Values, frames, and persuasion in presidential nomination campaigns

Political Behavior

Volumn 27, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 375-394

  Barker, David C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

Author keywords

Campaigns; Communication; Education; Framing; Nominations; Partisanship; Persuasion; Primaries; Rhetoric; Survey experiments; Values

Indexed keywords

EID: 27844476744     PISSN: 01909320     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11109-005-8145-4     Document Type: Review

References (58)

1. Abramowitz, Alan, and Saunders, Kyle L. (1998). Ideological realignment in the U.S. electorate. Journal of Politics 60(3): 634-652.
2. Abramson, Paul, Aldrich, John, Paolino, Phil, and David, Rohde. (1992). 'Sophisticated Voting' in the 1988 presidential primaries. American Political Science Review 86: 55-69.
3. Barker David, C. (2002). Rushed to Judgment: Talk Radio, Persuasion, and American Political Behavior. New York: Columbia University Press.
4. Barker, David C., and Lawrence, Adam B. (2006) (forthcoming). Media favoritism and presidential nominations: reviving the direct effects model. Political Communication.
5. Bartels, Larry. (1988). The Dynamics of Presidential Primaries. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
6. Brambor, Thomas, Clark, William R., and Golder, Matt. (2002). Understanding interaction models: what we thought we knew but obviously didn't. Unpublished manuscript. Department of Politics, New York University.
7. Brewer, Paul R. (2001). Value words and lizard brains: do citizens deliberate about appeals to their core values? Political Psychology 22(1): 45-64.
8. Chaiken, Shelly. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing in the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39: 752-766.
9. Chaiken, S. Liberman A., and Eagly, A.H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In: Uleman J.S. and Bargh J.A. (eds.), Unintended Thought, pp. 212-252. New York: Guilford Press.
10. Chong, Dennis. (1996). Creating common frames of reference on political issues. In: Mutz Diana C., Paul M. Sniderman and Brody Richard A. (eds.), Political persuasion and attitude change, pp. 195-224. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
11. Cobb, Michael D., and Kuklinski, James H. (1997). Changing minds: political arguments and political persuasion. American Journal of Political Science 41: 88-121.
12. Delli, Carpini, Michael, X., and Keeter, Scott. (1993). Measuring political knowledge: putting first things first. American Journal of Political Science 28: 95-126.
13. Druckman, James. (2001). On the limits of framing effects: who can frame? Journal of Politics 63: 1041-1067.
14. Fazio, R. (1986). How do attitudes guide behavior? In: Sorrentino R. and Higgins E. (eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: foundations of social behavior, New York: Guilford Press.
15. Feldman, Stanley. (1988). Structure and consistency in public opinion: the role of core beliefs and values. American Journal of Political Science 32: 416-440.
16. Feldman, Stanley. (2003). Values, ideology, and the structure of political attitudes. In: Sears, David O., Huddy Leonie, and Jervis Robert (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17. Feldman, S, and Steenbergen, Marco R. (2001). The humanitarian foundation of public support for social welfare. American Journal of Political Science 45: 658-677.
18. Finkel, Steven. (1993). Reexamining the minimal effects model in recent presidential campaigns. Journal of Politics 55: 1-21.
19. Gelman, Andrew, and King, Gary. (1993). Why are American presidential election campaign polls so variable when votes are so predictable? British Journal of Political Science 23: 409-51.
20. Gomez, Brad T., and Wilson, J. Matthew. (2001). Political sophistication and economic voting in the American electorate: a theory of heterogeneous attribution. American Journal of Political Science. 45: 899-914.
21. Goren, Paul. (2000). Political expertise and principled political thought. Political Research Quarterly 53: 117-136.
22. Hochschild, Jennifer. (1981). What's Fair? American Beliefs about Distributive Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
23. Holbrook, Thomas M. (1996). Do Campaigns Matter? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
24. Hurwitz, Jon, and Peffley, Mark. (1987). How are foreign policy attitudes structured?: a hierarchical model, American Political Science Review 81: 1099-1120.
25. Iyengar, Shanto. (1991). Is anyone responsible? Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
26. Iyengar, Shanto, and Kinder, Donald R. (1987). News that Matters. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
27. Jaccard, James, Turrisi, Robert, and Wan, Choi K. (1990). Interaction Effects in Multiple Regression (Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences #72). Newbury Park: Sage.
28. Jacoby, William G. (2000). Issue framing and public opinion on government spending. American Journal of Political Science 44: 750-67.
