Prosociality in Majority Decisions: A Laboratory Experiment on the Robustness of the Uncovered Set

IF 3.2 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE

Journal of Experimental Political Science Pub Date : 2021-01-20 DOI:10.1017/XPS.2020.43

Jan Sauermann

引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract Social choice theory demonstrates that majority rule is generically indeterminate. However, from an empirical perspective, large and arbitrary policy shifts are rare events in politics. The uncovered set (UCS) is the dominant preference-based explanation for the apparent empirical predictability of majority rule in multiple dimensions. Its underlying logic assumes that voters act strategically, considering the ultimate consequences of their actions. I argue that all empirical applications of the UCS rest on an incomplete behavioral model assuming purely egoistically motivated individuals. Beyond material self-interest, prosocial motivations offer an additional factor to explain the outcomes of majority rule. I test my claim in a series of committee decision-making experiments in which I systematically vary the fairness properties of the policy space while keeping the location of the UCS constant. The experimental results overwhelmingly support the prosociality explanation.

查看原文本刊更多论文

多数决策中的亲社会性:未覆盖集鲁棒性的实验室实验

摘要社会选择理论证明了多数规则在一般意义上是不确定的。然而，从经验的角度来看，大规模和武断的政策转变在政治中是罕见的。无覆盖集（UCS）是对多维多数规则的明显经验可预测性的主要基于偏好的解释。其基本逻辑假设选民采取战略性行动，考虑他们行动的最终后果。我认为UCS的所有实证应用都建立在一个不完整的行为模型上，假设个人纯粹是利己主义动机。除了物质私利，亲社会动机提供了一个额外的因素来解释多数统治的结果。我在一系列委员会决策实验中测试了我的主张，在这些实验中，我系统地改变了政策空间的公平性属性，同时保持UCS的位置不变。实验结果压倒性地支持亲社会性的解释。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Experimental Political Science Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science

CiteScore

5.10

自引率

8.30%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Journal of Experimental Political Science (JEPS) features cutting-edge research that utilizes experimental methods or experimental reasoning based on naturally occurring data. We define experimental methods broadly: research featuring random (or quasi-random) assignment of subjects to different treatments in an effort to isolate causal relationships in the sphere of politics. JEPS embraces all of the different types of experiments carried out as part of political science research, including survey experiments, laboratory experiments, field experiments, lab experiments in the field, natural and neurological experiments. We invite authors to submit concise articles (around 4000 words or fewer) that immediately address the subject of the research. We do not require lengthy explanations regarding and justifications of the experimental method. Nor do we expect extensive literature reviews of pros and cons of the methodological approaches involved in the experiment unless the goal of the article is to explore these methodological issues. We expect readers to be familiar with experimental methods and therefore to not need pages of literature reviews to be convinced that experimental methods are a legitimate methodological approach. We will consider longer articles in rare, but appropriate cases, as in the following examples: when a new experimental method or approach is being introduced and discussed or when novel theoretical results are being evaluated through experimentation. Finally, we strongly encourage authors to submit manuscripts that showcase informative null findings or inconsistent results from well-designed, executed, and analyzed experiments.