Ann Arbor model
The Ann Arbor Model (also Michigan Model ) is a model of empirical election research . It was developed in the 1950s by social scientists Angus Campbell , Gerald Gurin, and Warren E. Miller at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor .
According to the Ann Arbor model, voting behavior can be explained by the interaction of political-institutional, socio-economic and psychological factors. It is assumed that the majority of voters are not faced with a completely new and thus open decision-making situation before each election . Rather, they have long-term preferences or aversions towards the competing parties . The direct influencing factors, i.e. the attitudes of voters towards the candidates and the position taken by the parties on current, controversial issues, are linked to psychological and social factors, primarily party identification . This “psychological membership” in a party is available to the voter for every decision as a so-called “standing decision”, which is elected as long as no other significant factors speak against it. An election determined by party identification is therefore also referred to as “ normal election ”. In addition, party identification also indirectly influences the perception and processing of political information. The decision to vote is thus based on the interaction of previous experiences and subjective interpretations of the situation.
In the context of the Ann Arbor model, the electoral decision-making process can be compared to a funnel, the starting point of which is the voting decision. The party loyalty as a long-term factor as well as the topics and people as short-term influencing factors precede this.
Long-term factor - party affiliation
Sociological models are particularly suitable for describing the social correlates of party ties . While these models find their limit in explaining short-term “voter migration”, they are extremely well suited to determining factors that determine electoral behavior over a long period of time.
In this context, a distinction is usually made between micro-sociological and macro-sociological explanatory models. According to the microsociological model, party ties arise “primarily through political socialization and communication with opinion leaders [...] and through the tendency of the individual to live in a relationship that is as tension-free as possible with his family, friends and work colleagues” . In addition to this individual-sociologically oriented model, party ties can also be explained with macro-sociological models. According to this, party ties are the result of long-lasting coalitions of political parties with large social groups (e.g. trade unions , churches, etc.). Belonging to one of these so-called cleavages requires a lasting affinity to a party. The party affiliation remains safe even through the occasional election of another party, at least as long as the deviating vote remains an exceptional situation.
In addition to the direct influence on the voting decision, the attitude of voters to certain issues and candidates is also influenced by party affiliation. "Party identification helps people evaluate candidates without having to find out about many of their characteristics . " Information about politicians is thus processed interpretatively according to their party political affiliation and according to subjective prejudices. From reports, viewers primarily perceive what fits into their preconceived image of the candidate; Contributions that support existing perspectives also attract more attention. Even if empirical studies repeatedly show a decline in party ties, it remains of central importance for voter behavior in Germany. Other factors are becoming increasingly relevant as a result of this development.
Short-term factors - topic and candidate orientation
In the Ann Arbor model, falling party ties inevitably lead to an increase in the importance of political issues and candidates. This is generally not a problematic development either. From a normative point of view in particular, signs that point to increased topic-related voting can be assessed positively. "It would be too nice to have a voter freed from socially structured connections and cognitively highly mobilized, who is exclusively oriented towards factual issues" . The fact that one can hardly assume such an ideal case can be explained by the rationalistic theory of voter behavior.
The starting point of the rational choice theory is an economic approach, according to which voters make their voting decision dependent on which option they expect the greatest personal benefit from. The competing parties offer their various products (election programs) as optional offers on the voter market. In order for voters to be able to filter out which program generates the greatest individual benefit for them, they actually have to “sift through” the party's election programs . Since the voter follows the logic of an economic approach, as a rule, the goal of maximizing utility , that is, the greatest possible benefit with the least possible effort, he will hardly read and compare pages of election programs. On the other hand, information about people can be obtained much more cheaply. This is especially true when the assessment of candidates is primarily based on non-role characteristics, such as assessments of sympathy or the assessment of physical attractiveness. In such a case, the private life of politicians can be decisive for the decision to vote.
From a theoretical point of view, however, it does not make much sense to strictly separate the perception of candidates and topics. Rather, a complementary rather than an alternative view of the two short-term influencing factors should be adopted in this context. “The voter does not choose people instead of programs, but rather 'programs with people' [...]. He does not elect the candidate instead of the party, but the candidate (s) of a party ” .
literature
- Angus Campbell , Philip E. Converse , Warren E. Miller , Donald E. Stokes : The American Voter . University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1980, ISBN 978-0-2260-9254-6 .
- Jürgen W. Falter , Siegfried Schumann, Jürgen Winkler: Explanatory model of voter behavior. In: From Politics and Contemporary History . Supplement to the weekly newspaper Parliament". B 43/89, October 20, 1989, pp. 3-24.
- Oscar W. Gabriel: Party identification, candidates and political issues as determinants of party competition. In: Oscar W. Gabriel, Oskar Niedermayer , Richard Stöss (eds.): Party democracy in Germany. VS Verlag, Wiesbaden 2002, ISBN 978-3-5313-3060-0 , pp. 228-249.
- Harald Schoen, Cornelia Weins: The social-psychological approach to explaining voting behavior. In: Jürgen W. Falter, Harald Schoen (Hrsg.): Handbuch Wahlforschung. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden 2005, pp. 187–242.
- Eva Stern, Jürgen Graner: It's the Candidate, Stupid? Personalization of the German election campaigns. In: Thomas Berg (Ed.): Modern election campaign. Look behind the scenes. Vs Verlag, Opladen 2002, ISBN 978-3-8100-3532-5 , pp. 145-167.
Individual evidence
- ↑ cf. Falter / Schumann / Winkler 1990, p. 8.
- ↑ Falter / Schumann / Winkler 1990, p. 9.
- ↑ Falter / Schumann / Winkler 1990, p. 5.
- ↑ Brettschneider 2000, p. 50.
- ↑ cf. Kindelmann 1994, p. 31.
- ↑ cf. Schütz 1992, p. 108; Kepplinger, Dahlem, Brosius 1993, p. 169.
- ↑ cf. Brettschneider 2000, p. 49.
- ↑ a b Stern / Graner 2002, p. 150.
- ↑ cf. Falter / Schumann / Winkler 1990, p. 12.