An examination of how voters form impressions of candidates' issue positions during the nomination campaign
- Patrick J. Kenney
- … show all 1 hide
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
There is increasing evidence that issues influence voter preferences during the nomination campaign (Bartels, 1985; Bartels, 1988); however, only Bartels (1988) and Conover and Feldman (1986, 1989) have examined how partisans forge perceptions of candidates' positions on issues prior to the general election campaign. The goal of this paper, then, is to examine how individuals develop perceptions of candidates' issue positions during the crucial months leading to the nominating conventions. Relying on theories developed in social-psychology, I tested five competing hypotheses known to influence individuals' perceptions of candidates' issue positions. An examination of the findings revealed that there is strong support for one of the hypotheses and modest support for three additional hypotheses. In summary, it appears that voters are quite ingenious in forming impressions of where candidates stand on the issues. They rely on stored information about politics, they actually adjust candidates' true positions to relieve cognitive inconsistencies, they evoke their own issue positions to assume candidates they like agree with them and candidates they dislike disagree with them, and finally they evoke their own issue positions to assume candidates agree with them even when they hold no sentiment toward the candidate.
- Anderson, J. A., and Avery, R. K. (1978). An analysis of changes in voter perceptions of candidates' positions.Communication Monographs 45: 354–361.
- Bartels, L. M. (1985). Expectations and preferences in presidential nominating campaigns.American Political Science Review 79: 804–815.
- Bartels, L. M. (1988).Presidential Primaries and the Dynamics of Public Choice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
- Bradley, G. W. (1978). Self-serving biases in the attribution process: A reexamination of the fact or fiction question.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36: 56–71.
- Brady, H. E., and Johnston, R. (1987). What's the primary message: Horse race or issue journalism? In G. R. Orren and N. W. Polsby (eds.),Media and Momentum. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publishers.
- Brody, R. A., and Page, B. L. (1972). Comment: The assessment of policy voting.American Political Science Review 66: 450–458.
- Conover, P. J., and Feldman, S. (1982). Projection and the perception of candidates' issue positions.Western Political Quarterly 35: 228–244.
- Conover, P. J., and Feldman, S. (1986). The role of inference in the perception of political candidates. In Richard R. Lau and David O. Sears (eds.),Political Cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Conover, P. J., and Feldman, S. (1989). Candidate perception in an ambiguous world: Campaigns, cues, and inference processes.American Journal of Political Science 33: 912–940.
- Feldman, S., and Conover, P. J. (1983). Candidates, issues and voters: The role of inference in political perception.The Journal of Politics 45: 811–839.
- Festinger, L. (1957).A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.
- Granberg, D. (1985). An anomaly in political perception.Public Opinion Quarterly 49: 504–516.
- Granberg, D., and Brent, E. E. (1974). Dove-Hawk placements in the 1968 election: Applications of social judgment and balance theories.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 29: 687–695.
- Heider, F. (1958).The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: Wiley.
- Jacoby, W. G. (1988). The impact of party identification on issue attitudes.American Journal of Political Science 32: 643–661.
- Kinder, D. R. (1978). Political person perception: The asymmetrical influence of sentiment and choice on perceptions of presidential candidates.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36: 859–871.
- Kinder, D. R. (1983). Diversity and complexity in American public opinion. In Ada W. Finifter (ed.),Political Science: The State of the Discipline. Washington DC: The American Political Science Association.
- Krosnick, J. A. (1988). Psychological perspectives on political candidate perception: A review of research on the projection hypothesis. Paper presented at the 1988 annual meetings of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.
- Markus, G. B. (1982). Political attitudes during an election year: A report on the 1980 NES panel study.American Political Science Review 76: 538–560.
- Markus, G. B., and Converse, P. E. (1979). A dynamic simultaneous equation model of electoral choice.American Political Science Review 73: 1055–1070.
- Miller, L. W., and Sigelman, L. (1978). Is the audience the message? A note on LBJ's Vietnam statements.Public Opinion Quarterly 42: 71–80.
- Newcomb, T. M. (1968). Interpersonal balance. In R. P. Abelson et al. (eds),Theories of Cognitive Consistency: A Sourcebook. Chicago: Rand McNally.
- Osgood, C. E., and Tannenbaum, P. (1955). The principle of congruity and the prediction of attitude change.Psychological Review 62: 42–55.
- Page, B. I. (1978).Choices and Echoes in Presidential Elections: Rational Man and Electoral Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Page, B. I., and Brody, R. A. (1972). Policy voting and the electoral process: The Vietnam War issue.American Political Science Review 66: 389–400.
- Patterson, T. E. (1980).The Mass Media Election: How Americans Choose Their President. New York: Praeger.
- Schaffer, S. D. (1981). Balance theory and political cognitions.American Politics Quarterly 9: 291–320.
- Sherif, C. W., Sherif, M., and Nebergall, R. E. (1965).Attitude and Attitude Change. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.
- Sherif, M., and Hovland, C. I. (1961).Social Judgment: Assimilation and Contrast Effects in Communication and Attitude Change. New Haven: Yale University Press.
- Sherman, S. J., Presson, C. C., and Chassin, L. (1984). Mechanisms underlying the false consensus effect: The special role of threats to the self.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 10: 127–138.
- Taylor, S. E., and Crocker, J. (1981). Schematic bases of social information processing. In E. T. Higgens, C. A. Herman, and M. P. Zanna (eds.),Social Cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Cognitive theories in social psychology. In G. Lindzey and E. Aronson (eds.),The Handbook of Social Psychology, 2nd ed., vol. 1. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
- An examination of how voters form impressions of candidates' issue positions during the nomination campaign
Volume 15, Issue 3 , pp 265-288
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Kluwer Academic Publishers
- Additional Links
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Department of Political Science, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona