Source valence in assessing candidate image in a local election

Communication Research Reports

Volumn 21, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 174-187

  Allen, Jerry L ^a   Post, Daniel J ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAVEN   (United States)

^b NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 28744436003     PISSN: 08824096     EISSN: 17464099     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08824090409359979     Document Type: Article

References (69)

1. Allen, J. L., Long, K. M., O'Mara, J., and Judd, B., 1987. “ Candidate image, voter values, and gender as determinants of voter preference in the 1984 presidential campaign ”. In Advances in gender and communication research, Edited by: Nadler, L. B., Nadler, M. K., and Mancillas, W. R. Todd. 273–290. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
2. Allen, J. L., O'Mara, J., and Judd, B., Changes in the evaluation of female candidates from Ella Grasso to Geraldine Ferraro. Paper presented at the International Communication Association Convention. Honolulu, HI. June.
3. Andersen, P. A., 1975. The effects of source credibility, attraction, and homophily on voter preference, Florida State University. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
4. Andersen, P. A., and Kibler, R. J., 1978. Candidate valence as a predictor of voter preference. Human Communication Research, 5: 4–14.
5. Andersen, P. A., and Todd de Mancillas, W. R., 1978. Scales for the measurement of homophily with public figures. Southern Speech Communication Journal, 43: 169–179.
6. Aronson, E., 1972. The social animal, New York, NY: Viking Press.
7. Ansolabehere, S., and Iyengar, S., 1995. Going Negative, New York, NY: Free Press.
8. Atwood, L. E., and Sanders, K. R., 1975. Perception of information sources and likelihood of split ticket voting. Journalism Quarterly, 53: 421–428.
9. Bales, R. F., and Slater, P. E., 1955. “ Role differentiation in small decision‐making groups ”. In Family, socialization and interaction process, Edited by: Parsons, T., and Bales, R. F., 259–306. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
10. Becker, L B., and Doolittle, J. C., 1975. How repetition affects evaluations of and information seeking about candidates. Journalism Quarterly, 53: 611–617.
11. Becker, L. B., McCombs, Maxwell E., and McLeod, J. M., 1975. “ The development of political cognitions ”. In Political Communication, Edited by: Chaffee, S. H., Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
12. Bennett, L. W., 1988. News: The politics of illusions, New York: Longman.
13. Berscheild, E., 1966. Opinion change and communicator‐communicatee similarity and dissimilarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6: 670–680.
14. Blumler, J. G., 1978. The role of theory in issues and gratifications study. Political Communication Review, 3: 1–10.
15. Blumler, J. G., and McLeod, J. M., 1975. “ Communication and voter turn‐out in Britain ”. In Sociological theory and survey research, Edited by: Leggart, T., 265–312. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
16. Blumler, J. G., and McQuail, D., 1960. Television in politics: Its uses and influence, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
17. Bowes, J. E., and Strentz, H., 1978. “ Candidate images: Stereotyping and the 1976 debates ”. In Communication yearbook, Edited by: Rubin, B. D., Vol. 2, New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
18. Brock, T. C., 1965. Communicator‐recipient similarity and decision change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1: 650–653.
19. Conover, P. J., 1981. Political cues and perception of candidates. American Politics Quarterly, 9: 427–448.
20. Corry, J., 1984. What is tv doing to the election process?. New York Times, Novermber 18: H27
21. Cundy, P. J., 1981. “ Political commercials and candidate image: The effect can be substantial ”. In New perspectives on political advertising, Edited by: Kaid, L. L., Nimmo, D., and Sandrs, K. R., 210–234. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
22. Garramone, G. M., 1996. “ Candidate image formation: The role of information processing ”. In New perspectives on political advertising, Edited by: Kaid, L. L., Nimmo, D., and Sanders, K. R., 210–234. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
