Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-78dcdb465f-bmnx5 Total loading time: 0.293 Render date: 2021-04-17T21:32:49.053Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

The Responsive Voter: Campaign Information and the Dynamics of Candidate Evaluation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Milton Lodge
Affiliation:
State University of New York, Stony Brook
Marco R. Steenbergen
Affiliation:
Carnegie Mellon University
Shawn Brau
Affiliation:
State University of New York, Stony Brook

Abstract

We find strong support for an on-line model of the candidate evaluation process that in contrast to memory-based models shows that citizens are responsive to campaign information, adjusting their overall evaluation of the candidates in response to their immediate assessment of campaign messages and events. Over time people forget most of the campaign information they are exposed to but are nonetheless able to later recollect their summary affective evaluation of candidates which they then use to inform their preferences and vote choice. These findings have substantive, methodological, and normative implications for the study of electoral behavior. Substantively, we show how campaign information affects voting behavior. Methodologically, we demonstrate the need to measure directly what campaign information people actually attend to over the course of a campaign and show that after controling for the individual's on-line assessment of campaign messages, National Election Study-type recall measures prove to be spurious as explanatory variables. Finally, we draw normative implications for democratic theory of on-line processing, concluding that citizens appear to be far more responsive to campaign messages than conventional recall models suggest.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Abramowitz, Alan I. 1975. “Name Familiarity, Reputation, and the Incumbency Effect in a Congressional Election.” Western Political Quarterly 28:668–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Norman H. 1991. “Functional Memory in Person Cognition.” In Information Integration Theory, vol. 1, Cognition, ed. Anderson, Norman H.. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Anderson, Norman H., and Hubert, Stephen. 1963. “Effects of Concomitant Recall on Order Effects in Personality Impression Formation.” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 2:379–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barber, James David. 1973. Citizen Politics. Chicago: Markham.Google Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 1993. “Messages Received: The Political Impact of Media Exposure.” American Political Science Review 87:267–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentler, Peter M. 1992. EQS Structural Equations Program Manual. Los Angeles: BMDP Statistical Software.Google Scholar
Berelson, Bernard R. 1952. “Democratic Theory and Public Opinion.” Public Opinion Quarterly 16:313–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berelson, Bernard R., Lazarsfeld, Paul F., and McPhee, William N.. 1954. Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Brody, Richard, and Page, Benjamin. 1972. “The Assessment of Policy Voting.” American Political Science Review 66:450–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E.. 1960. The American Voter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Converse, Philip E. 1964. “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics.” In Ideology and Discontent, ed. Apter, David E.. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Craik, Fergus I. M., and Lockhart, Robert S.. 1972. “Levels of Processing: A Framework for Memory Research.” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 11:671–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delli Carpini, Michael X., and Keeter, Scott. 1991. “Stability and Change in the U.S. Public's Knowledge of Politics.” Public Opinion Quarterly 55:583612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ebbinghaus, Hermann. 1964. Memory: A Contribution to Experimental Psychology. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Enelow, James, and Hinich, Melvin. 1984. The Spatial Theory of Voting: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Erskine, Hazel Gaudet. 1963. “The Polls: Textbook Knowledge.” Public Opinion Quarterly 27:133–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eysenck, Michael W., and Keane, Mark T.. 1990. Cognitive Psychology: A Student's Handbook. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Fiske, Susan T., Kinder, Donald R., and Larter, W. Michael. 1983. “The Novice and the Expert: Knowledge-based Strategies in Political CognitionJournal of Experimental Social Psychology 19:381400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gant, Michael, and Davis, Dwight. 1984. “Mental Economy and Voter Rationality: The Informed Citizen Problem in Voting Research.” Journal of Politics 46:132–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graber, Doris A. 1984. Processing the News: How People Tame the Information Tide. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Hanson, Russell L., and Marcus, George E.. 1993. “Introduction: The Practice of Democratic Theory.” In Reconsidering the Democratic Public, ed. Marcus, George E. and Hanson, Russell L.. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Hastie, Reid, and Park, Bernadette. 1986. “The Relationship between Memory and Judgments Depends on Whether the Task Is Memory-based or On-Line.” Psychological Review 93:258–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hastie, Reid, and Pennington, Nancy. 1989. “Notes on the Distinction between Memory-based Versus On-Line Judgments.” In On-Line Cognition in Person Perception, ed. Bassili, John N.. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kelley, Stanley. 1983. Interpreting Elections. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelley, Stanley, and Mirer, Thadeus. 1974. “The Simple Act of Voting.” American Political Science Review 61:572–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kessel, John. 1988. Presidential Campaign Politics. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.Google Scholar
