https://doi.org/10.1177/1478929917748484
Political Studies Review
2019, Vol. 17(1) 53­–64
© The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1478929917748484
journals.sagepub.com/home/psrev
Explaining Time of Vote
Decision: The Socio-Structural,
Attitudinal, and Contextual
Determinants of Late Deciding
Simon Willocq
Abstract
In the last decades, Western democracies have witnessed an increase in the proportion of
voters who make their electoral choice late in the campaign. Consequently, scholars have paid
considerable attention to this phenomenon and attempted to identify the factors which influence
time of vote decision. This article reviews the literature on the determinants of decision timing.
Several studies suggest that women and young citizens are more likely to be late deciders.
Besides, party identification has been shown to hasten the electoral decision, whereas attitudinal
ambivalence and network cross-pressures have been found to delay the crystallisation of vote
intentions. Moreover, previous work reveals that strategic voters decide later than do their
sincere counterparts. Special attention is also devoted to the debate on whether the phenomenon
of late deciding can be seen as the consequence of a lack of political sophistication or as the
product of a high level of political engagement.
Keywords
time of vote decision, ambivalence, political sophistication, political disaffection, strategic
considerations
Accepted: 16 October 2017
Voter’s indecision has undoubtedly become one of the most salient topics in the media
coverage of election campaigns, but also one of the main fields of interest for students of
voting behaviour. In many established democracies, scholars have observed a long-term
trend for citizens to delay their voting choice until a later stage of the campaign. Previous
work demonstrates that in Western countries, there has been a gradual increase in the
percentage of voters who postpone their vote decision until the campaign is under way
(Box- Steffensmeier et al., 2015; Cautrès and Jadot, 2007; Dalton et al., 2000; Irwin and
Centre d’étude de la vie politique, Université libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
Corresponding author:
Simon Willocq, Centre d’étude de la vie politique, Université libre de Bruxelles, 44, Avenue Jeanne,
1050 Bruxelles, Belgium.
Email: swillocq@ulb.ac.be
748484PSW0010.1177/1478929917748484Political Studies ReviewWillocq
research-article2018
Article
54	 Political Studies Review 17 (1)
Van Holsteyn, 2008; Lachat, 2007; McAllister, 2002; Plischke, 2014). Indeed, less and
less citizens know before the start of the campaign which party they will vote for. A growing
segment of the electorate enters the campaign without a firm vote intention and
remains undecided until the last weeks before the election or even until Election Day.
Over the past few decades, a large number of studies have been conducted in order to
explain why some voters make their final choice even before the campaign starts, while
others take their electoral decision during the campaign period. Scholars have sought to
identify the socio-structural, attitudinal, and contextual factors that delay or precipitate
voting choices. The present article reviews this rich literature on the determinants of time
of vote decision. I show that electoral researchers have put forward six main types of
individual-level predictors of decision timing: sociodemographic characteristics, partisanship,
cross-pressures, political sophistication, political disaffection, and strategic considerations.
Moreover, I point out that besides individual-level factors, some contextual
factors have also been claimed to affect timing of the voting choice.
Sociodemographic Factors
In previous studies, two sociodemographic characteristics, namely age and gender, have
been argued to influence time of vote decision. Age is often regarded as one of the main
determinants of decision timing. Previous research demonstrates that young citizens are
more likely than their elders to make their voting choice late in the campaign (Blumenstiel
and Plischke, 2015; Cautrès and Jadot, 2007, 2009; Dupoirier and Frognier, 2009;
Fournier et al., 2004; Gopoian and Hadjiharalambous, 1994; Hopmann, 2012; McGregor,
2012; Mutz, 2002; Nir and Druckman, 2008; Schmitt-Beck and Partheymüller, 2012). As
Cautrès and Jadot (2007) have pointed out, the impact of age on decision timing can be
seen as a consequence of the political socialization process. Since old voters have already
been given the opportunity to participate in many elections during their lifetime, they are
quite familiar with the political system and the electoral process. Moreover, they often
have stable ideological orientations and stable party preferences. Hence, old citizens usually
know before the start of the campaign for whom they will vote. By contrast, young
voters have taken part in a smaller number of elections and, as a result, they still face
difficulty in dealing with the complexity of the electoral supply and party platforms.
Consequently, they tend to be more uncertain in their vote preferences and they are more
inclined to postpone their electoral decision until the last weeks before the election
(Cautrès and Jadot, 2007).
Second, gender is sometimes claimed to be a potential predictor of late deciding. Yet,
there are contradictory findings on whether gender affects timing of the voting choice.
On the one hand, some studies show that women are more prone than men to delay their
vote decision until the campaign is under way (Catelani and Alberici, 2012; Cautrès and
Jadot, 2007, 2009; Dupoirier and Frognier, 2009; Kenski, 2007; McGregor, 2012). On
the other hand, several authors have found that gender has no significant impact on time
of decision (Gopoian and Hadjiharalambous, 1994; Hopmann, 2012; Schmitt-Beck and
Partheymüller, 2012).
Partisanship
Party identification is unanimously considered as one of the most reliable predictors of
timing of the voting choice. In previous work, strong empirical evidence has accumulated
Willocq	 55
demonstrating that partisanship hastens the vote decision. Compared to voters who report
no partisan attachment, party identifiers are much more inclined to make up their mind
before the campaign begins (Blumenstiel and Plischke, 2015; Chaffee and Choe, 1980;
Chaffee and Rimal, 1996; Dalton, 2007, 2013; Dupoirier and Frognier, 2009; Fournier
et al., 2004; Gopoian and Hadjiharalambous, 1994; Kenski, 2007; Kogan and Gottfried,
2012; Kosmidis and Xezonakis, 2010; Lavine, 2001; McAllister, 2002; McGregor, 2012;
Mutz, 2002; Nir, 2005; Whitney and Goldman, 1985).
Cross-Pressures and Ambivalence
Another type of potential explanation for late deciding puts forward the notion of crosspressure
(or ambivalence) and was first proposed by Lazarsfeld et al. (1968) in their
groundbreaking work. Using data from a multiwave panel survey conducted in Erie
County (Ohio) during the 1940 US presidential election campaign, they compared sociostructural
and attitudinal characteristics of early deciders with those of late deciders in
order to identify the main determinants of time of vote decision. They found that those
individuals who made their voting choice in the last weeks before the election often
experienced a conflict between opposite pressures in their environment. The tensions
between these contradictory influences were termed ‘cross-pressures’ defined as ‘the
conflicts and inconsistencies among the factors which influence the vote decision’
(Lazarsfeld et al., 1968: 53). Some factors in the environment of the individual predisposed
him or her to support the Democrats, whereas other factors pushed him or her
towards the Republicans. In other words, voters affected by cross-pressures were driven
in opposite political directions.
In The People’s Choice, the researchers of the Columbia school mentioned several
sources of cross-pressures: contradictory sociodemographic characteristics that influenced
the voter in different political directions, inconsistent attitudes, and political disagreements
between the voter and some members of his or her personal network such as
family members, friends and colleagues. For instance, wealthy white collar voters were
said to be under cross-pressure, since they were torn between their socio-economic status
which encouraged them to vote for Republicans and their religious affiliation which operated
in favour of Democrats. As voters exposed to cross-pressures had good reasons to
support both parties, they found it difficult to decide which candidate to vote for and thus
took substantially longer to make their voting choice compared to those voters who were
not subject to such contradictory influences (Lazarsfeld et al., 1968).
In their seminal book, The American Voter, Campbell et al. (1960) drew the same conclusion,
and also claimed that attitude inconsistency delayed vote decisions. Drawing on
data from the 1952 and 1956 American National Election Study, they showed that voters
with a high level of attitude conflict were more likely to decide late in the campaign than
were those voters who displayed a high degree of attitudinal consistency. To illustrate the
delaying effect of attitudinal cross-pressures, Campbell et al. gave the example of a 1956
voter who remained undecided until the last days of the presidential campaign, because
he was torn between his party identification which predisposed him to support the democratic
candidate and his candidate evaluations which clearly favoured the republican
incumbent President Eisenhower.
In the 2000s, several scholars replaced the notion of cross-pressure by the concept of
ambivalence (Lavine, 2001; Mutz, 2002; Nir, 2005). More importantly, they offered a
refinement of the original cross-pressures theory, since they considered that
56	 Political Studies Review 17 (1)
the operational definition of cross-pressures proposed by Lazarsfeld et al. was too
encompassing and did not differentiate internal and external sources of conflicting
influences. They contend that the results of the 1940 Erie County study did not allow to
determine whether internal tensions (i.e. inconsistent political attitudes) or external
cross-pressures (i.e. discrepant social positions or disagreement within one’s personal
network) caused a delay in time of vote decision. Therefore, Mutz (2002) and Nir
(2005) developed an alternative conceptualisation of cross-pressures which distinguished
the two main sources of conflicts: internal (i.e. attitudinal) ambivalence and
external (i.e. sociological or network-level) ambivalence.
Internal ambivalence can be defined as the ‘individual’s endorsement of competing
considerations relevant to evaluating an attitude object’ (Lavine, 2001: 915). It must not
be confounded with neutrality or indifference: while indifference reflects a lack of political
opinion, ambivalence denotes a willingness to reconcile strong, but conflicting opinions.