23. Garramone, G. M., Steele, M. E., and Pinkleton, B., 1991. “ The role of cognitive schematia in determining candidate characteristic effects ”. In Television and political advertising: Vol. 1. Psychological processes, Edited by: Biocca, F., Vol. 1, 311–328. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
24. Hare, A. P., 1962. The handbook of small group research, New York, NY: The Free Press.
25. Hart, R. P., 2000. Campaign talk, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
26. Hellweg, Susan A., 1979. An examination of voter conceptualization of the ideal political candidate. Southern Speech Communication Journal, 44: 373–85.
27. Hellweg, S. A., and King, S. W., 1983. Comparative evaluation of political candidates: Implications for the voter decision‐making process. Central States Speech Journal, 34: 134–38.
28. Jamieson, K. H., 1992. Dirty politics: Deception, distraction, and democracy, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
29. Jamieson, K. H., 2000. Everything you think you know about politics, New York, NY: Basic Books.
30. Jamieson, K. H., 1996. Packaging the presidency, New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 1996
31. Kaid, L. L., 1991. “ The effects of television broadcasts on perceptions of presidential in the United States and France ”. In Mediated politics in two cultures: Presidential campaigning the United States and France, Edited by: Kaid, L. L., Gerstle, J., and Sanders, K. R., 247–260. New York, NY: Praeger Publications.
32. Kaid, L. L., 1995. “ Measuring candidate image with semantic differentials ”. In Candidate images in presidential elections, Edited by: Hacker, K. L., 131–134. New York, NY: Praeger Publications.
33. Kaid, L. L., and Chanslor, M., 1995. “ Changing candidate images: The effects of political advertising ”. In Candidate images in presidential elections, Edited by: Hacker, K. L., 83–98. New York, NY: Praeger Publications.
34. Kaid, L. L., and Hirsch, R. O., 1973. Selective exposure and candidate image: A field study over time. Central States Speech Journal, 26: 48–51.
35. Kaid, L. L., Leland, C. M., and Whitney, S., 1992. The impact of televised political ads: Evoking viewer responses in the 1988 presidential campaign. The Southern Communication Journal, 54: 57–70.
36. Kiesler, C. A., and Goldberg, G. N., 1968. Multidimensional approach to the experimental study of interpersonal attraction: Effect of a blunder on the attractiveness of a competent other. Psychological Reports, 22: 693–705.
37. Kraus, S., and Davis, D., 1976. The effects of mass communication on political behavior, University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
38. Lashbrook, V. J., and McCroskey, J. C., Source valence: An improved conceptualization. Paper presented at the Western Speech Communication Convention. Honolulu, HI. February.
39. Latimer, M. K., 1984. Policy issues and personal images in political advertising in a state election. Journalism Quarterly, 61: 776–784. 852
40. Leuhold, D. A., 1968. Electioneering in a democracy: Campaigns for congress, New York: John Wiley and Sons.
41. McCroskey, J. C., 1966. Scales for the measurement of ethos. Speech Monographs, 33: 65–72.
42. McCroskey, J. C., Jensen, T., and Todd, C., The generalizability of source credibility scales for public figures. Paper presented at the Speech Communication Association Convention. Chicago. December.
43. McCroskey, J. C., and McCain, T. A., 1974. The measurement of interpersonal attraction. Speech Monographs, 41: 261–266.
44. McCroskey, J. C., and Richmond, V. P., 2000. Applying reciprocity and accommodation theories to supervisor/subordinate communication. Journal of Applied Communication, 28: 278–289.
45. McCroskey, J. C., Richmond, V. P., and Daly, J. A., 1975. The development of a measure of perceived homophily in interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1: 323–332.
46. McCroskey, J. C., and Teven, J. J., 1999. Goodwill: A reexamination of the construct and its measurement. Communication Monographs, 66: 90–103.
47. McGinnes, E., 1970. Social behavior: A functional analysis, Boston, MA: Houghton‐Mifflin.
