Systematic review on the use of heuristics in the election of candidates for public office (Revisión sistemática del uso de heurísticos en la elección de candidatos a cargos públicos)

Contenido principal del artículo

Carlos Ascencio-Garrido

Resumen

Abstract: The study of decision heuristics is a field of research for both political psychology and disciplines such as political science and economics, particularly since the theoretical models of Lau and Redlawsk. To establish a theoretical background that would allow for the development of lines of research in the Latin American context, a systematic review of scientific production associated with the last 20 years was conducted. This systematic review used a procedure guided by the PRISMA model, in indexed databases, yielding a total of 42 articles published between 2000 and 2020. The results show a wide variety of heuristics investigated and an interesting group of cues not considered in theoretical models, with quantitative and qualitative methodological strategies that justify the construction of appropriate research models to explore the use of heuristics in different types of elections. There is a clear need to investigate the use of heuristic cues and the use of strategies as separate concepts in a differentiated manner. Likewise, the possibility of investigating the combined behavior of heuristics in particular political contexts, especially in multiparty democracies, is established.


Keywords: decision-making; cognitive shortcuts; Lau and Redlawsk model; multiparty elections; PRISMA systematic review.


Resumen: El estudio de los heurísticos de decisión es un campo de investigación tanto para la psicología política como para disciplinas como la ciencia política y la economía, en particular desde los modelos teóricos de Lau y Redlawsk. Para poder sentar antecedentes teóricos que permitan construir líneas de investigación en el contexto latinoamericano, se realizó una revisión sistemática de la producción científica asociada a los últimos 20 años. Se llevó a cabo una revisión sistemática mediante un procedimiento guiado por el modelo PRISMA, en bases de datos indexadas, con lo que se obtuvo un total de 42 artículos publicados entre 2000 y 2020. Los resultados muestran una gran variedad de heurísticos investigados y un grupo novedoso de claves no consideradas en los modelos teóricos, con estrategias metodológicas cuantitativas y cualitativas que permiten justificar la construcción de modelos de investigación apropiados para explorar el uso de heurísticos en diferentes tipos de elecciones. Se constata la necesidad de investigar de manera diferenciada el uso de claves heurísticas y el uso de estrategias como conceptos separados. Asimismo, se establece la posibilidad de investigar el comportamiento combinado de heurísticos en contextos políticos particulares, en especial en democracias multipartidistas.


Palabras clave: toma de decisiones; atajos cognitivos; Modelo de Lau y Redlawsk; elecciones multipartidistas; revisión sistemática PRISMA.


Resumo: O estudo dos heurísticos de decisão é um campo de investigação tanto para a psicologia política como para disciplinas como a ciência política e a economia, em particular a partir dos modelos teóricos de Lau e Redlawsk. A fim de estabelecer antecedentes teóricos que permitam construir linhas de investigação no contexto latino-americano, foi realizada uma revisão sistemática da produção científica associada aos últimos 20 anos. Foi realizada uma revisão sistemática, por meio de um procedimento guiado pelo modelo PRISMA, em bases de dados indexadas, obtendo-se um total de 42 artigos publicados entre 2000 e 2020. Os resultados mostram uma grande variedade de heurísticas pesquisadas e um grupo interessante de chaves não consideradas nos modelos teóricos, com estratégias metodológicas quantitativas e qualitativas que permitem justificar a construção de modelos de pesquisa apropriados para explorar o uso de heurísticas em diferentes tipos de eleições. Constata-se a necessidade de investigar de forma diferenciada o uso de chaves heurísticas e o uso de estratégias como conceitos separados. Da mesma forma, estabelece-se a possibilidade de investigar o comportamento combinado de heurísticas em contextos políticos específicos, especialmente em democracias multipartidárias.


Palavras-chave: tomada de decisões; atalhos cognitivos; Modelo de Lau e Redlawsk; eleições multipartidárias; revisão sistemática PRISMA.

