Menu Adam R Brown

Notes navigation: Browse by titleBrowse by authorSubject index

Brodsky and Thompson: Ethos, public choice, and referendum voting

Disclaimer. Don't rely on these old notes in lieu of reading the literature, but they can jog your memory. As a grad student long ago, my peers and I collaborated to write and exchange summaries of political science research. I posted them to a wiki-style website. "Wikisum" is now dead but archived here. I cannot vouch for these notes' accuracy, nor can I say who wrote them.

Brodsky and Thompson. 1993. Ethos, public choice, and referendum voting. Social science quarterly 74:22, 286-299.

In Brief

Questions and Answers:

Question 1: "What is the distribution of private-regarding and public-regarding attitudes in the electorate?"

Answer 1: There is no significant difference between distribution of public-regarding vs. private-regarding voters (45.7%: 54.3%)

Question 2: Do ethos attitudes explain vote choices by individuals?

Answer 2: Yes. The high correlation between the justification voters gave for their voting decisions (public vs. private) and Brodsky & Thompson's prior classification of those individuals as public vs. private-regarding demonstrated that Brodsky & Thompson's classification was a good measure.

Question 3: "What characteristics distinguish private-regarding citizens from public-regarding citizens?"

Answer 3: Ethos theory predicts that socioeconomic characteristics are good predictors of public-regarding (or private-regarding) ethos. If someone is public-regarding, they will support proposals that may hurt them as individuals. Brodsky & Thompson disagree and find that education level is the only statistically significant predictor.

Research on similar subjects


Brodsky, David (author)Thompson, Edward (author)Political TheorySelf-InterestVotingTurnoutProsocial Behavior

Wikisum home: Index of all summaries by title, by author, or by subject.