You are not currently logged in.
Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Experimenting with the Balancing Hypothesis
John G. Geer, Amy Carter, James McHenry, Ryan Teten and Jennifer Hoef
Vol. 25, No. 1 (Feb., 2004), pp. 49-63
Published by: International Society of Political Psychology
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3792523
Page Count: 15
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
The reasons why divided government is on the rise in the United States remain unclear. Of the explanations offered, Fiorina's (1992) balancing hypothesis-the idea that voters intentionally cast their ballots in a way that would increase the prospects of split party control-has drawn the most attention. This study gathered empirical evidence to test the hypothesis; its focus was not on whether citizens want divided government, but rather on whether they collectively act in a way consistent with balancing. In September 2000, during the national election campaign, a sample of undergraduates responded to one of five versions of a newspaper article (similar to actual articles about the campaign) that varied with respect to reported polling data on the competitiveness of the congressional and presidential races. The results cast doubt on the merits of the balancing hypothesis.
Political Psychology © 2004 International Society of Political Psychology