29. Katz, I., and Hass, R. G. (1988). Racial ambivalence and American value conflict: correlational and priming studies of dual cognitive structures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 55: 892-905.
30. Kerlinger, F. N. (1984). Liberalism and conservatism: The nature and structure of social attitudes, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
31. Kluckhohn, C. (1951). Values and value-orientations in the theory of action. In: Parsons T. and Shils E. (eds.), Toward a general theory of action, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
32. Krosnick, Jon A., and Kinder, Donald R. (1990). Altering the foundations of support for the president through priming. American Political Science Review 84: 497-512.
33. Lakoff George. (2002). Moral politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
34. Lau, Richard R. (1989). Construct accessibility and electoral choice. Political Behavior 11: 5-32.
35. Lau, Richard R., Sigelman, Lee, Heldman, Caroline, and Babbitt, Paul. (1999). The effects of negative political advertisements: a meta-analytic assessment. American Political Science Review 93: 851-875.
36. Layman, Geoffrey. (2001). The Great Divide: Religious and Cultural Conflict in American Party Politics. New York: Columbia University Press.
37. Long, J. Scott. (1997). Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
38. Luskin, Robert. (1987). Measuring political sophistication. American Journal of Political Science 31: 856-899.
39. McClosky, H., and Zaller, J. (1984). The American Ethos: Public Attitudes toward Capitalism and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
40. Miller, Joanne M., and Krosnick, Jon A. (1996). News media impact on the ingredients of presidential evaluations: a program of research on the priming hypothesis. In: Diana Mutz, Sniderman Paul M. and Brody Richard A. (eds.), Political persuasion and attitude change, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
41. Mutz, Diana C., Sniderman, Paul M., and Brody, Richard A. (eds.) (1996). Political Persuasion and Attitude Change. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
42. Nelson, Thomas E., Clawson, Rosalee A., and Oxley, Zoe M. (1997). Media framing of a civil liberties conflict and its effect on tolerance. American Political Science Review 91: 567-584.
43. Norpoth, Helmut, and Lodge, Miltion. (1985). The difference between attitudes and nonattitudes in the mass public: just measurements? American Journal of Political Science 29: 291-307.
44. Paolino, Philip, and Shaw, Daron R. (2001). Lifting the hood on the straight-talk express: examining the McCain phenomenon. American Politics Research 29: 483-506.
45. Popkin, Samuel L. (1991). The Reasoning Voter. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
46. Rasinski, K.A. (1987). What's fair is fair - or is it? Value differences underlying public views about social justice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53: 201-11.
47. Rokeach, Milton. (1973). The Nature of Human Values. New York: Free Press.
48. Sears, David O. (1986). College sophomores in the laboratory: influences of a narrow data base on social psychology's view of human nature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51: 515-530.
49. Shaw, Daron. (1999). A study of presidential campaign event effects from 1952 to 1992. Journal of Politics 61: 387-423.
50. Sniderman, Paul M. (1993). The new look in public opinion research. In: Ada Finifter (ed.), Political Science: The State of The Discipline II, Washington, D.C: American Political Science Association.
51. Sniderman, Paul M., Brody, Richard A., and Tetlock, Paul E. (1991). Reasoning and choice: explorations in political psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
52. Stone, Walter, and Rapoport, Ronald. (1994). Candidate perception among nomination activists: A new look at the moderation hypothesis. Journal of Politics 56: 1034-52.
53. Stone, Walter, Rapoport, Ronald, and Atkeson, Lonna. (1995). A simulation model of presidential nomination choice. American Journal of Political Science 39: 135-61.
54. Tetlock, Philip E. (1986). A value pluralism model of ideological reasoning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50: 819-827.
55. Verba, Sidney, and Orren, Gary R. (1985). Equality in America: The View from the Top. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
56. Zaller, John. (1992). The Nature and Origin of Mass Opinion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
57. Zaller, John. (1996). The myth of massive media impact revived: new support for a discredited idea. In: DianaC. Mutz, Paul M. Sniderman and Brody Richard A. (eds.), Political Persuasion and attitude Change, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
58. Zaller, John, and Feldman, Stanley. (1992). A simple theory of the survey response: answering questions or revealing preferences. American Journal of Political Science 36: 579-616.