Suchergebnisse

Party identification is generally considered the most powerful predictor of voting behaviour. Yet, after 50 years of research, scholars continue to disagree over the implications of this well-known finding. Some argue that party identification constitutes a stable affective attachment that voters are motivated to defend, whereas others argue that party identification constitutes a running tally of voters' objective evaluations. This book seeks to advance the literature beyond this impasse by relaxing the motivational assumptions underlying the literature's two dominant models

In this study, we examine the impact of sponsorship cues in issue versus candidate advertising on perceived credibility, persuasion, information retention, and priming of message-relevant issues. Theories of persuasion and attitude change suggest that citizens should react differently to the same message when source cues are varied. In an experiment, adult participants saw either an actual ad sponsored by the Sierra Club, an edited version in which Al Gore was depicted as the sponsor, or no ad at all. Although participants were slightly less able to correctly identify the sponsor of the issue ad, the ad was seen as more credible and persuasive than the candidate-sponsored version. Though both were negative in tone, the issue ad did not depress participatory intentions as much as the candidate ad. Participants also retained more information from the issue appeal. Finally, the issue ad was a more powerful prime for message-relevant performance criteria in evaluations of the target, George W. Bush. The implications of these findings for the ongoing debate on campaign-finance reform are discussed.

Why does party identification motivate citizens to participate in politics? From a theoretical standpoint, it is in a partisan's self-interest to free ride on the efforts of others. Yet, mere identification with a party is enough to motivate many people to overcome this structural hurdle. We theorize that, by virtue of aligning one's self with a party, individuals become more likely to react to their political environment with anger and enthusiasm rather than fear. Anger and enthusiasm are associated with approach and continuation of current behavior, while fear triggers behavior reconsideration. In short, party identification stimulates participation via anger and enthusiasm. On the other hand, fear produces thought but not much action. We find support for our model using data from the American National Election Studies (ANES) and an original laboratory experiment. Adapted from the source document.

Political behavior is triggered by the presence of a variety of material and cognitive resources, including political efficacy. The dominant view conceptualizes efficacy as capital, used to overcome obstacles to participation. Our theory suggests that unlike other resources, efficacy aids in the development of habitual participation by activating a particular negative emotion, anger. Using the 1990-1992 NES Panel, we find that internal efficacy boosts participation in part by facilitating anger, but not fear, in response to policy threats. This partial mediating effect operates primarily among younger citizens who are in the process of developing the habit of participation. External efficacy, because it is not self-referential, is not causally linked to participation via emotions. Finally, internal efficacy is enhanced by successful participation in politics, closing a feedback loop that helps explain participatory habits. Adapted from the source document.