48. McGuire, W. J., 1969. “ The nature of attitudes and attitudes changes ”. In The handbook of social psychology, Edited by: Lindzey, C., and Arnoson, E., Volume 3, 136–314. Reading, MA: Addison‐Wesley. 3.
49. McLeod, J. M., Wackman, D., Hurt, W. H., and Payne, H. W., Political conflict and communication behavior in the 1964 political campaign. Paper presented at the Association for Education in Journalism Convention. Syracuse, NY. August.
50. Mills, J., and Aronson, E., 1965. Opinion change as a function of the communicator's attractiveness and desire to influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1: 173–177.
51. Miller, A. H., Wattenberg, M. P., and Malanchuk, O., 1985. “ Cognitive representations of candidate assessments ”. In Political communication yearbook 1984, Edited by: Sanders, K. R., Kaid, L. L., and Nimmo, D., 183–210. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
52. Miller, A. H., Wattenberg, M. P., and Malanchuk, O., 1986. Schematic assessments of presidential candidates. American Political Science Review, 80: 521–536.
53. Nimmo, D., 1995a. “ Intensive analysis and candidate images ”. In Candidate images in presidential elections, Edited by: Hacker, K. L., 135–144. New York, NY: Praeger Publishers.
54. Nimmo, D., 1995b. “ The formation of candidate images during presidential campaigns ”. In Candidate images in presidential elections, Edited by: Hacker, K. L., 51–64. New York, NY: Praeger, Publishers.
55. Nimmo, D., Mansfield, M., and Savage, R. L., Partisanship, communications, and images of presidential candidates, 1952–1972. Paper presented at the International Communication Association Convention. New Orleans, LA. May.
56. Nimmo, D., and Savage, R. L., 1976. Candidate and their images: Concepts, methods, and findings, Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear Publishing Company.
57. Patterson, T. E., and McClure, R. D., 1976. The unseeing eye: The myth of television power in national politics, New York, NY: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
58. Rogers, E. M., and Shoemaker, F. F., 1971. Communications of innovations, New York, NY: The Free Press.
59. Rosenbaum, L. L., and McGinnes, E., 1969. A semantic differential analysis of concepts associated with the 1964 presidential election. Journal of Social Psychology, 78: 227–235.
60. Sanders, K. R., and Pace, T. J., 1977. “ The influence of speech communication on the image of a political candidate: “Limited effects”; revisited ”. In Communication yearbook, Edited by: Ruben, B., Vol. I, 465–474. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Press.
61. Shyles, L., 1984. The relationships of images, issues and presentational methods in televised shop advertisements for 1980's American presidential primaries. Journal of Broadcasting, 28: 405–421.
62. Sears, D. O., and Whitney, P. E., 1973. “ Political persuasion ”. In Handbook of communication, Edited by: Pool, I. S., and Schramm, W., Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
63. Sigall, H., and Aronson, E., 1967. Opinion change and the gain‐loss model of interpersonal attraction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3: 178–188.
64. Simons, H. W., 1973. “ Interpersonal perception, similarity and credibility ”. In Advances in Communication research, Edited by: Mortensen, C. D., and Sereno, K. K., 215–240. New York, NY: Harper and Row. 1973
65. Stotland, E., and Patchen, N., 1961. Identification and changes in prejudice and authoritarianism. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62: 250–256.
66. Stotland, E., Zander, A., and Matsoulas, T., 1969. Generalization of verbal and overt behavioral responses to attitude objects. Journal of Social Issues, 25: 41–78.
67. Thorson, E., Christ, W. G., and Caywood, C., 1991. “ Selling candidates like toothpaste: Is the comparison apt? ”. In Television and political advertising: Vol. 1. Psychological processes, Edited by: Biocca, F., Vol. 1, 145–172. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
68. West, D. M., 1993. Air wars: Television advertising in election campaigns, Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
69. Wheeless, L. R., 1974. The effects of attitude, credibility, and homophily on selective exposure to information. Speech Monographs, 41: 319–327.