There’s a first time for everything A study of the decision-making strategies of first-time voters Dina Heider Hov Master’s Thesis Department of Political Science Faculty of Social Sciences UNIVERSITY OF OSLO Spring 2019 Number of words: 33 208 I II There’s a first time for everything A study of the decision-making strategies of first-time voters III © Dina Heider Hov 2019 There’s a first time for everything. A study of decision-making strategies employed by first-time voters http://www.duo.uio.no/ Printed: Allkopi Word count: 33 208 IV Abstract How to first-time voters decide which party to vote for? This thesis studies decision processes and strategies among first-time voters in Norway. I argue that the traditional way of explaining voter behavior, using issue opinions and political values, might not give the whole picture when looking at first-time voters, or other voters that have not yet developed a stance on many of these issues. Thus, this thesis approaches this electoral group in a more process- oriented way, focusing not only on the decision, but more on the cognitive processes leading up to the decision. I ask “what type of heuristics or decision strategies do people employ when deciding on their vote?”, with a special emphasis on first-time voters. The theoretical point of departure is the framework and the five voter decision-making strategies proposed by Lau and Redlawsk (2006, 2018). I conducted semi-structured interviews with first-time voters from three different high schools, which I later categorized within the preexisting strategies developed by Lau and Redlawsk. I identified four of the five decision-making strategies. I found that the best predictor for decision-making strategy is the voters subjectively perceived importance of task. The more important the perception of the decision task, the higher probability of employing a cognitively demanding strategy. The lower the interest, the higher probability of basing one’s decision on cognitive short-cuts like decision heuristics. I also found that voters in this sample, different from the strategies proposed by Lau and Redlawsk, went through a two-step decision process. I argue that due to the Norwegian multi-party system, voters in the first step decides which parties they perceive as potential candidates for their vote, more or less consciously eliminating several alternatives, and then in the second step they decide whom to vote for. The type of decision strategy employed in the second step, ultimately depend on the voters perceived importance of the decision task. V VI Acknowledgements First of all, I am forever grateful to Johannes Bergh and Bernt Aardal for giving me the opportunity to work as their research assistant on the Norwegian National Election Studies. It has truly been, and still is, the most fulfilling job I have ever had. It has given me confidence and faith in my own abilities as a researcher, and it has motivated my future aspirations. I want to thank Atle Haugsgjerd, your genuine passion for the field is truly inspiring, I appreciate all of our conversations, and the overall encouragement you have given me. Øyvind Bugge Solheim, thank you so much for invaluable guidance, discussions, comments and motivation throughout the whole process. Your faith in me has meant a lot, and I am grateful that I have met someone as selfless as you. Audun Bayer and Audun Fladmoe, thank you for helping me getting in contact with informants, and for sharing the same enthusiasm for cross-country skiing and Strava. Thank you to Hanna, Live, Sahra, Milla, Karin, Stine and last but not least Simon for making my time at ISF a truly wonderful experience. Your friendship has brought joy and inspiration and has sat the bar high for future colleagues. I also want to thank the Institute for Social Research, which has introduced me to a truly fascinating world of great research and great people. Also, special thanks to the participants of Politikkseminaret, for taking time to read and comment on my thesis. I also have to thank my best friends, Catharina and Julie for being my biggest supporters and motivators, not only in this process but in life in general. I love you. And Jacob, thank you for your support and love. I also have to thank Mimmi and bestefar, you have been so involved and caring throughout this whole process. And again, thank you so much Johannes Bergh, you have not only been my boss, but my supervisor. Thank you for answering hundreds of “stupid questions”, and for always taking time to discuss and comment on my work, and for being very positive and motivational when doing so. Thank you. Dina Heider Hov Torshov, Oslo, Norway July 2019 VII VIII Contents 1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Theory ................................................................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Classical theories of voting ............................................................................................................. 5 2.1.1 The sociological theory .................................................................................................................................................. 6 2.1.2 The Michigan Model ........................................................................................................................................................ 7 2.1.3 Norwegian election studies ......................................................................................................................................... 8 2.2 Lau and Redlawsk’ “New Theory of Voter Decision Making” .............................................. 9 2.3 Behavioral Decision Theory and bounded rationality ....................................................... 11 2.3.1 Our cognitive structure and its limits .................................................................................................................... 12 2.4 How do we cope with our inescapable cognitive limitations? ......................................... 14 2.4.1 Judgement heuristics .................................................................................................................................................... 14 2.4.2 Simplifying mechanisms for making choices ..................................................................................................... 15 2.4.3 Decision-making strategies and cognitive styles in general ........................................................................ 17 2.5 Lau and Redlawsk’ five voter decision strategies ................................................................ 18 2.6 What other factors can affect the decision strategy? .......................................................... 23 2.7 Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 26 3 Method -Research design ............................................................................................................ 27 3.1 Data ...................................................................................................................................................... 27 3.1.1 Population: First-time voters .................................................................................................................................... 27 3.1.2 Sample frame ................................................................................................................................................................... 29 3.1.3 Final sample ...................................................................................................................................................................... 30 3.2 Internal and external validity within qualitative research: A discussion .................... 31 3.2.1 Sample frame and sample: External validity ...................................................................................................... 32 3.2.2 Data: Internal validity .................................................................................................................................................. 33 3.3 On interviewing ............................................................................................................................... 34 3.3.1 Semi-structured interviews ....................................................................................................................................... 34 3.3.2 The interview process and the interview guide ............................................................................................... 36 3.4 On context – How can the high school context affect the decision strategies employed by Norwegian first-time voters? ................................................................................... 38 3.5 The analyzing process of the data ............................................................................................. 39 IX 4 Analysis ............................................................................................................................................. 40 4.1 Strategy 1: Rational choice decision-making ......................................................................... 40 4.2 Strategy 2: Confirmatory decision-making ............................................................................ 44 4.3 Strategy 3: Fast and