Model of behavioural strategies for coping with party ambivalence

ABSTRACT

This article explores the antecedents and behavioural consequences of party ambivalence in an election context, in which both abstract factors (e.g. feeling stranded in an ideological fight) and concrete factors (e.g. dissatisfaction with both parties’ ability to handle economic issues) may arouse party ambivalence. Prior research reports different voting behaviours by ambivalent and univalent voters, though no coherent theoretical framework exists to explain these findings. To address that gap, the current article proposes a Model of Behavioural Strategies for Coping with Party Ambivalence, according to which ambivalent voters deal with the anticipated regret associated with making the wrong choices by adopting one of three coping strategies. First, they may avoid voting, because inaction is associated with less anticipated regret than action. Second, they may deny full responsibility by splitting their ticket. Third, they might attempt to reduce anticipated regret by jumping on the bandwagon and voting for a projected winner. Applications of the model to the 2016 Taiwanese presidential election provide support for these predictions.

KEYWORDS:

• Party ambivalence
• presidential election
• split-ticket voting
• Taiwan

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. For a more complete history of Taiwan’s electoral system, please see Rigger (1999) or Roy (2003).

2. Among 18,606 phone numbers called, no contacts (busy line, no answer, fax machines, answering machines, company lines) accounted for 68.42% (12,731), incomplete (not eligible) calls accounted for 12.69% (N = 2,361), unwillingness to answer accounted for 10.28% (1,912), and completed surveys accounted for 8.61% (N = 1,602). Response rate here refers to completed surveys/(completed surveys + unwilling to answer).

3. All the questions include four additional items: (95) no opinion; (96) hard to tell; (97) I do not know; and (98) refuse to answer. Because it is a sensitive question and people who have one-sided opinions are reluctant to express their views, those who selected these items were coded 0.

4. The choices were (1) DPP; (2) PFP; (3) Free Taiwan Party; (4) Peace Pigeon Union Party; (5) MCFAP; (6) Minkuotang; (7) Faith And Hope League; (8) China Uniform Party; (9) Kuomintang; (10) Taiwan Solidarity Union; (11) New Power Party; (12) Constitutional Conventions of Taiwan; (13) Green Party Taiwan; (14) Taiwan Independence; (15) Non-Partisan Solidarity Union; (16) New Party; (17) National Health Service Alliance; (18) Trees Party; (19) People’s Democratic Front; (20) Taiwan Labor Party; (21) Social Welfare Party; (22) Righteous Party; (23) Taiwan Win Party; (24) Labor Party; (26) Nonpartisan; (95) cast a void vote; (96) did not go to the polls (97) do not know; and (98) refuse to answer. Pan-blue respondents were those who chose 2–9, 12, 15, 16, 17, 19, 22, and 23. Pan-green respondents were those who chose 1, 10, 11, 13–14, 18, 20, 21, and 24.

5. The question asked ‘Overall, between the KMT and DPP, which one is better at handling the economy?’ The choices were coded such that higher scores indicated the KMT was better: ‘KMT is much better’ (5); ‘KMT is slightly better’ (4); ‘Difficult to tell’ (3); ‘DPP is slightly better’ (2); and ‘DPP is much better’ (1).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Chingching Chang

Chingching Changis a Distinguished Research Fellow at the Research Center for Humanities and Social Sciences, Academia Sinica, and an Endowed University Chair Professor at the Department of Advertising and Taiwan Institute for Governance and Communication Research at National Chengchi University. Her research interests include political communication and media effects.

Chung-Li Wu

Chung-li Wu is a Research Fellow at the Institute of Political Science, Academia Sinica, in Taiwan. His research interests are American politics (political institutions), urban and minority politics, comparative politics, and electoral studies.