Instead of embracing one side of a political debate and rejecting the other, ambivalent
individuals endorse central elements of both sides (Lavine, 2001).Amajor internal source
of cross-pressure is the attitudinal ambivalence towards parties/candidates. A voter is in
an ambivalent choice situation when he or she perceives several parties/candidates as
being similarly attractive (Lavine, 2001; Mutz, 2002; Nir, 2005).
External ambivalence, on the other hand, refers either to a situation in which the
voter is exposed to unanimous disagreement with his or her political opinions in his or
her social environment (cross-cutting social network) or to a situation in which the
voter belongs to a social network completely split into two political factions, with
some members sharing his or her opinions and others endorsing the opposite viewpoints
(network ambivalence). A cross-cutting network denotes the voter’s isolation
within a discussion network whose members unanimously oppose his or her own
viewpoint. Membership in a cross-cutting network thus implies that the individual
perceives all his or her discussants as being at odds with his or her own political position
(Mutz, 2002). Network-level ambivalence captures another type of configuration
in which the individual perceives his or her environment as being politically divided
between supporters and opponents of his or her own position. Network ambivalence
can be defined as ‘the balance of competing considerations perceived by the individual
within his or her social network’ (Nir, 2005: 425). At one extreme, the discussion network
is homogeneous and unanimously endorses one side of the political debate,
while at the other extreme, it is heterogeneous and evenly divided between both sides.
Voters embedded in a heterogeneous network are subject to cross-pressures, since
their discussants send them contradictory messages (Nir, 2005).
Over the last years, some scholars have attempted to assess the relative impact of internal
and external ambivalence on time of voting decision, to disentangle the effect of one
source from another. They found that attitudinal ambivalence towards parties/candidates
substantially delayed the crystallisation of vote intentions (Blumenstiel and Plischke,
2015; Kosmidis and Xezonakis, 2010; Lavine, 2001; Lavine and Steenbergen, 2005;
McGregor, 2012; Mutz, 2002; Nir, 2005; Nir and Druckman, 2008; Schmitt-Beck and
Partheymüller, 2012). Since ambivalent voters held different parties/candidates in similar
esteem, they were unable to make a clear-cut choice long in advance of the election, and
as a result, they postponed their vote decision until the last weeks of the campaign.
Besides, the external sources of ambivalence, namely cross-cutting social networks and
network ambivalence, were also shown to be significantly and positively associated with
late deciding. Exposure to dissonant political messages within discussion networks led
Willocq	 57
voters to take their final decision later in the campaign (Hopmann, 2012; Mutz, 2002; Nir,
2005; Schmitt-Beck and Partheymüller, 2012). Nevertheless, some studies suggest that
external ambivalence does not affect time of decision uniformly for all citizens (Nir,
2005; Nir and Druckman, 2008). As Nir (2005) has pointed out, the effect of external
ambivalence on timing of the voting choice is moderated by internal ambivalence. In
other words, the impact of network cross-pressures on decision timing varies according
to voters’level of attitudinal ambivalence. A high heterogeneity of interpersonal networks
can delay the vote decision of the most attitudinally ambivalent voters, for these individuals
are open to persuasion and tend to uncritically absorb conflicting messages from the
different sides of the political scene. However, network heterogeneity has no significant
effect on time of decision among the least ambivalent voters, because they are less susceptible
to persuasion and can resist to counter-attitudinal messages by using counterarguments.
Similarly, Nir and Druckman (2008) have demonstrated that internal
ambivalence moderates the influence of mixed media coverage of a campaign (i.e. a
balanced news coverage which offers equally favourable information for all parties) on
decision timing. Mixed campaign coverage delays the crystallisation of vote intentions,
but only among those voters with high attitudinal ambivalence.
Political Sophistication
Another potential explanation of time of vote decision dating back to the pioneer work of
the Columbia school focuses on the role of political sophistication. While the relationship
between political sophistication and decision timing has been intensively studied for
more than a half century, scholars’ opinions still differ on the question whether a high
level of political expertise increases or decreases the likelihood of postponing one’s voting
choice. In this debate, one can distinguish two competing theoretical perspectives on
late deciding: a pessimistic view and an optimistic view. According to the pessimistic
approach proposed by Lazarsfeld et al. (1968), late deciding can be regarded as the product
of a lack of political involvement, whereas according to the optimistic perspective
developed by Dalton (1984), late voting decisions tend to be taken by highly sophisticated
voters who seek to make thoughtful choices.
