Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-5wvtr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T06:25:55.387Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bringing Converse Back In: Modeling Information Flow in Political Campaigns

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

John Zaller
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In his 1962 paper, “Information Flow and the Stability of Partisan Attitudes,” Converse explained why moderately sophisticated voters are sometimes most susceptible to persuasion in election campaigns. Such people, Converse argued, pay enough attention to campaigns to be fairly heavily exposed to persuasive messages but lack the sophistication to be able to resist. The present article extends this model in several ways, showing that it can yield important insights into House elections, presidential elections, presidential primary elections, and the dynamics of presidential popularity.

On the theoretical side, this article introduces the notion of differential information flow, which is the idea that campaigns consist of multiple messages that may penetrate differentially far into the mass electorate. It shows that differential information flow can help explain nonobvious but theoretically interesting patterns of attitude change in several areas.

On the substantive side, this article pays particular attention to the dynamics of incumbent advantage in House elections, showing among other things, why senior incumbents are typically able to build up huge winning margins in weakly contested elections but are unable to maintain this advantage under challenge.

Type
Research Article
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 1 , 1989 , pp. 181 - 234
Copyright
Copyright © by the University of Michigan 1990 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bartels, Larry. 1988. The Dynamics of Presidential Primaries. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Brady, Henry R., and Johnston, Richard. 1987. “What's the Primary Message: Horse Race or Issue Journalism?” In Media and Momentum, ed. Orren, Gary and Polsby, Nelson. Chatham, N.J.: Chatham House.Google Scholar
Cain, Bruce, Ferejohn, John, and Fiorina, Morris. 1987. The Personal Vote. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip, Stokes, Donald, and Miller, Warren. 1960. The American Voter. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Converse, Philip. 1962. “Information Flow and the Stability of Partisan Attitudes.” Reprinted in Elections and the Political Order, ed. Campbell, Angus et al. New York: John Wiley, 1966.Google Scholar
Converse, Philip. 1964. “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics.” In Ideology and Discontent, ed. Apter, D. E. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Dryer, Edward C. 1971. “Media Use and Electoral Choices: Some Political Consequences of Information Exposure.” Public Opinion Quarterly 35: 544–53.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert. 1972. “Malapportionment, Gerrymandering, and Party Fortunes in Congressional Elections.” American Political Science Review 66: 1234–45.Google Scholar
Fenno, Richard. 1978. Home Style: House Members in Their Districts. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris. 1977. Congress: Keystone of the Washington Establishment. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Geddes, Barbara, and Zaller, J. 1989. “Sources of Popular Support for Authoritarian Regimes.” American Journal of Political Science 33: 319–47.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary. 1988. “The Effects of Campaign Spending on Voting Intentions: New Evidence from a Panel Study of the 1986 House Elections.” Presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary. 1987. “The Marginals Never Vanished.” American Journal of Political Science 31: 126–41.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary. 1983. The Politics of Congressional Elections. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary. 1980. Money in Congressional Elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary, and Kernell, Sam. 1981. Strategy and Choice in Congressional Elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Johannes, John R., and McAdams, John C. 1987. “Determinants of Spending by House Challengers, 1974-1984.” American Journal of Political Science 31: 457–83.Google Scholar
Kelley, Stanley. 1983. Interpreting Elections. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Key, V. O. 1959. Public Opinion and American Democracy. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Krosnick, Jon, and Kinder, Donald. 1988. “Altering the Foundations of Popular Support for the President through Priming: Reagan, the Iran-Contra Affair, and the American Public.” Presented at the annual meetings of the American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Lodge, Milton, and McGraw, Kathleen. 1989. “Two Models of Candidate Evaluation.” American Political Science Review 83.Google Scholar
Mann, Thomas. 1978. Unsafe at Any Margin. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute.Google Scholar
Mann, Thomas, and Wolfinger, Raymond. 1980. “Candidates and Parties in Senate Elections.” American Political Science Review 74: 617–32.Google Scholar
McGuire, William. 1968. “Personality and Susceptibility to Social Influence.” In Handbook of Personality Theory and Research, ed. Borgatta, E. E. and Lambert, W. W. New York: Rand-McNally.Google Scholar
MacKuen, Michael. 1984. “Exposure to Information, Belief Integration, and Individual Responsiveness to Agenda Change.” American Political Science Review 78: 372–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayhew, David. 1975. “Congressional Elections: The Case of the Vanishing Marginals.” Polity 6: 295–317.Google Scholar
Nelson, Candace. 1978. “The Effect of Incumbency on Voting in Congressional Elections.” Political Science Quarterly 93: 665–78.Google Scholar
Westlye, Mark. 1983. “Competitiveness of Senate Seats and Voting Behavior in Senate Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 37: 253–83.Google Scholar
Westlye, Mark. 1987. “The Dynamics of U.S. Senate Elections.” Ph.D. diss. University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Zaller, John. 1984a. “The Role of Elites in Shaping Public Opinion.” Ph.D. diss. University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Zaller, John. 1984b. “Toward a Theory of the Survey Response.” Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Zaller, John. 1985. “Report to NES Board of Overseers on the Measures of Political Information.” National Election Studies, Ann Arbor, Michigan.Google Scholar
Zaller, John. 1987a. “The Diffusion of Political Attitudes.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.Google Scholar
Zaller, John. 1987b. “Partisan Controversy and Mass Attitude Change.” Presented at the fourth annual meeting of the Political Methodology Society, Durham, N.C.Google Scholar
Zaller, John. 1990. “Political Awareness and Elite Opinion Leadership.” Special 1990 issue of Social Cognition on “political expertise.” In press.Google Scholar
Zaller, John, and Feldman, Stanley. 1988. “Answering Questions vs. Revealing Preferences.” Presented at the fifth annual meeting of the Political Methodology Society, Los Angeles.Google Scholar