Recent scholarly work has discovered that modest changes in the framing of the titles and summaries of ballot measures can have dramatic effects on voter approval. This work expands upon these findings by exploring the effect of language specificity on support for ballot propositions that require the voter to pay for the measure with tax dollars. Although extensive research has explored ballot measure language complexity (e.g., position on the ballot, electoral effects, and prepossessed knowledge have all been shown to play a role in the outcome for propositions), left unanswered is the role of detailed language in altering support. Utilizing original experimental data, this work explores the framing effects of increasing specificity of proposed use of tax expenditures on support for ballot questions. Ultimately, this research finds that propositions providing more information to voters substantially increases the likelihood of support for those measures. Moreover, this increased specificity also bolsters certainty as to how the money will be spent, and intensifies how strongly voters feel about the issues being considered.
AnziaSarah. F.2011. “Election Timing and the Electoral Influence of Interest Groups.” The Journal of Politics73 (2): 412–27.
2.
AusderanJacob. 2014. “How Naming and Shaming Affects Human Rights Perceptions in the Shamed Country.” Journal of Peace Research51 (1): 81–95.
3.
BaloghBrian. 2009. A Government Out of Sight: The Mystery of National Authority in Nineteenth-Century America. New York: Cambridge University Press.
4.
BarabasJasonJeritJennifer. 2009. “Estimating the Causal Effects of Media Coverage on Policy-Specific Knowledge.” American Journal of Political Science53:73–89.
5.
BatesJohn A.LanzaBrian A.2013. “Conducting Psychology Student Research via the Mechanical Turk Crowdsourcing Service.” North American Journal of Psychology15 (2): 385–94.
6.
BerinskyAdam J.HuberGregory A.LenzGabriel S.2012. “Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.coms Mechanical Turk.” Political Analysis20 (2): 351–68.
7.
BiggersDaniel. 2011. “When Ballot Issues Matter: Social Issue Ballot Measures and Their Impact on Turnout.” Political Behavior33:3–25.
8.
BishopGeorgeTuchfarberAlfredOldendickRobert. 1978. “Change in the Structure of American Political Attitudes: The Nagging Question of Question Wording.” American Journal of Political Science22 (2): 250–69.
9.
BowlerShaunDonovanTodd. 1994. “Information and Opinion Change on Ballot Propositions.” Political Behavior16 (4): 411–32.
10.
BowlerShaunDonovanTodd. 1995. “Popular Responsiveness to Taxation.” Political Research Quarterly48:79–99.
11.
BrantonRegina. 2003. “Examining Individual-Level Voting Behavior on State Ballot Propositions.” Political Research Quarterly56 (3): 367–77.
12.
BuhrmesterMichael D.KwangTracyGoslingSamuel D.2011. “Amazons Mechanical Turk: A New Source of Inexpensive, yet High-Quality, Data?Perspectives on Psychological Science6:3–5.
13.
BurnettCraig. M.2013. “Does Campaign Spending Help Voters Learn about Ballot Measures?Electoral Studies31:78–89.
14.
BurnettCraig M.KoganVladimir. 2015. “When Does Ballot Language Influence Voter Choices? Evidence from a Survey Experiment.” Political Communication32 (1): 109–26.
15.
BurnettCraig M.McCubbinsMathew D.2013. “When Common Wisdom Is Neither Common nor Wisdom: Exploring Voters Limited Use of Endorsements on Three Ballot Measures.” Minnesota Law Review57 (5): 1557–95.
16.
CampbellAndrea Louise. 2009. “What Americans Think of Taxes.” In The New Fiscal Sociology: Taxation in Historical and Comparative Perspective, eds. William MartinIsaacMehrotraAjay K.PrasadMonica. New York: Cambridge University Press, 48–67.
17.
CampbellAndrea. L.MorganKimberly. J.2005. “Financing the Welfare State: Elite Politics and the Decline of the Social Insurance Model in America.” Studies in American Political Development19 (2): 173–95.
18.
ChongDennisDruckmanJames. 2013. “Counterframing Effects.” The Journal of Politics75 (1): 1–16.
19.
CliffordScottJewellRyan M.WaggonerPhilip D.2015. “Are Samples Drawn from Mechanical Turk Valid for Research on Political Ideology?” Research & Politics2 (4): 1–9.
20.
CollingwoodLoren. 2012. “Levels of Education and Support for Direct Democracy.” American Politics Research40 (4): 571–602.
21.
CowanNelson. 2010. “The Magical Mystery Four: How Is Working Memory Capacity Limited, and Why?” Current Directions in Psychological Science19 (1): 51–7.
22.