In The People’s Choice, Lazarsfeld et al. (1968) observed that early and late deciders
differed significantly with regard to their levels of political involvement. Those voters
who had already taken their vote decision before the start of the campaign were found to
be well-educated, interested in politics, attentive to the campaign and knowledgeable
about the political system. They made their electoral choice on the basis of a substantial
amount of information provided by the mass media (Berelson et al., 1963; Lazarsfeld
et al., 1968). By contrast, those voters who made up their mind during the campaign
seemed to be largely detached from politics and displayed low levels of political interest
and knowledge. They did not really care about the outcome of the election and did not
seek to gather substantive information on issues, candidates and the campaign to make a
well-motivated choice. Since these voters lacked cognitive skills and political information,
they faced difficulty in choosing a party/candidate and thus took longer to form their
vote preferences. They made their final determination only shortly before the election,
when voting decisions could no longer be delayed (Berelson et al., 1963; Lazarsfeld et al.,
1968). In light of these findings, the researchers of the Columbia school concluded that a
lack of political sophistication hindered the formation of voting preferences, thereby
leading to a delay in time of decision. In these early studies, late deciders were viewed as
58	 Political Studies Review 17 (1)
floating voters (i.e. apolitical and apathetic voters whose electoral behaviours were volatile,
erratic and unpredictable).
Since the 1980s, however, this pessimistic floating voter hypothesis has been largely
challenged and alternative theories have been proposed to explain time of decision
(Chaffee and Choe, 1980; Chaffee and Rimal, 1996; Dalton, 2006, 2013; Dalton et al.,
2000; Whitney and Goldman, 1985). Philip Dalton (2006) points to the emergence of a
new late decider who exhibits a high level of political involvement and whose profile
therefore differs fundamentally from that of the uninformed and uninterested last minute
decider of the 1940s. In the same vein, Russell Dalton (1984, 2013) claims that late deciding
voters nowadays are more likely to be found among highly sophisticated citizens than
among their less sophisticated counterparts. According to this optimistic view, late deciding
should no longer be interpreted as a symptom of apathy and political disengagement,
but it should rather be regarded as a positive sign indicating that well-informed and politically
knowledgeable voters seek to make a careful and thoughtful choice on the basis of
an attentive scrutiny of the campaign.
Russell Dalton argues that the arrival of sophisticated late deciders can be seen as a
consequence of the process of cognitive mobilisation. That process encompasses two
complementary dimensions: on the one hand, the spread of education which has increased
citizens’ cognitive abilities, and on the other hand, the expansion of mass media which
has made political information widely available (Dalton, 1984). According to Dalton,
these two evolutions have reduced the functional value of party identification, since
highly educated and well-informed voters do not have to use partisanship as a heuristic
cue to guide their voting decisions. Hence, the rise in political sophistication would have
largely contributed to partisan dealignment, that is, the gradual erosion of the bonds
between parties and citizens, resulting in a decline in the proportion of party identifiers
within the electorate. Following Dalton’s thesis, apartisans (or independents) have not
only become much more numerous, but their characteristics have also changed dramatically
over time. While in the 1950s and 1960s, independents were disproportionately
concentrated among the least sophisticated voters, apartisans would nowadays display
high levels of education and high levels of political interest (Dalton, 2013). In sum,
Dalton claims that the process of cognitive mobilisation has led to the emergence of a
growing group of highly sophisticated apartisans who possess the necessary skills and
resources to manage the complexity of politics and who can thus make well-considered
electoral choices on the basis of issues, candidates and past performances, without relying
on partisan cues. According to Dalton, these cognitively mobilized apartisans tend to take
their vote decision shortly before Election Day, because they wait until the last minute to
collect the maximal amount of information on issue positions, party platforms, and candidate
characteristics. If they made up their mind several months before the election, they
would neglect the information provided by the media over the course of the campaign
(Dalton, 2013; Dalton et al., 2000).
In line with this optimistic cognitive mobilisation hypothesis, several studies conducted
in Canada and in the US have shown that voters who took their final decision during the
campaign were more attentive to political information in the media than were those who
already knew before the start of the campaign for whom they would vote (Chaffee and
Choe, 1980; Chaffee and Rimal, 1996; McGregor, 2012; Whitney and Goldman, 1985).
Similarly, in his analysis of late deciding in Switzerland, Lachat (2007) has pointed out
that voters with a high level of political sophistication were more inclined than less sophisticated
voters to delay their electoral decision until the campaign was under way.
Willocq	 59
Although Dalton’s cognitive mobilisation hypothesis has received some empirical
support in the above mentioned studies, its validity has been frequently called into question.
Indeed, numerous recent studies lend no support to the claim that voters with high
levels of political interest and political involvement tend to take longer to make up their
mind. Instead, their results clearly indicate that the opposite holds true and that uninterested
voters are more prone than highly sophisticated voters to take their electoral decision
shortly before the election (Cattelani and Alberici, 2012; Cautrès and Jadot, 2007,
2009; Fournier et al., 2004; Gopoian and Hadjiharalambous, 1994; Henderson and
Hillygus, 2016; Hopmann, 2012; Kenski, 2007; Kogan and Gottfried, 2012; Lavine,
2001; Lavine and Steenbergen, 2005; McAllister, 2002; Nir and Druckman, 2008;
Schmitt-Beck and Partheymüller, 2012). For instance, Gopoian and Hadjiharalambous
(1994: 64) found that compared to early deciders:
late deciders are significantly less likely to follow government on a regular basis (…), less likely
to see differences between the political parties, less likely to be politically active, less likely to
express much interest in the campaign, and less likely to care about the outcome of the election.
Gopoian and Hadjiharalambous (1994: 64).
These findings are consonant with the pessimistic floating voter theory of the Columbia
school (Lazarsfeld et al., 1968), which therefore still dominates the theoretical debate.
In fact, differences between the interpretation of the supporters of the pessimistic
model and the conclusions drawn by the supporters of the optimistic model can be
explained by the fact that the latter focus mainly on aggregate-level trends, while the
former examine individual-level mechanisms. When analysing aggregate level trends,
Dalton and the other proponents of the cognitive mobilisation hypothesis are undoubtedly
right to state that the rise in political sophistication, the decline of partisanship and the
increase in the share of late deciders have occurred simultaneously. Hence, it is tempting
to assume that there is a causal relationship between these processes, and that political
sophistication is negatively associated with party identification, and thus positively associated
with late decision-making. However, most individual-level analyses show the contrary.
Investigating the individual-level relationship between political sophistication and
partisanship, some recent studies convincingly demonstrate that high levels of education
and high levels of political interest increase the probability of identifying with a party
(Albright, 2009; Marthaler, 2008). Partisanship, in turn, is almost invariably associated
with early voting decisions. In most cases, therefore, being highly educated and being
greatly interested in politics significantly reduce the likelihood of deciding late.
Political Dissatisfaction
Political disaffection is another factor that is sometimes thought to affect the time at
which voting decisions are finalized. There have so far been very few studies on the influence
of political dissatisfaction on decision timing and their results have not led to
straightforward conclusions. In their analysis of late deciding in the 2012 French presidential
elections, Cautrès and Jadot (2007) noticed that voters who were dissatisfied with
the way democracy worked were somewhat more likely than other voters to delay their
electoral decision. Besides, in his work on the 2006 and 2008 Canadian federal elections,
McGregor (2012) investigated the time of voting decision patterns of protest voters to
determine whether they made up their mind later than did sincere voters. He found that
60	 Political Studies Review 17 (1)
protest voters were much more likely than their sincere counterparts to postpone their
electoral decision until the campaign was under way. In contrast, Gopoian and
Hadjiharalambous (1994) demonstrated that voter’s degree of political trust did not significantly
influence time of decision in US presidential elections. Similarly, in his comparative
study of late deciders in Australia, the UK, and the US, McAllister (2002)
observed that the standard indicators of political satisfaction and trust had no significant
impact on decision timing. Given that previous research on this topic is rather scant and
inconclusive, there is a lot of uncertainty about whether political disaffection can contribute
to the explanation of late deciding.
Strategic Considerations
Tactical considerations are also argued to lead to late decision-making. Indeed, there is
increasing evidence that citizens’ evaluations of the relative competitive positions of the
various parties (i.e. how much of a chance each party has of winning) may have an effect
on the time at which they make up their mind. Kirkpatrick (1972) has shown that some
American voters postpone their electoral decision for the presidential elections until the
last weeks of the campaign, when they have a strong preference for one of the two main
candidates, but expect the other to win.
In their study of the Dutch case, Irwin and Van Holsteyn (2008) have attempted to
demonstrate that some late deciders delay their voting choice because they are waiting to
gather information on how other voters intend to vote. These voters are not seeking new
or additional substantive information concerning parties, candidates and policy proposals.
Instead, they are waiting for strategic information on the expected election outcomes,
the expected size of the parliamentary groups of parties and the likelihood of the emergence
of various possible coalitions (Irwin and Van Holsteyn, 2008). Some voters make
their voting choice not only on the basis of their own political preferences, but also on the
basis of their competitive expectations. Since a large number of opinion polls are conducted
during the campaign, strategic information on the relative competitive positions of
parties is frequently updated in the weeks preceding the elections (McGregor, 2012).
Consequently, voters who factor these strategic considerations into their vote decision
will tend to make up their mind late in the campaign. In contrast, those individuals who
do not base their electoral decision on their competitive expectations will be much less
susceptible to opinion polls results or to any other source of strategic information and, as
a result, they will be less inclined to postpone their voting choice. Consistent with these
expectations, recent studies conducted in Germany and Canada have shown that strategic
voters are more likely than sincere voters to delay their vote decision until the campaign
is under way (Blumenstiel and Plischke, 2015; McGregor, 2012).
