Voters Dislike Working-Class Candidates? Voter Biases and the Descriptive Underrepresentation of the Working Class," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 110(4), pages 832-844, November.
    2. Leeper, Thomas J. & Hobolt, Sara B. & Tilley, James, 2020. "Measuring Subgroup Preferences in Conjoint Experiments," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 28(2), pages 207-221, April.
    3. Magni, Gabriele & Reynolds, Andrew, 2018. "Candidate Sexual Orientation Didn't Matter (in the Way You Might Think) in the 2015 UK General Election," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 112(3), pages 713-720, August.
    4. Hainmueller, Jens & Hopkins, Daniel J. & Yamamoto, Teppei, 2014. "Causal Inference in Conjoint Analysis: Understanding Multidimensional Choices via Stated Preference Experiments," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(1), pages 1-30, January.
    5. Claire Annesley & Francesca Gains, 2010. "The Core Executive: Gender, Power and Change," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 58(5), pages 909-929, December.
    6. Mares, Isabela & Visconti, Giancarlo, 2020. "Voting for the lesser evil: evidence from a conjoint experiment in Romania," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(2), pages 315-328, April.
    7. Strijbis, Oliver & Teney, Céline & Helbling, Marc, 2019. "Why Are Elites More Cosmopolitan than Masses?," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, pages 37-64.
    8. Abrajano, Marisa A. & Elmendorf, Christopher S. & Quinn, Kevin M., 2018. "Labels vs. Pictures: Treatment-Mode Effects in Experiments About Discrimination," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(1), pages 20-33, January.
    9. Claire Annesley & Francesca Gains, 2010. "The Core Executive: Gender, Power and Change," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 58, pages 909-929, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. IGARASHI Akira & MIWA Hirofumi & ONO Yoshikuni, 2022. "How Do Racial Cues Affect Attitudes toward Immigrants in a Racially Homogeneous Country? Evidence from a survey experiment in Japan," Discussion papers 22091, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    2. Henrik S Christensen & Marco S La Rosa & Kimmo Grönlund, 2020. "How candidate characteristics affect favorability in European Parliament elections: Evidence from a conjoint experiment in Finland," European Union Politics, , vol. 21(3), pages 519-540, September.
    3. Henrik Serup Christensen & Lauri Rapeli, 2021. "Immediate rewards or delayed gratification? A conjoint survey experiment of the public’s policy preferences," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(1), pages 63-94, March.
    4. E. Keith Smith & Dennis Kolcava & Thomas Bernauer, 2024. "Stringent sustainability regulations for global supply chains are supported across middle-income democracies," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-12, December.
    5. Vrânceanu, Alina & Dinas, Elias & Heidland, Tobias & Ruhs, Martin, 2023. "The European refugee crisis and public support for the externalisation of migration management," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 279441, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    6. Sarah C. Dingler & Ludger Helms, 2023. "Parliamentary Women Opposition Leaders: A Comparative Assessment Across 28 OECD Countries," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 11(1), pages 085-96.
    7. Janne Tukiainen & Sebastian Blesse & Albrecht Bohne & Leonardo M. Giuffrida & Jan Jäässkeläinen & Ari Luukinen & Antti Sieppi, 2021. "What Are the Priorities of Bureaucrats? Evidence from Conjoint Experiments with Procurement Officials," EconPol Working Paper 63, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich.
    8. Beetsma, Roel & Burgoon, Brian & Nicoli, Francesco, 2023. "Is european attachment sufficiently strong to support an EU fiscal capacity: Evidence from a conjoint experiment," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    9. Chu, Haoran & Liu, Sixiao, 2021. "Light at the end of the tunnel: Influence of vaccine availability and vaccination intention on people’s consideration of the COVID-19 vaccine," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 286(C).
    10. Aaron R Kaufman, 2020. "Implementing novel, flexible, and powerful survey designs in R Shiny," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(4), pages 1-15, April.
    11. KASUYA Yuko & MIWA Hirofumi & ONO Yoshikuni, 2022. "Why are There More Women in the Upper House?," Discussion papers 22094, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    12. Leeper, Thomas J. & Hobolt, Sara & Tilley, James, 2020. "Measuring subgroup preferences in conjoint experiments," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 100944, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    13. Björk, Lisa & Härenstam, Annika, 2016. "Differences in organizational preconditions for managers in genderized municipal services," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 209-219.
    14. Kantorowicz, Jaroslaw & Collewet, Marion & DiGiuseppe, Matthew & Vrijburg, Hendrik, 2024. "How to finance green investments? The role of public debt," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    15. Alexander Hertel-Fernandez & William Kimball & Thomas Kochan, 2022. "What Forms of Representation Do American Workers Want? Implications for Theory, Policy, and Practice," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 75(2), pages 267-294, March.
    16. Tellez,Juan Fernando & Balcells,Laia, 2022. "Social Cohesion, Economic Security, and Forced Displacement in the Long-Run : Evidence from Rural Colombia," Policy Research Working Paper Series 10019, The World Bank.
    17. Christensen, Henrik Serup, 2020. "How design features affect evaluations of participatory platforms," SocArXiv 4ubwh, Center for Open Science.
    18. Raman, Shyam & Kriner, Douglas & Ziebarth, Nicolas & Simon, Kosali & Kreps, Sarah, 2022. "COVID-19 booster uptake among US adults: Assessing the impact of vaccine attributes, incentives, and context in a choice-based experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 310(C).
    19. Blome, Agnes & Fuchs, Gesine, 2017. "Macht und substantielle Repräsentation von Frauen," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 26(1), pages 55-69.
    20. Brian Burgoon & Theresa Kuhn & Francesco Nicoli & Frank Vandenbroucke, 2022. "Unemployment risk-sharing in the EU: How policy design influences citizen support for European unemployment policy," European Union Politics, , vol. 23(2), pages 282-308, June.

    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:sae:eeupol:v:25:y:2024:i:1:p:106-129. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.