Moral Bias in Large Elections: Theory and Experimental Evidence

By Timothy Feddersen, Sean Gailmard, Alvaro Sandroni. American Political Science Review, 2009

208 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Gender Studies, Political Science and International Relations, Safety Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e440893c293696837f1e02a35f7a686a332dca9b

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Gender Studies

1. Arye L. Hillman

In Political Science and International Relations

1. Jacob K. Goeree
2. Leeat Yariv
3. Arye L. Hillman

In Safety Research

1. Jacob K. Goeree
2. Leeat Yariv
3. Arye L. Hillman
4. Thomas R. Palfrey
5. Charles A. Holt

Citations in the corpus

• AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF COLLECTIVE DELIBERATION (2011, background): “…can be explained by either a desire to conform or match the winner (see Goeree and Yariv, 2007) combined with probability matching (Siegel and Goldstein, 1959 ), or some form of altruism (particularly in the case of the two supermajoritarian rules), as in Feddersen, Gailmard, and Sandroni (2009).”
• Varieties of Clientelism: Machine Politics During Elections (2010, unknown): “Feddersen et al. (2009) provide an extended discussion of the role of expressive utility in models of voter turnout.”
• Expressive behavior in economics and politics (2010, background): “47 See for example Frank, Gilovich, and Regan (1993), Frank and Schulze (2000). For an overview of the literature comparing behavior of economists and non-economists, see Kirchgässner (2005).”