Contextual Factors
As shown in this review article, time of voting decision is typically regarded as a stable
attribute of the voter, which reflects individual-level characteristics such as sociodemographics,
partisanship or political sophistication. Several panel surveys covering two consecutive
elections, however, reveal that a large proportion of those voters who decide
early in one election postpone their voting choice until the last minute in the subsequent
election, and vice versa (Cautrès and Jadot, 2009; Gopoian and Hadjiharalambous, 1994;
O’Keefe et al., 1976). This observation leads some authors to argue that timing of the
Willocq	 61
voting choice should not be considered as a stable individual trait determined by one’s
position in the social structure or one’s political attitudes (Chaffee and Rimal, 1996;
Gopoian and Hadjiharalambous, 1994; Henderson and Hillygus, 2016). According to
them, time of decision does not only depend on voters’ individual attributes, but it may
also be influenced by the political context and by the characteristics of the election such
as the type of office at stake, the number of candidates/parties, or the competitiveness of
the contest. Following this line of reasoning, the unit of analysis for decision timing
should not be the voter, but the decision per se (Chaffee and Rimal, 1996: 276).
Although the effect of contextual factors on decision timing has so far never been
thoroughly investigated, some studies have offered suggestive indications that the specific
circumstances of an election may affect the time at which voters arrive at their final
choice. First, the type of election is thought to have an effect on the formation of vote
preferences, with the share of late deciders being somewhat smaller in ‘first-order’ elections
(i.e. national parliamentary elections) than in ‘second-order’ elections (i.e. local,
regional, and European elections). In their study of the Dutch electorate Eisinga et al.
(1998) observed that vote intentions crystallised earlier in ‘first-order’ elections than was
the case in ‘second-order’ elections.
Second, timing of the voting choice sometimes appears to be sensitive to some aspects
of the political supply. Existing work on presidential elections in France and the US
show that early deciders are particularly numerous in contests with an incumbent
President, a candidate with whom voters are already familiar, and about whom they can
already have a clear-cut opinion long in advance of the election (Box-Steffensmeier
et al., 2015; Cautrès and Jadot, 2007; Dupoirier and Frognier, 2009). By contrast, the
proportion of late deciders turns out to be very large in US presidential races with a
strong third party’s candidate, because the presence of this candidate induces many
politically sophisticated voters, who would otherwise make up their mind several months
before the election, to delay their decision until the end of the campaign, in order to
gather information on the third man and his stances (Chaffee and Rimal, 1996; Whitney
and Goldman, 1985). More generally, the level of party system fragmentation can be
expected to affect time of decision. Plischke (2014) has shown that the increase in the
proportion of late deciders observed in German Bundestag elections between 1969 and
2009 can be partially attributed to the rise in the effective number of parties. The larger
the number of viable political alternatives offered to the electorate, the longer the voter
will take to reach his/her decision.
Lastly, the perceived competitiveness of the election can also be viewed as a potential
determinant of decision timing. Examining time of decision in US presidential elections
from 1948 to 2008, Box-Steffensmeier et al. (2015) pointed at the existence of a significant
and positive correlation between closeness of the election and the proportion of late
deciders. In landslide elections, a vast majority of the voters appear to decide before the
start of the campaign, while in more competitive elections, many voters postpone their
choice until the last minute. Furthermore, election competitiveness may interact with
individual-level determinants of decision timing. For example, in their study of the 2008
US presidential election, Henderson and Hillygus (2016) found that the effect of political
interest on decision timing was moderated by the degree of campaign competitiveness.
Less politically interested voters residing in ‘battleground states’ tended to make their
voting choice earlier than their counterparts living in ‘safe states’, whereas highly interested
voters living in ‘battleground states’decided later than their counterparts residing in
‘safe states’ (Henderson and Hillygus, 2016).
62	 Political Studies Review 17 (1)
To sum up, the specific circumstances of the election have repeatedly been argued to
play a role in explaining the phenomenon of late deciding. Yet, the empirical evidence
demonstrating the influence of situational factors on decision timing remains rather scant,
and no solid theory of contextual effects has been proposed so far.
Conclusion
This article sought to offer a comprehensive review of the literature on the determinants
of time of vote decision. I showed that the numerous studies, which have been conducted
over the last decades, have brought many insights into why some voters make up their
mind even before the campaign begins, while others decide during the campaign period.
With regard to sociodemographic characteristics, it appears that women and young citizens
are more likely to be late deciders than are men and the elderly. Unsurprisingly,
party identification has often been found to hasten the crystallisation of vote intentions,
with strong partisans arriving at their final choice long in advance of the election. I also
pointed out that despite the large number of studies dedicated to the relationship between
political sophistication and decision timing, it remains unclear whether high levels of
political interest and political knowledge delay or precipitate voting choices. By contrast,
previous findings unambiguously support the proposition that attitudinal ambivalence
towards parties/candidates leads voters to postpone their electoral decision.