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Detalles del artículo

Cómo citar
Ascencio-Garrido, C. (2026). Systematic review on the use of heuristics in the election of candidates for public office (Revisión sistemática del uso de heurísticos en la elección de candidatos a cargos públicos). Ibero-American Journal of Psychology and Public Policy, 3(1), 15–40. https://doi.org/10.56754/2810-6598.2026.0040
Sección
Artículos

Citas

*Abakoumkin, G. (2011). Forming choice preferences the easy way: Order and familiarity effects in elections. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(11), 2689–2707. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00845.x

Adams, B. E., Lascher, E. L., & Martin, D. J. (2021). Ballot cues, business candidates, and voter choices in local elections. American Politics Research, 49(2), 186–197. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X20943559

*Anderson, B., Bird, G., Kornrumpf, R., Macaluso, M., Mundkur, N., Swingholm, M., & Gainous, J. (2020). Ethnic cues, latino skin tone, and voter preferences: An experimental test. Social Science Quarterly, 101(5), 1920-1935. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12845

*Badas, A., & Stauffer, K. E. (2019). Voting for women in nonpartisan and partisan elections. Electoral Studies, 57, 245–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2018.10.004

Banducci, S. A., Karp, J. A., Thrasher, M., & Rallings, C. (2008). Ballot photographs as cues in low-information elections. Political Psychology, 29(6), 903–917. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2008.00672.x

*Barth, S. K., Mittag, N., & Park, K. H. (2019). Voter response to hispanic sounding names: Evidence from down-ballot statewide elections. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 14(4), 401–437. https://doi.org/10.1561/100.00018092

Berggren, N., Jordahl, H., & Poutvaara, P. (2017). The right look: Conservative politicians look better and voters reward it. Journal of Public Economics, 146, 79–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2016.12.008

*Berinsky, A. J., De Benedictis-Kessner, J., Goldberg, M. E., & Margolis, M. F. (2020). The effect of associative racial cues in elections. Political Communication, 37(4), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1723750

Bernhard, R., & Freeder, S. (2020). The more you know: Voter heuristics and the information search. Political Behavior, 42(2), 603–623. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-018-9512-2

*Calvo, E. (2009). The competitive road to proportional representation: Partisan biases and electoral regime change under increasing party competition. World Politics, 61(2), 254–295. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043887109000100

*Carnes, N., & Lupu, N. (2016). Do voters dislike working-class candidates? Voter biases and the descriptive underrepresentation of the working class. American Political Science Review, 110(4), 832–844. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055416000551

*Carnes, N., & Sadin, M. L. (2015). The “mill worker’s son” heuristic: How voters perceive politicians from working-class families—and how they really behave in office. Journal of Politics, 77(1), 285–298. https://doi.org/10.1086/678530

*Chiao, J. Y., Bowman, N. E., & Gill, H. (2008). The political gender gap: Gender bias in facial inferences that predict voting behavior. PLoS ONE, 3(10). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0003666

*Conroy-Krutz, J., Moehler, D. C., & Aguilar, R. (2016). Partisan Cues and Vote Choice in New Multiparty Systems. Comparative Political Studies, 49(1), 3–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414015603015

*Cunha Silva, P., & Crisp, B. F. (2020). The impact of cuing candidate quality on female candidates. Electoral Studies, 64, 102127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2020.102127

Dancey, L., & Sheagley, G. (2013). Heuristics behaving badly: Party cues and voter knowledge. American Journal of Political Science, 57(2), 312–325. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2012.00621.x

*Ditonto, T. (2017). A high bar or a double standard? Gender, competence, and information in political campaigns. Political Behavior, 39(2), 301–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-016-9357-5

Ditonto, T. (2019). Direct and indirect effects of prejudice: Sexism, information, and voting behavior in political campaigns. Politcs Groups and Identities, 7(3), 590–609. https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2019.1632065

*Dobbs, K. L. (2020). Youth quotas and “Jurassic Park” politicians: Age as a heuristic for vote choice in Tunisia’s new democracy. Democratization. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2020.1763312

Engelbrecht, J. L., Duell, M., & Edlund, J. E. (2024). Fertility fails to predict voter preference for the 2020 election: A pre-registered replication of Navarrete et al. (2010). Psychological reports. First published online. https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941241233209

