Suchergebnisse

It is widely acknowledged that political opinions are not simply positive or negative, but are often simultaneously positive & negative, or "ambivalent." Although there is evidence that ambivalence influences the dynamics of public opinion on policy issues, little is known about its role in contributing to electoral decision making. Using National Election Studies data from 1980 to 1996, I examine the consequences of ambivalence toward presidential candidates for electoral judgment & choice. Results revealed that ambivalence created instability in candidate evaluations, substantially delayed the formation of citizens' voting intentions, conditioned the influence of both personality assessments & issue proximity on summary candidate evaluation, & ultimately weakened the prediction of vote choice. Throughout the analyses, the effects of ambivalence were independent of & typically larger than those of partisanship strength, information, education, & attitude strength, & could not be meaningfully accounted for by any of these factors. In broad terms, ambivalence would appear to capture a unique & fundamental -- although to date largely ignored -- aspect of mass belief systems & electoral choice. 6 Tables, 47 References. Adapted from the source document.

We examine 'heuristic' and 'systematic' candidate-appraisal strategies within a presidential election context. Controlling for political knowledge, we determine whether individual differences in the capacity for ideological thought condition voters' reliance on the major determinants of candidate choice, increasing reliance on policy considerations and decreasing reliance on the heuristic cue of party identification and on perceptions of candidate character when ideological capacity is high, and exerting the opposite effect - decreasing the role of issues and increasing the role of party identification and candidate qualities - when such capacity is low. Using American National Election Studies data from the 1984-2000 period, we find that ideological thinking consistently heightens voters' reliance on issues and decreases their reliance on candidate cues, but only among voters who report being concerned about the outcome of the election. In contrast, the effect of partisanship is stable across levels of ideological thinking and concern about the campaign.We discuss the cognitive processes by which ideological thinking regulates political choice, and assert its centrality in the political decision-making process. Adapted from the source document.

"We examine 'heuristic' and 'systematic' candidate-appraisal strategies within a presidential election context. Controlling for political knowledge, we determine whether individual differences in the capacity for ideological thought condition voters' reliance on the major determinants of candidate choice, increasing reliance on policy considerations and decreasing reliance on the heuristic cue of party identification and on perceptions of candidate character when ideological capacity is high, and exerting the opposite effect – decreasing the role of issues and increasing the role of party identification and candidate qualities – when such capacity is low. Using American National Election Studies data from the 1984–2000 period, we find that ideological thinking consistently heightens voters' reliance on issues and decreases their reliance on candidate cues, but only among voters who report being concerned about the outcome of the election. In contrast, the effect of partisanship is stable across levels of ideological thinking and concern about the campaign. We discuss the cognitive processes by which ideological thinking regulates political choice, and assert its centrality in the political decision-making process." (author's abstract)

We examine 'heuristic' and 'systematic' candidate-appraisal strategies within a presidential election context. Controlling for political knowledge, we determine whether individual differences in the capacity for ideological thought condition voters' reliance on the major determinants of candidate choice, increasing reliance on policy considerations and decreasing reliance on the heuristic cue of party identification and on perceptions of candidate character when ideological capacity is high, and exerting the opposite effect – decreasing the role of issues and increasing the role of party identification and candidate qualities – when such capacity is low. Using American National Election Studies data from the 1984–2000 period, we find that ideological thinking consistently heightens voters' reliance on issues and decreases their reliance on candidate cues, but only among voters who report being concerned about the outcome of the election. In contrast, the effect of partisanship is stable across levels of ideological thinking and concern about the campaign. We discuss the cognitive processes by which ideological thinking regulates political choice, and assert its centrality in the political decision-making process.

We argue that individuals' personality dispositions influence the relative success of different rhetorical strategies of political persuasion on policy issues, and thus function to constrain the behavior of elite actors in their attempts to win support for favored policy outcomes. Drawing on the psychological concept of functional matching, we propose that policy persuasion can be understood in terms of the "fit" between the regulatory focus of the individual on prevention or promotion and the framing of policies in terms of losses or gains. Using an experimental research design, we find that the success of policy appeals is conditional on the interaction of the policy frame and citizens' personality. These effects are especially pronounced among the less politically sophisticated. Implications for the role of personality in politics, scholarly work on persuasion and framing, and constraints on elite behavior are discussed.