Similarly, external ambivalence – stemming from political disagreement within one’s
social network – can cause a delay in time of decision, but this effect is moderated by
voters’ level of internal ambivalence. Moreover, political disaffection is sometimes
claimed to hinder the formation of vote decisions, although it must be noted that the
empirical evidence demonstrating the delaying effect of political dissatisfaction is rather
weak. Finally, compared to sincere voters, strategic voters tend to take longer to make
their final determination, because they wait until the last weeks of the campaign to gather
tactical information on how other voters plan to behave and on how much of a chance
each party has of winning.
To summarise the debate on the explanations of decision timing, it can be argued that
there are two main competing views on late deciders. On the one hand, some researchers
propose a pessimistic model of an apathetic and indifferent late decider who displays a
low level of political sophistication and who is dissatisfied with the political system (e.g.
Cautrès and Jadot, 2007; Gopoian and Hadjiharalambous, 1994; Schmitt-Beck and
Partheymüller, 2012). On the other hand, several scholars offer an optimistic model of a
critical and rational late decider who exhibits a high level of political sophistication, who
is ambivalent towards the various political alternatives and who factors strategic considerations
into his/her vote decision (e.g. Dalton et al., 2000; Lachat, 2007; McGregor,
2012). As shown in this review article, existing work lends more support to the pessimistic
model than is the case for the optimistic one, thereby suggesting that contemporary
late deciding voters display many similarities with their apathetic and unsophisticated
counterparts of the 1940s. Nevertheless, further research is needed to investigate whether
the effects of individual-level determinants of decision timing may change over time, and
especially whether the negative relationship between political sophistication and late
deciding is likely to disappear or even to reverse in coming decades. Most fundamentally,
the present article has pointed out that besides individual-level factors, the political context
and the various characteristics of the election have also been argued to influence
timing of the voting choice. However, there has been very few empirical work done on
Willocq	 63
the impact of situational factors, and as a result, little is known about which specific circumstances
of an election may accelerate or slow down the voting decision process.
Future research should therefore attempt to shed light on the role of contextual factors, by
undertaking longitudinal and comparative cross-national studies of late deciding.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Albright JJ (2009) Does Political Knowledge Erode Party Attachments? A Review of the Cognitive Mobilization
Thesis. Electoral Studies 28 (2): 248–260.
Berelson BR, Lazarsfeld PF and MacPhee WN (1963) Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential
Campaign, 2nd edn. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Blumenstiel JE and Plischke T (2015) Changing Motivations, Time of the Voting Decision, and Short-Term
Volatility–The Dynamics of Voter Heterogeneity. Electoral Studies 37: 28–40.
Box- Steffensmeier J, Dillard M, Kimball D, et al. (2015) The Long and Short of It: The Unpredictability of
Late Deciding Voters. Electoral Studies 39: 181–194.
Campbell A, Converse PE, Miller WE, et al. (1960) The American Voter. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Cattelani P and Alberici AI (2012) Does the Candidate Matter? Comparing the Voting Choice of Early and Late
Deciders. Political Psychology 33 (5): 619–634.
Cautrès B and Jadot A (2007) L’(in) décision électorale et la temporalité du vote. Le moment du choix pour le
premier tour de l’élection présidentielle 2007. Revue Française De Science Politique 57 (3): 293–314.
Cautrès B and Jadot A (2009) Quand les électeurs se décident-ils? In: Cautrès B and Muxel A (eds) Comment
Les Électeurs Font-ils Leur Choix? Le Panel Électoral Français 2007. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po
(PFNSP): pp.127–156.
Chaffee SH and Choe SY (1980) Time of Decision and Media Use During the Ford-Carter Campaign. Public
Opinion Quarterly 44 (1): 53–69.
Chaffee SH and Rimal RN (1996) Time of Vote Decision and Openness to Persuasion. In: Mutz D, Sniderman P
and Brody R (eds) Political Persuasion and Attitude Change. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan
Press, pp.267–291.
Dalton PD (2006) Swing Voters: Understanding Late Deciders in Late Modernity. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton
Press.
Dalton RJ (1984) Cognitive Mobilization and Partisan Dealignment in Advanced Industrial Democracies. The
Journal of Politics 46 (1): 264–284.
Dalton RJ (2007) Partisan Mobilization, Cognitive Mobilization and the Changing American Electorate.
Electoral Studies 26 (2): 274–286.
Dalton RJ (2013) The Apartisan American: Dealignment and Changing Electoral Politics. Washington, DC:
CQ Press.
Dalton RJ, McAllister I and Wattenberg MP (2000) The Consequences of Partisan Dealignment. In: Dalton RJ
and Wattenberg M (eds) Parties without Partisans. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.37–63.
