The Responsive Voter: Campaign Information and the Dynamics of Candidate Evaluation | American Political Science Review | Cambridge Core (original) (raw)

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.

References

Abramowitz, Alan I. 1975. “Name Familiarity, Reputation, and the Incumbency Effect in a Congressional Election.” Western Political Quarterly 28:668–84.10.1177/106591297502800405CrossRefGoogle 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 2:379–91.10.1016/S0022-5371(63)80039-0CrossRefGoogle 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 87:267–85.10.2307/2939040CrossRefGoogle 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 16:313–30.10.1086/266397CrossRefGoogle 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 66:450–58.10.2307/1957788CrossRefGoogle 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 11:671–84.10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80001-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Delli Carpini, Michael X., and Keeter, Scott. 1991. “Stability and Change in the U.S. Public's Knowledge of Politics.” Public Opinion Quarterly 55:583–612.10.1086/269283CrossRefGoogle 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 27:133–41.10.1086/267154CrossRefGoogle 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 Cognition” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 19:381–400.10.1016/0022-1031(83)90029-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gant, Michael, and Davis, Dwight. 1984. “Mental Economy and Voter Rationality: The Informed Citizen Problem in Voting Research.” Journal of Politics 46:132–53.10.2307/2130437CrossRefGoogle 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 93:258–68.10.1037/0033-295X.93.3.258CrossRefGoogle 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.10.1515/9781400855650CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kelley, Stanley, and Mirer, Thadeus. 1974. “The Simple Act of Voting.” American Political Science Review 61:572–91.10.1017/S000305540011740XCrossRefGoogle 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 108:480–98.10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480CrossRefGoogle 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 4:353–77.10.1007/BF00986969CrossRefGoogle 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.. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226644806.001.0001CrossRef. 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 57:133–64.10.1086/269363CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rahn, Wendy M., Aldrich, John H., and Borgida, Eugene. 1994. “Individual and Contextual Variations in Political Candidate Appraisal.” American Political Science Review 88:193–99.10.2307/2944891CrossRefGoogle 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 38:582–600.10.2307/2111598CrossRefGoogle 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 24:173–88.10.1007/BF00209550CrossRefGoogle 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 68:233–41.10.1037/h0041081CrossRefGoogle 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 2:775–80.10.3758/BF03198154CrossRefGoogle 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 60:181–92.10.1037/0022-3514.60.2.181CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Wixted, John T., and Ebbesen, Ebbe B.. 1991. “On the Form of Forgetting.” Psychological Science 2:409–15.10.1111/j.1467-9280.1991.tb00175.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Zaller, John. 1990. “Political Awareness, Elite Opinion Leadership, and the Mass Survey Response.” Social Cognition 8:125–53.10.1521/soco.1990.8.1.125CrossRefGoogle Scholar