Suchergebnisse

Attitude strength is an important, but contested, subject in social psychology. Political scientists often rely on measures of attitude strength such as attitude importance, accessibility, or certainty in their work while ignoring the politically meaningful differences across types of strength. This omission is particularly relevant in the discussion of the formation of candidate evaluations. The research reported here indicates that accessibility is not the relevant type of attitude strength when describing how voters use issues in evaluating candidates. Instead, voters' reliance on issues when evaluating candidates depends on the voter's certainty about where the candidates stand. Given the different antecedents of certainty and accessibility, this result suggests that that citizens are able to more carefully process and use information available to them during an election campaign than would be expected by the prevailing theories of attitude formation.

Following an overview of French presidential elections, their organization, & the issue of candidate information dissemination, the impact of leadership qualities & personal attributes on voting behavior & electoral outcomes is assessed for elections, 1965-1995, drawing on a variety of sources. Much attention is given to the degree to which the constitutional standing of the French presidency promotes strong leadership & how the electoral system proceeds in a manner that directs increasing scrutiny on individual candidates. Analysis of each election indicates that such candidate-centered variables are but one factor among many that influence outcomes. In general, while the French system seems an appropriate milieu for candidates to stress their leadership qualities, findings do not bear this out. However, focusing on the traditional left-right division, some support is found for the hypothesis that the strength of the left-right orientation's impact is undercut in elections where personal qualities are stronger. 4 Tables. J. Zendejas

The on‐line and memory‐based processing models of candidate evaluation can be better understood by incorporating the concepts of ambivalence and uncertainty, both as subjective feeling states and as objective properties of information. An experiment was designed to address three questions: What are the relationships between ambivalence and uncertainty? What are the informational foundations of subjective ambivalence and uncertainty, and to what extent are they rooted in on‐line (time of exposure) and memory‐based (time of judgment) processes? What are the consequences of ambivalence and uncertainty for candidate evaluation? The results suggest that (1) subjective uncertainty is more strongly rooted in information about the candidate than is subjective ambivalence; (2) subjective uncertainty and (to a lesser extent) ambivalence are associated with an increased propensity to engage in memory‐based processing; and (3) subjective ambivalence and uncertainty result in more negative evaluations, particularly among less sophisticated people. These results suggest ways in which the on‐line and memory‐based models might productively be combined.

How does the threat of terrorism affect evaluations of female (vs. male) political leaders, and do these effects vary by the politician's partisanship? Using two national surveys, we document a propensity for the U.S. public to prefer male Republican leadership the most in times of security threat, and female Democratic leadership the least. We theorize a causal process by which terrorist threat influences the effect of stereotypes on candidate evaluations conditional on politician partisanship. We test this framework with an original experiment:a nationally representative sample was presented with a mock election that varied the threat context and the gender and partisanship of the candidates. We find that masculine stereotypes have a negative influence on both male and female Democratic candidates in good times (thus reaffirming the primacy of party stereotypes), but only on the female Democratic candidate when terror threat is primed. Republican candidates—both male and female—are unaffected by masculine stereotypes, regardless of the threat environment.

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.

Research assessing how voters evaluate political candidates often focuses on the effects of particular attributes (e.g., race, gender, partisanship). I submit that voters' perceptions of candidates may depend not only on candidates' own traits and features, but those of other candidates running against them. Drawing on literature on reference dependence, I argue that the same candidate may be perceived in significantly different ways depending on whether or not voters evaluate the candidate as a single entity or as one option in a multicandidate field. An original survey experiment reveals that under certain circumstances, Republicans and Democrats both adjust their evaluations of party candidates as a function of the presence of other candidates. I conclude with a discussion of this project's implications for a larger body of work looking at reference dependence in American elections.