DiamondGregory A.2001. “Implications of a Latitude-Theory Model of Citizen Attitudes for Political Campaigning, Debate, and Representation.” In Citizens and Politics: Perspectives from Political Psychology, ed. KuklinskiJames. New York: Cambridge University Press, 289–312.
23.
DruckmanJames N.2001. “The Implications of Framing Effects for Citizen Competence.” Political Behavior23 (3): 225–56.
24.
DruckmanJames N.2004. “Political Preference Formation: Competition, Deliberation, and (Ir)relevance of Framing Effects.” American Political Science Review98:671–86.
25.
DruckmanJames N.PetersonErikSlothuusRune. 2013. “How Elite Partisan Polarization Affects Public Opinion Formation.” American Political Science Review107 (1): 57–79.
26.
FarnhamPaul G.1990. “The Impact of Citizen Influence on Local Government Expenditure.” Public Choice64:201–11.
27.
GafkeRogerLeutholdDavid. 1979. “The Effect on Voters of Misleading, Confusing, and Difficult Ballot Titles.” Public Opinion Quarterly43 (3): 394–401.
28.
GerberAlanHuberGregory A.DohertyDavid. 2013. “Big Five Personality Traits and Responses to Persuasive Appeals: Results from Voter Turnout Experiments.” Political Behavior34:687–728.
29.
GongHuanRogersCynthia L.2014. “Does Voter Turnout Influence School Bond Elections?Southern Economic Journal81 (1): 247–62.
30.
HamiltonJames T.LaddHelen F.1996. “Biased Ballots? The Impact of Ballot Structure on North Carolina Elections in 1992.” Public Choice87:259–80.
31.
HastingsJeffCannDamon. 2014. “Ballot Titles and Voter Decision Making on Ballot Questions.” State and Local Government Review46 (2): 118–27.
32.
HibbingJohn R.Theiss-MorseElizabeth. 2002. Stealth Democracy: Americans’ Beliefs about How Government Should Work. New York: Cambridge University Press.
33.
JacobRafael2017. “Party, People, or Policy? Uncovering the Impact of Advertisement on Voter Behavior in Ballot Initiative and Candidate-Centered Campaigns.” Ph.D. thesis, Temple University, Philadelphia.
34.
JacobyWilliam2000. “Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending.” American Journal of Political Science44 (4): 750–67.
35.
JonidesJohnLewisRichard L.NeeDerek E.LustigCindy A.BermanMark G.MooreKatherine S.2008. “The Mind and Brain of Short-Term Memory.” Annual Review of Psychology59:193–224.
36.
KahnemanDanielSlovicPaulTverskyAmos, eds. 1982. Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.
37.
KidderJeffrey L.William MartinIssac. 2012. “What We Talk about When We Talk about Taxes.” Symbolic Interaction35 (2): 123–45.
38.
KrupnikovYannaBauerNichole M.2014. “The Relationship between Campaign Negativity, Gender and Campaign Context.” Political Behavior36:167–88.
39.
KuklinskiJamesJeritJennifer. 2001. “Commentary: The Meaning of ‘Attitude’ in Representative Democracies.” In Citizens and Politics: Perspectives from Political Psychology, ed. KuklinskiJames. New York: Cambridge University Press, 341–51.
40.
LaceyRobert J.2005. “The Electoral Allure of Direct Democracy: The Effect of Initiative Salience on Voting, 1990–96.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly5 (2): 168–81.
41.
LaxJeffrey R.PhillipsJustin H.2009. “Gay Rights in the States: Public Opinion and Policy Responsiveness.” American Political Science Review103:367–86.
42.
LeeE. C.1978. “California.” In Referendums: A Comparative Study of Practices and Theory, eds. ButlerDavidRanneyAustin. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 87–122.
43.
LevayKevin E.FreeseJeremyDruckmanJames N.2016. “The Demographic and Political Composition of Mechanical Turk Samples.” Sage Open6 (1): 1–17.
44.
LevinIrwin P.SchneiderSandra L.GaethGary J.1998. “All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes76 (2): 149–88.
45.
LiebermanEvan S.2001. “National Political Community and the Politics of Income Taxation in Brazil and South Africa in the Twentieth Century.” Politics & Society29:515–55.
46.
MagelbyDavid B.1984. Direct Legislation: Voting on Ballot Propositions in the United States. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
47.
MarcinkiewiczKamilStegmaierMary. 2014. “Ballot Position Effects under Compulsory and Optional Preferential-List PR Electoral Systems.” Political Behavior37 (2): 465–86.
48.
MatsusakaJohn G.1995. “Fiscal Effects of the Voter Initiative: Evidence from the Last 30 Years.” Journal of Political Economy103 (3): 587–623.
49.
