Understanding voter behavior on wildlife ballot initiatives: Colorado's trapping amendment

Abstract

Voters are unlikely to be guided by a systematic assessment of information regarding the consequences of wildlife ballot initiatives; the time investment is too high and the topic involvement is too low. Instead, they form heuristics or decision rules to guide their behavior. Heuristics are formed from a subset of available information that triggers general attitudes or basic beliefs that are already formed and easily accessible to the individual. Guided by this explanation, a telephone survey was used to determine the basis for voting behavior on a Colorado ballot initiative to ban steel‐jawed traps and snares that passed in November 1996. Open‐ended, thought‐listing procedures were used in asking voters why they voted their stated position. A high proportion of people listed few beliefs associated with their voting behavior, a finding more prevalent with yes‐voters, (those in favor of banning trapping) than no‐voters (those against a ban on trapping). While the substance of beliefs listed by no‐voters was diffuse, a preponderance of yes‐voters cited a belief that trapping is cruel and inhumane. Beliefs about voting were strongly associated with one's basic value orientation. Findings are consistent with the consequences of heuristic processing. Results suggest that those wishing to influence voting behavior on wildlife ballot initiatives should provide persuasive messages that introduce simple decision rules that are closely aligned with more basic attitudes. Findings also highlight the limitations of ballot initiatives that lead to decisions made in lieu of careful deliberation of consequences.