Is issue voting a uniform, unchangeable process across individuals and contexts, or is it dynamic and manipulable? Even though scholars have been interested in issue voting since the seminal studies in political behavior, there is still ongoing disagreement about what exactly voters prefer in a candidate's issue position. I argue that one reason for this lack of consensus is that the issue voting process is not constant across individuals and contexts. My research addresses one of the most prominent unresolved disputes in the behavior literature by seeking to explain heterogeneity in issue voting processes -- why do some voters make decisions based on issue proximity, while others decide based on issue directions? I theorize that proximity voting is a product of technical thinking, while directional voting is a product of emotional thinking. I find that individuals can display either behavior, or even be induced to do so, depending on the strength and salience of each type of consideration at the time of the decision.
Read
