Cognitive effort of voters under three different voting methods - an experimental study

• Authors: Marcin MALAWSKI , Krzysztof PRZYBYSZEWSKI , Honorata SOSNOWSKA
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

This paper deals with the comparison of the processes of decision making by voters under the approval voting rule (in two variants: classical and categorization) and majority rule. Under the majority rule, each voter chooses a single alternative. Under approval voting, they can vote for as many alternatives as they wish. Under the categorization method, they divide alternatives into three groups: approvable, not approvable and neutral. We conducted a process tracing experiment with respondents choosing an office manager from 13 candidates characterized by 14 attributes. The process of collecting information on candidates from the data presented on the screen was observed by a coordinator. For this experiment, the concept of cognitive effort was defined as the quantity of information gathered. The cognitive effort made under the three methods was compared. The highest cognitive effort was observed in the case of the categorization method and the lowest in the case of approval voting.

Keywords

EN

approval voting; majority rule; cognitive effort; process tracing experiment

• Publisher: Politechnika Wrocławska. Oficyna Wydawnicza Politechniki Wrocławskiej
• Journal: Operations Research and Decisions
• Year: 2010
• Volume: 20
• Issue: 3-4
• Pages: 69-79

Contributors

author

Marcin MALAWSKI

• Institute of Computer Science, Polish Academy of Sciences, Ordona 21, 01-237 Warsaw, Poland; Centre for Economic Psychology, Leon Koźmiński Academy, Jagiellońska 59, 03-301 Warsaw, Poland

author

Krzysztof PRZYBYSZEWSKI

• Centre for Economic Psychology, Leon Koźmiński Academy, Jagiellońska 59, 03-301 Warsaw, Poland

author

Honorata SOSNOWSKA

• Department of Mathematical Economics, Warsaw School of Economics, al. Niepodległości 162, 02-554 Warsaw, Poland
• Centre for Economic Psychology, Leon Koźmiński Academy, Jagiellońska 59, 03-301 Warsaw, Poland

References

• BRAMS S.J., FISHBURN P.C., Approval voting, Birkhäuser, Boston, 1982.
• FELSENTHAL D.S., On combining approval voting with disapproval voting, Behavioral Sciences 1989, 34, 53–60.
• HOŁUBIEC J., MERCIK J.W., Techniki i tajniki głosowania, Warszawa, Omnitech Press, 1992.
• LASLIER J.F., VAN DER STRAETEN K., Une experience de vote par assentiment lors de l’election presidentielle de 2002, Revue Française de Science Politique, 2004, 54, 99–130.
• LASLIER J.F., VAN DER STRAETEN K., A live experiment on approval voting, Experimental Economics, 2008, 11, 97–105.
• MILLER G.A., The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information, Psychological Review, 1956, 63, 81–97.
• MONTGOMERY H., Decision rules and the search for a dominance structure: towards a process model of decision making [In:] P. Humphreys, O. Svenson, A. Valdi (Eds.), Analysing and aiding decision processes, North Holland, Amsterdam, 1983.
• NURMI H., Comparing voting systems, Dodrecht, Reidel Publ., 1987.
• NURMI H., On the properties of voting systems, Scandinavian Political Studies, 2007, 4, 19–32.
• PAYNE J.W., BETTMANN J.R., JOHNSON E.J., The Adaptive decision maker, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1993.
• PRZYBYSZEWSKI K., SOSNOWSKA H., Głosowanie aprobujące – frekwencja i preferencje wyborcze, [W:] Badania operacyjne i systemowe 2006, metody i techniki, J. Kacprzyk, R. Budziński (wyd.), Akademicka Oficyna Wydawnicza EXIT, Warszawa, 2006, 153–162.
• SIEGEL S., Nonparametric statistics for behavioral sciences, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1956.
• SIMON H., A behavioral model for rational choice, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1955 ,69, 99–118.
• SVENSON O., Differentiation and consolidation theory of human decision making. A frame of reference for the study of pre and posdecision processes, Acta Psychologica , 1992, 80.
• TYSZKA T., Two pairs of conflicting motives in decision making, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1998, 74, 189–211.