Dupoirier E and Frognier A-P (2009) Les temporalités de la décision électorale. Approche comparée de la
France et de la Belgique (Wallonie). Revue Française De Science Politique 59 (3): 507–533.
Eisinga R, Franses PH and Van Dijk D (1998) Timing of Vote Decision in First and Second Order
Dutch Elections 1978–1995: Evidence from Artificial Neural Networks. Political Analysis 7 (1):
117–142.
Fournier P, Nadeau R, Blais A, et al. (2004) Time-of-Voting Decision and Susceptibility to Campaign Effects.
Electoral Studies 23 (4): 661–681.
Gopoian JD and Hadjiharalambous S (1994) Late-Deciding Voters in Presidential Elections. Political Behavior
16(1): 55–78.
Henderson M and Hillygus DS (2016) Changing the Clock: The Role of Campaigns in the Timing of Vote
Decision. Public Opinion Quarterly 80 (3): 761–770.
Hopmann DN (2012) The Consequences of Political Disagreement in Interpersonal Communication: New
Insights from a Comparative Perspective. European Journal of Political Research 51 (2): 265–287.
Irwin GA and Van Holsteyn JJ (2008) What are they Waiting for? Strategic Information for Late Deciding
Voters. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 20 (4): 483–493.
64	 Political Studies Review 17 (1)
Kenski KM (2007) Gender and Time of Voting Decision: Decision Certainty during the 2000 Presidential
Campaign. Journal of Political Marketing 6 (1): 1–22.
Kirkpatrick S (1972) Political Attitudes and Behavior: Some Consequences of Attitudinal Ordering. In: Nimmo
D and Bonjean C (eds) Political Attitudes & Public Opinion. New-York: David McKay Company,
pp.386–404.
Kogan L and Gottfried JA (2012) I Knew It All Along! Evaluating Time-of-Decision Measures in the 2008 US
Presidential Campaign. Political Behavior 34 (4): 719–736.
Kosmidis S and Xezonakis G (2010) The Undecided Voters and the Economy: Campaign Heterogeneity in the
2005 British General Election. Electoral Studies 29 (4): 604–616.
Lachat R (2007) A Heterogeneous Electorate: Political Sophistication, Predisposition Strength, and the Voting
Decision Process. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Lavine H (2001) The Electoral Consequences of Ambivalence toward Presidential Candidates. American
Journal of Political Science 45 (4): 915–929.
Lavine H and Steenbergen M (2005) Group Ambivalence and Electoral Decision-Making. In: Craig S and
Martinez M (eds) Ambivalence, Politics and Public Policy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp.1–26.
Lazarsfeld PF, Berelson B and Gaudet H (1968) The People’s Choice: How the Voter Makes Up His Mind in a
Presidential Campaign, 3rd edn. New York: Columbia University Press.
McAllister I (2002) Calculating or Capricious: The New Politics of Late Deciding Voters. In: Farrell D and
Schmitt-Beck R (eds) Do Political Campaigns Matter? Campaign Effects in Election and Referendum.
London: Routledge, pp.22–40.
McGregor RM (2012) Voter Sincerity and the Time-of-Voting-Decision. Electoral Studies 31 (4): 715–725.
Marthaler S (2008) The Paradox of the Politically-Sophisticated Partisan: The French Case. West European
Politics 31 (5): 937–959.
Mutz DC (2002) The Consequences of Cross-Cutting Networks for Political Participation. American Journal of
Political Science 46 (4): 838–855.
Nir L (2005) Ambivalent Social Networks and their Consequences for Participation. International Journal of
Public Opinion Research 17 (4): 422–442.
Nir L and Druckman J (2008) Campaign Mixed-Message Flows and Timing of Vote Decision. International
Journal of Public Opinion Research 20 (3): 326–347.
O’Keefe G, Mendelsohn H and Liu J (1976) Voter Decision Making 1972 and 1974. Public Opinion Quarterly
40 (3): 320–330.
Plischke T (2014) Fällt die Wahlentscheidung immer später? Die Entwicklung des Zeitpunkts der
Wahlentscheidung bei den Bundestagswahlen 1969 bis 2009. Politische Vierteljahresschrift 55 (1): 118–
144.
Schmitt-Beck R and Partheymüller J (2012) Why Voters Decide Late: A Simultaneous Test of Old and New
Hypotheses at the 2005 and 2009 German Federal Elections. German Politics 21 (3): 299–316.
Whitney DC and Goldman SB (1985) Media Use and Time of Vote Decision: A Study of the 1980 Presidential
Election. Communication Research 12 (4): 511–529.
Author Biography
Simon Willocq is a PhD candidate in political science at the Université libre de Bruxelles. His PhD dissertation
focuses on the individual-level determinants of electoral volatility and late deciding. More generally, his
research areas cover elections, voting behaviour, and public opinion in Western democracies.