Kinder, Donald R. 1986. “Presidential Character Revisited.” In Political Cognition, ed. Lau, Richard R. and Sears, David O.. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kinder, Donald R., and Sears, David O.. 1985. “Public Opinion and Political Action.” In Handbook of Social Psychology, ed. Lindzey, Gardner and Aronson, Eliot. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Kunda, Ziva. 1990. “The Case for Motivated Reasoning.” Psychological Bulletin 108:480–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lachman, Roy, Lachman, Janet, and Butterfield, Earl. 1979. Cognitive Psychology and Information Processing. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lau, Richard R. 1982. “Negativity in Political Perception.” Political Behavior 4:353–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazarsfield, Paul, Berelson, Bernard, and Gaudet, Hazel. 1948. The People's Choice: How the Voter Makes Up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Lichtenstein, Meryl, and Srull, Thomas. 1987. “Objectives as Determinants of the Relationship between Recall and Judgment.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 23:93118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lippmann, Walter. 1991. Public Opinion. New Brunswick: Transaction.Google Scholar
Little, Roderick J. A., and Rubin, Donald B.. 1987. Statistical Analysis with Missing Data. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Lodge, Milton, McGraw, Kathleen M., and Stroh, Patrick. 1989. “An Impression-driven Model of Candidate Evaluation.” American Political Science Review 87:399419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lodge, Milton, and Stroh, Patrick. 1993. “Inside the Mental Voting Booth: An Impression-driven Model of Candidate Evaluation.” In Explorations in Political Psychology, ed. Iyengar, Shanto and McGuire, William J.. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Mackie, Diane, and Anuncion, Arlene. 1990. “On-Line and Memory-based Modification of Attitudes: Determinants of Message Recall–Attitude Change Correspondence.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59:516.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marcus, George, and MacKuen, Michael. 1993. “Anxiety, Enthusiasm, and the Vote: The Emotional Underpinnings of Learning and Involvement during Presidential Campaigns.” American Political Science Review 87:672–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGraw, Kathleen M., and Pinney, Neil. 1990. “The Effects of General and Domain-specific Expertise on Political Memory and Judgment.” Social Cognition 8:930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neuman, W. Russell. 1986. The Paradox of Mass Politics: Knowledge and Opinion in the American Electorate. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Nisbett, Richard, and Ross, Lee. 1980. Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice–Hall.Google Scholar
Norpoth, Helmut, and Buchanan, Bruce. 1992. “Wanted—the Education President: Issue Trespassing by Political Candidates.” Public Opinion Quarterly 56:8799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, Benjamin I., and Shapiro, Robert Y.. 1992. The Rational Public: Fifty Years of Trends in Americans' Policy Preferences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomper, Gerald M. 1975. Voters' Choice: Varieties of American Electoral Behavior. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Price, Vincent, and Zaller, John. 1990. “A Study of Everyday Memory: Learning and Forgetting the News.” Presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
Price, Vincent, and Zaller, John. 1993. “Who Gets the News? Alternative Measures of News Reception and Their Implications for Research.” Public Opinion Quarterly 57:133–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rahn, Wendy M., Aldrich, John H., and Borgida, Eugene. 1994. “Individual and Contextual Variations in Political Candidate Appraisal.” American Political Science Review 88:193–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rahn, Wendy M., Krosnick, Jon A., and Breuning, Marijke. 1994. “Rationalization and Derivation Processes in Survey Studies of Political Candidate Evaluation.” American Journal of Political Science 38:582600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sijtsma, Kees, Debets, Pierre, and Molenaar, Ivo W.. 1990. “Mookken Scale Analysis for Polychotomous Items: Theory, a Computer Program, and an Empirical Application.” Quality and Quantity 24:173–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Eric R. A. N. 1989. The Unchanging American Voter. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Taber, Charles S., and Steenbergen, Marco. 1994. “Computational Experiments in Electoral Behavior.” In Political Judgment, ed. Lodge, Milton and McGraw, Kathleen M.. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Thisted, Ronald A. 1988. Elements of Statistical Computing: Numerical Computation. New York: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Watts, William A., and McGuire, William J.. 1964. “Persistence of Induced Opinion Change and Retention of the Inducing Message Contents.” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 68:233–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weissberg, Robert. 1974. Political Learning, Political Choice, and Democratic Citizenship. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice–Hall.Google Scholar
Wickeigren, Wayne A. 1974. “Single-Trace Fragility Theory of Memory Dynamics.” Memory and Cognition 2:775–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Timothy D., and Schooler, Jonathan W.. 1991. “Thinking Too Much: Introspection Can Reduce the Quality of Preferences and Decisions.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 60:181–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wixted, John T., and Ebbesen, Ebbe B.. 1991. “On the Form of Forgetting.” Psychological Science 2:409–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaller, John. 1990. “Political Awareness, Elite Opinion Leadership, and the Mass Survey Response.” Social Cognition 8:125–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 124 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 17th April 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The Responsive Voter: Campaign Information and the Dynamics of Candidate Evaluation
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

The Responsive Voter: Campaign Information and the Dynamics of Candidate Evaluation
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

The Responsive Voter: Campaign Information and the Dynamics of Candidate Evaluation
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *