Suchergebnisse

Based on their interest in politics and knowledge of political leaders, individuals are classified into three levels of partisan sophistication: (1) those scoring high in interest and knowledge (partisan schematics), (2) a middle group, and (3) those scoring low (partisan aschematics). In this experimental study, and consistent with findings from cognitive and social psychology, partisan schematics prove better able than partisan aschematics to classify campaign statements as either Republican or Democratic and to recall the policy stands taken by a fictitious congressman. Aschematics, at the other extreme, perform at no better than chance levels in either the recognition or recall of the congressman's policy statements. There are, however, liabilities to sophistication as well: Schematics demonstrate a "consistency bias" in recalling significantly more policy statements that are consistent with the congressman's party identification than are inconsistent with it. This "restructuring" of memory is especially pronounced among sophisticates, and reflects a serious bias in the processing of political information.

Given the complexity & ambiguity of politics, there are many ways to think about government & politics. Here, SC, partisan, & ideological schemata are compared in terms of cognitive content & utility in discriminating among political policies & the Reagan administration's positions on the issues. A questionnaire examining political involvement, schema content, vocabulary, & self-placement on issues was completed by 228 Long Island (NY) residents. The "rich-poor" SC schema is found to provide most Rs with a mechanism for dealing effectively with "spend-save" type issues, while both the "Republican-Democrat" partisan schema & the "liberal-conservative" ideological schema provide sophisticated Rs with an effective cognitive framework for dealing with both spend-save issues & the more abstract noneconomic policies. 6 Tables, 29 References. Modified HA