Suchergebnisse

HOW DOES THE EXPRESSED POLITICAL IDEOLOGY OF VOTERS INFLUENCE THEIR EVALUATION OF PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES? THE CLASSIC ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION IS PROVIDED BY THE SPATIAL THEORY OF ELECTORAL CHOICE IN WHICH UTILITY FOR A CANDIDATE IS A FUNCTION OF THE PROXIMITY BETWEEN THE VOTER AND CANDIDATE POSITIONS ON THE LIBERAL-CONSERVATIVE CONTINUUM. THE AUTHORS HAVE ARGUED ELSEWHERE THAT SPATIAL THEORY, WHILE INTELLECTUALLY APPEALING, IS INADEQUATE AS AN EMPIRICAL MODEL OF MASS BEHAVIOR. THEY HAVE DEVELOPED A DIRECTIONAL THEORY OF ISSUE VOTING THAT WE BELIEVE PROVIDES A MORE REALISTIC ACCOUNTING O HOW SPECIFIC POLICY ISSUES INFLUENCE UTILITY FOR A CANDIDATE. DIRECTIONAL THEORY IS BASED ON THE VIEW THAT FOR MOST VOTERS ISSUES ARE UNDERSTOOD AS A DICHOTOMOUS CHOICE BETWEEN TWO ALTERNATIVE POSITIONS. WHILE IDEOLOGY IS WIDEL UNDERSTOOD AS A CONTINUUM OF POSITIONS, THE DIRECTIONAL MODEL CAN BE APPLIED TO THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN IDEOLOGY AND CANDIDATE EVALUATION. IN THIS PAPER THEY COMPARE THE TOW THEORIES USING NATIONAL ELECTION STUDY DATA FROM 1972 TO 1988. THE RESULTS TEND TO FACTOR THE DIRECTIONAL MODEL OVER THE TRADITIONAL PROXIMITY MODEL. WE CONCLUDE BY BRIEFLY TRACING OUT THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS FINDING.

Decades of voting behavior studies have found party affiliation, issue stands and ideology, and candidate image to be major factors influencing voter evaluations of candidates. The relative importance of these criteria, however, may depend on the context in which the information processing about the candidate occurs. Specifically, in this study, an experimentally designed survey is used to change the context of the judgment task from an absolute judgment of one candidate to a comparison judgment of two candidates. The results show that subjects changed from a discrete information processing strategy when judging one candidate to a heuristic processing strategy when judging two candidates. The implications for citizen evaluations of political candidates is discussed.

Candidate characteristics are often treated as a lump sum that can be pulled apart but ultimately sum together in models of candidate evaluation. The present study asks, first, whether distinctions among traits are useful for models of candidate evaluation. Second, it considers whether the role of substantive trait dimensions in overall evaluation is uniform across candidates or varies by candidate & electoral context. Latent variable structural equation models are used to test the impact of trait dimensions on thermometer ratings of presidential candidates from 1984 to 1996. Results support the separation of traits into substantive content dimensions. Trait dimensions vary in their effect on candidate evaluations depending on the candidate & election year. This is consistent with a model of attitude response based on changing considerations. These results suggest that as candidates & campaigns call attention to different underlying trait dimensions, the bases for overall evaluation vary accordingly. 2 Tables, 1 Appendix, 70 References. Adapted from the source document.

We describe and test two process models of candidate evaluation. The memory-based model holds that evaluations are dependent on the mix of pro and con information retrieved from memory. The impression-driven model holds that evaluations are formed and updated "on-line" as information is encountered. The results provide evidence for the existence of stereotyping and projection biases that render the mix of evidence available in memory a nonveridical representation of the information to which subjects were exposed. People do not rely on the specific candidate information available in memory. Rather, consistent with the logic of the impression-driven processing model, an "on-line" judgment formed when the information was encountered best predicts candidate evaluation. The results raise both methodological and substantive challenges to how political scientists measure and model the candidate evaluation process.

Recent research has altered our understanding of how voters select a candidate in U.S. presidential elections. Scholars have demonstrated empirically that issues, candidate personalities, candidate evaluations, and party identification interact in a dynamic simultaneous fashion to determine vote choice. Other researchers have shown that prenomination candidate preferences play an integral role in structuring the general election vote. We join together these two important trends to introduce and test a revised model of vote choice, using 1980 NES panel data. The results reconfirm that candidate selection is part of a dynamic simultaneous process and reveal for the first time that prenomination preferences are woven tightly into this causal web.

RECENT WORK IN COGNITIVE PROCESSING AND INDIVIDUAL DECISION MAKING HAS EMPHASIZED THAT INDIVIDUALS VARY IN THE CRITERIA THEY BRING TO BEAR TO EVALUATE POLITICAL OBJECTS. IN THIS PAPER WE ARGUE THAT INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES ARE BUT ONE PIECE OF THE DECISION-MAKING PUZZLE, AND THAT ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS ARE ALSO IMPORTANT. OF PARTICULAR INTEREST TO US IS THE IDEA THAT DIFFERENT CANDIDATES EVOKE DIFFERENT EVALUATIVE CRITERIA. USING DATA FROM A 1984 SAMPLE OF UNDERGRADUATES AND THE 1980 NATIONAL ELECTION STUDY, WE FIND EVIDENCE THAT POLITICAL EVOCATION EFFECTS DO EXIST. THIS RESULT HAS IMPLICATIONS FOR UNDERSTANDING BOTH THE DECISION CALCULUS OF INDIVIDUALS AND THE COLLECTIVE RATIONALITY OF THE ELECTORATE.