*Erdoğan, E. (2013). Revising the equation: Partisan bias and economic voting hypothesis in the Turkish context. İktisat İşletme ve Finans, 28(325), 27–59. https://doi.org/10.3848/iif.2013.325.3620

*Franklin, M. N., & Van Spanje, J. (2012). How do established voters react to new parties? The case of Italy, 1985–2008. Electoral Studies, 31(2), 297–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2011.11.009

García-Retamero, R., & Dieckmann, A. (2006). Una visión crítica del enfoque de los heurísticos rápidos y frugales. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 38(3), 509–522. https://pepsic.bvsalud.org/pdf/rlp/v38n3/v38n3a05.pdf

Gigerenzer, G., & Selten, R. (2001). Bounded Rationality: The Adaptative Toolbox. The Mit Press.

Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P., & The ABC Group. (2000). Simple heuristics that make us smart. Oxford University Press.

*Graefe, A., & Armstrong, J. S. (2012). Predicting elections from the most important issue: A test of the take-the-best heuristic. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 25(1), 41–48. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.710

Griffin, J. D., Newman, B., & Buhr, P. (2020). Class war in the voting booth: Bias against high-income congressional candidates. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 45(1), 131–145. https://doi.org/10.1111/lsq.12253

*Hansen, K. M., Olsen, A. L., & Bech, M. (2015). Cross-national yardstick comparisons: A choice experiment on a forgotten voter heuristic. Political Behavior, 37(4), 767–789. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-014-9288-y

*Harteveld, E., Dahlberg, S., Kokkonen, A., & Van Der Brug, W. (2019). Gender Differences in Vote Choice: Social Cues and Social Harmony as Heuristics. British Journal of Political Science, 49(3), 1141–1161. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123417000138

Kang, W. C., & Song, B. K. (2023). Making sense of heuristic choice in nonpartisan elections: Evidence from South Korea. Political Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-023-09899-2

Lau, R. R. (2013). Correct voting in the 2008 U.S. presidential nominating elections. Political Behavior, 35(2), 331–355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-012-9198-9

Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2001). Advantages and disadvantages of cognitive heuristics in political decision making. American Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 951–971. https://doi.org/10.1016/0261-3794(83)90128-2

Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2006). How voters decide: Information processing during political campaigns. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791048

Lau, R. R., Kleinberg, M. S., & Ditonto, T. M. (2018). Measuring voter decision strategies in political behavior and public opinion research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 82(SI), 325–350. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfy004

Lauener, L. (2020). Why do citizens vote against their basic political values? Swiss Political Science Review, 26(2), 153–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/spsr.12402

Lewkowicz, M. A. (2006). The effectiveness of elite cues as heuristics in proposition elections. American Politics Research, 34(1), 51–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X05276510

*Marietta, M., & Barker, D. C. (2007). Values as heuristics: Core beliefs and voter sophistication in the 2000 republican nomination contest. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties, 17(1), 49–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/13689880601132554

*Matson, M., & Fine, T. S. (2006). Gender, ethnicity, and ballot information: Ballot cues in low-information elections. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 6(1), 49–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/153244000600600103

*McDermott, M. L. (2005). Candidate occupations and voter information shortcuts. Journal of Politics, 67(1), 201–219. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2005.00314.x

McDermott, M. L. (2009). Voting for myself: Candidate and voter group associations over time. Electoral Studies, 28(4), 606–614. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2009.05.025

*McLaughlin, B., & Wise, D. (2014). Cueing god: Religious cues and voter support. Politics and Religion, 7(2), 366–394. https://doi.org/10.1017/S175504831400008X

Milic, T. (2020). The use of the endorsement heuristic in Swiss popular votes. Swiss Political Science Review, 26(3), 296–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/spsr.12407

Moehler, D., & Conroy-Krutz, J. (2016). Eyes on the ballot: Priming effects and ethnic voting in the developing world. Electoral Studies, 42, 99–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2016.01.010

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., Altman, D., Antes, G., Atkins, D., Barbour, V., Barrowman, N., Berlin, J. A., Clark, J., Clarke, M., Cook, D., D’Amico, R., Deeks, J. J., Devereaux, P. J., Dickersin, K., Egger, M., Ernst, E., … Tugwell, P. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097

*Navarrete, C. D., McDonald, M. M., Mott, M. L., Cesario, J., & Sapolsky, R. (2010). Fertility and race perception predict voter preference for Barack Obama. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31(6), 394–399. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.05.002

*Ono, Y., & Burden, B. C. (2019). The contingent effects of candidate sex on voter choice. Political Behavior, 41(3), 583–607. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-018-9464-6

*Pavela Banai, I., Banai, B., & Bovan, K. (2017). Vocal characteristics of presidential candidates can predict the outcome of actual elections. Evolution and Human Behavior, 38(3), 309–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2016.10.012

Pétry, F., & Duval, D. (2017). When heuristics go bad: Citizens’ misevaluations of campaign pledge fulfilment. Electoral Studies, 50, 116–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2017.09.010

Portmann, L. (2022). What makes a successful candidate? Political experience and low-information cues in elections. Journal of Politics, 84(4), 2049–2063. https://doi.org/10.1086/719638

Redlawsk, D. P. (2004). What voters do: Information search during election campaigns. Political Psychology, 25(4), 595–610. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00389.x

Rice, L., & Barth, J. M. (2016). Hiring decisions: The effect of evaluator gender and gender stereotype characteristics on the evaluation of job applicants. Gender Issues, 33(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-015-9143-4

Rivera, J. M., & Jaráiz, E. (2016). Modelos de explicación y componentes del voto en las elecciones autonómicas catalanas de 2015. Revista Española de Ciencia Política, 1(42), 13–43. https://doi.org/10.21308/recp.42.01

*Robbett, A., & Matthews, P. H. (2018). Partisan bias and expressive voting. Journal of Public Economics, 157, 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2017.09.008

Robles, J. M. (2005). Racionalidad acotada: Heurísticos y acción individual. Theoria, 14(1), 37–46. https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=299/29900105

*Ryan, J. B. (2010). The effects of network expertise and biases on vote choice. Political Communication, 27(1), 44–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600903481893

*Schaffner, B. F., & Streb, M. J. (2002). The partisan heuristic in low-information elections. Public Opinion Quarterly, 66(4), 559–581. https://doi.org/10.1086/343755

Singh, V. K., Singh, P., Karmakar, M., Leta, J., & Mayr, P. (2021). The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 126(6), 5113–5142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03948-5

*Spezio, M. L., Loesch, L., Gosselin, F., Mattes, K., & Alvarez, R. M. (2012). Thin-slice decisions do not need faces to be predictive of election outcomes. Political Psychology, 33(3), 331–341. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00897.x

Stevens, D., & Banducci, S. (2013). One voter and two choices: The impact of electoral context on the 2011 UK referendum. Electoral Studies, 32(2), 274–284. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2012.10.005

*Stockemer, D., & Praino, R. (2015). Blinded by beauty? Physical attractiveness and candidate selection in the U.S. House of Representatives. Social Science Quarterly, 96(2), 430–443. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12155

*Stockemer, D., & Praino, R. (2017). Physical attractiveness, voter heuristics and electoral systems: The role of candidate attractiveness under different institutional designs. British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 19(2), 336–352. https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148116687533

Tóth, M., & Chytilek, R. (2018). Fast, frugal and correct? An experimental study on the influence of time scarcity and quantity of information on the voter decision making process. Public Choice, 177(1–2), 67–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-018-0587-4

*Van der Straeten, K., Laslier, J. F., Sauger, N., & Blais, A. (2010). Strategic, sincere, and heuristic voting under four election rules: An experimental study. Social Choice and Welfare, 35(3), 435–472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-010-0448-7

Vilaça, L., & Turner, J. R. (2024). The new corruption crusaders: Security sector ties as an anti-corruption voting heuristic. Latin American Politics and Society, 66(4), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1017/lap.2023.39

*Webster, S. W., & Pierce, A. W. (2019). Older, younger, or more similar? The use of age as a voting heuristic. Social Science Quarterly, 100(3), 635–652. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12604

* Studies included in the review