The method is the message: The current state of political communication research

Political Communication

Volumn 18, Issue 2, 2001, Pages 225-229

  Iyengar, Shanto ^a  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0039840456     PISSN: 10584609     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/105846001750322998     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Ansolabehere, S., & Iyengar, S. (1995). Going negative: How political advertisements shrink and polarize the electorate. New York: Free Press.
2. Bartels, L. M. (1993). Messages received: The political impact of media exposure. American Political Science Review, 87, 267-285.
3. Bartels, L. M. (1997). Three virtues of panel data for the analysis of campaign effects. Paper presented at the Conference on Campaign Effects, Vancouver, British Columbia.
4. Behr, R. L., & Iyengar, S. (1985). Television news, real-world cues, and changes in the public agenda. Public Opinion Quarterly, 49, 38-57.
5. Carter, R. F., Ruggels, W. L., & Chaffee, S. H. (1968). The semantic differential in opinion measurement. Public Opinion Quarterly, 32, 666-674.
6. Chaffee, S. H., & Choe, S. Y. (1980). Time of decision and media use during the Ford-Carter campaign. Public Opinion Quarterly, 44, 53-69.
7. Chaffee, S. H., & Schleuder, J. (1986). Measurement and effects of attention to media news. Human Communication Research, 13, 76-107.
8. Chaffee, S. H., Ward, L. S., & Tipton, L. P. (1970). Mass communication and political socialization. Journalism Quarterly, 47, 647-659.
9. Green, D. P., & Gerber, A. S. (1999). Does canvassing increase voter turnout? A field experiment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 96, 10939-10942.
10. Hovland, C. I. (1959). Reconciling conflicting results derived from experimental and survey studies of attitude change. American Psychologist, 14, 8-17.
11. Iyengar, S. (2000, May 5-6). Experimental designs for political communication research: From shopping malls to the Internet. Paper prepared for the Workshop in Experimental Methods, Department of Government, Harvard University. Available URL: http://pcl.stanford.edu/ research/papers/hwshop/index.html
12. Iyengar, S., & Simon, A. (2000). New perspectives and evidence on political communication and campaign effects. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 149-169. Available URL: http://psych. annuaireviews. org
13. Jackman, S., & Rivers, D. (2000, November 7). Election tracking results [On-line]. Available URL: http://jackman.stanford.edu/papers/writeup.pdf
14. Johnston, R., Blais, A., Brady, H. E., & Crete, J. (1992). Letting the people decide: Dynamics of a Canadian election. Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press.
15. Kernell, S. (1993). Going public: New strategies of presidential leadership. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
16. Moss, M. L., & Mitra, S. (1998). Net equity: A report on income and Internet access. Journal of Urban Technology, 5(3), 23-32.
17. Papadakis, M. C. (2000, March 31). Complex picture of computer use in the home emerges. Issue Brief, Division of Science Resource Studies, Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Science, National Science Foundation. Available URL: http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/ issuebrf/sib00314.htm
18. Polsby, N. W. (1983). Consequences of party reform. New York: Oxford University Press.
19. Zaller, J. (1996). The myth of massive media impact revived: New support for a discredited idea. In D. C. Mutz, P. M. Sniderman, & R. A. Brody (Eds.), Political persuasion and attitude change (pp. 17-78). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.