MatsusakaJohn G.2005. “Direct Democracy Works.” Journal of Economic Perspectives19:185–206.
50.
MatsusakaJohn G.2010. “Popular Control of Public Policy: A Quantitative Approach.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science5 (2): 133–67.
MeredithMarc. 2009. “The Strategic Timing of Direct Democracy.” Economics & Politics21 (1): 159–77.
53.
MichalskiKaren. B.GuileMichael N.1990. “Readability of Simulated State Question Ballots Affects Voting Behavior.” Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society28:239–40.
54.
MuirEdwardKristaSchneider. 1999. “State Initiatives and Referenda on Bonds: A Comparative Analysis of One Solution for the School Infrastructure Crisis.” Journal of Education Finance24 (4): 415–33.
55.
MullinixKevin J.LeeperThomas J.DruckmanJames N.FreeseJeremy. 2015. “The Generalizability of Survey Experiments.” Journal of Experimental Political Science2 (2): 109–38.
56.
NelsonThomas E.KinderDonald R.1996. “Issue Frames and Group-Centrism in American Public Opinion.” The Journal of Politics58:1055–78.
57.
NicholsonStephen2003. “The Political Environment and Ballot Proposition Awareness.” American Journal of Political Science47 (3): 403–10.
58.
PageBenjamin I.ShapiroRobert Y.1992. The Rational Public: Fifty Years of Trends in Americans’ Policy Preferences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
59.
PearsonElizabeth. 2014. “Saying Yes to Taxes: The Politics of Tax Reform Campaigns in Three Northwestern States, 1965–1973.” American Journal of Sociology119 (5): 1279–1323.
60.
PrasadMonica. 2012. The Land of Too Much: American Abundance and the Paradox of Poverty. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
61.
RasinskiKenneth. 1989. “The Effect of Question Wording on Public Support for Government Spending.” Public Opinion Quarterly53:388–94.
62.
ReillyShaunaRicheySean. 2011. “Ballot Question Readability and Roll-Off: The Impact of Language Complexity.” Political Research Quarterly64 (1): 59–67.
63.
SandersArthur. 1988. “Rationality, Self-interest, and Public Attitudes on Public Spending.” Social Science Quarterly69 (2): 311–24.
64.
SearsDavidCitrinJack. 1982. Tax Revolt: Something for Nothing in California. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
65.
SmithDaniel. A.2001. “Special Interests and Direct Democracy: An Historical Glance.” In The Battle over Citizen Lawmaking, ed. WatersM. Dane Durham: Carolina Academic Press, 59–71.
66.
SmithDaniel A.TolbertCaroline. 2007. “The Instrumental and Educative Effects of Ballot Measures: Research on Direct Democracy in the American States.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly7 (4): 416–45.
67.
TolbertCaroline J.1998. “Changing Rules for State Legislatures: Direct Democracy and Governance Policies.” In Citizens as Legislators: Direct Democracy in the United States, eds. DonovanToddTolbertCaroline. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 171–90.
68.
TolbertCaroline J.BowenDaniel C.DonovanTodd. 2009. “Initiative Campaigns: Direct Democracy and Voter Mobilization.” American Politics Research37 (1): 155–92.
69.
TolbertCaroline J.SmithDaniel A.2005. “The Educative Effects of Ballot Initiatives on Voter Turnout.” American Politics Research33 (2): 289–309.
70.
TomzMichaelWeeksJessica. 2013. “Public Opinion and the Democratic Peace.” American Political Science Review107 (4): 849–65.
71.
TverskyAmosKahnemanDaniel. 1981. “The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice.” Science211 (January): 453–58.
72.
TverskyAmonsKahnemanDaniel. 1982. Question Framing and Response Consistency. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
73.
VentryDennis J.2011. “Americans Don’t Hate Taxes, They Hate Paying Taxes.” University of British Columbia Law Review44 (3): 835–89.
74.
WelchSusan. 1985. “The ‘More for Less’ Paradox: Public Attitudes on Taxing and Spending.” Public Opinion Quarterly49 (3): 310–16.
75.
WettsteinMartin. 2012. “Frame Adoption in Referendum Campaigns: The Effect of New Coverage on the Public Salience of Issue Interpretations.” American Behavioral Scientist56 (3): 318–33.
76.
WilenskyHarold L.2002. Rich Democracies: Political Economy, Public Policy, and Performance. Berkeley: University of California Press.
77.
WinterSorenMouritzenPoul E.2001. “Why People Want Something for Nothing: The Role of Asymmetrical Illusions.” European Journal of Political Research39 (1): 109–43.
78.
ZallerJohn. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.
79.
ZaxJeffery S.1989. “Initiatives and Government Expenditures.” Public Choice63:267–77.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
