Individual and Contextual Variations in Political Candidate Appraisal | American Political Science Review | Cambridge Core (original) (raw)

Abstract

In this note we elaborate on the conditions under which on-line and memory-based strategies of political candidate evaluation can be implemented. We suggest that the structure of information may be an important contextual variable affecting the voter's choice of these strategies. In addition, we propose that citizens with less political sophistication are particularly sensitive to structural differences in the political information environment. We use an experimental design that manipulates the information-processing context to test these ideas. Our results suggest that the context in which information is presented plays a critical role in moderating the influence of individual differences in political sophistication.

References

Aldrich, John H., Niemi, Richard G., Rabinowitz, George, and Rohde, David W.. 1982. “The Measurement of Public Opinion about Public Policy: A Report on Some New Issue Question Formats.” American Journal of Political Science 26:391–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bargh, John A., and Thein, Roman D.. 1985. “Individual Construct Accessibility, Person Memory, and the Recall–Judgment Link: The Case of Information Overload.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 49:1129–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bartels, Larry M. 1988. Presidential Primaries and the Dynamics of Public Choice. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fiorina, Morris. 1981. Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hastie, Reid, and Park, Bernadette. 1986. “The Relationship between Memory and Judgment Depends on Whether the Judgment 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 Processes in Person Perception, ed. Bassili, John N.. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Just, Marion, Crigler, Ann, and Wallach, Lori. 1990. “Thirty Seconds or Thirty Minutes: What Viewers Learn from Spot Advertisements and Candidate Debates.” Journal of Communication 40:120–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lang, Annie. 1990. “Involuntary Attention and Physiological Arousal Evoked by Structural Features and Emotional Content in TV Commercials.” Communication Research 17:275–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lodge, Milton G., McGraw, Kathleen M., and Stroh, Patrick. 1989. “An Impression-driven Model of Candidate Evaluation.” American Political Science Review 83:399–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Luskin, Robert C. 1987. “Measuring Political Sophistication.” American Journal of Political Science 31:856–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McGraw, Kathleen M., Lodge, Milton, and Stroh, Patrick. 1990. “On-Line Processing in Candidate Evaluation: The Effects of Issue Order, Issue Importance, and Sophistication.” Political Behavior 12:41–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rahn, Wendy M., Aldrich, John H., Borgida, Eugene, and Sullivan, John L.. 1990. “A Social-cognitive Model of Candidate Appraisal.” In information and Democratic Processes, ed. Ferejohn, John A. and Kuklinski, James H.. Urbana–Champaign: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar

Showers, Carolin, and Cantor, Nancy. 1985. “Social Cognition: A Look at Motivated Strategies.” Annual Review of Psychology 36:275–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Srull, Thomas K., and Wyer, Robert S., Jr. 1986. “The Role of Chronic and Temporary Goals in Social Information Processing.” In Handbook of Motivation and Cognition, ed. Sorrentino, Richard M. and Tory Higgins, E.. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar

Thorson, Esther, and Lang, Annie. 1992. “The Effects of Television Videographics and Lecture Familiarity on Adult Cardiac Orienting Responses and Memory.” Communication Research 19:346–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Thorson, Esther, Reeves, Byron, and Schleuder, Joan. 1985. “Message Complexity and Attention to Television.” Communication Research 12:427–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Westlye, Mark C. 1991. Senate Elections and Campaign Intensity. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar