Does policy debate reduce information effects in public opinion? Analyzing the evolution of public opinion on health care

Journal of Politics

Volumn 68, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 410-420

  Claassen, Ryan L ^a   Highton, Benjamin ^b  

^a KENT STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33646366461     PISSN: 00223816     EISSN: 14682508     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00416.x     Document Type: Review

References (25)

1. Althaus, Scott L. 1998. "Information Effects in Collective Preferences." American Political Science Review 92 (3): 545-58.
2. Althaus, Scott L. 2003. Collective Preferences in Democratic Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3. Bartels, Larry M. 1994. "The American Public's Defense Spending Preferences in the Post-Cold War Era." Public Opinion Quarterly 58 (4): 479-508.
4. Bartels, Larry M. 1996. "Uninformed Votes: Information Effects in Presidential Elections." American Journal of Political Science 40 (1): 194-230.
5. Bowers, Jake, Nancy Burns, Michael J. Ensley, and Donald R. Kinder. 2005. "Analyzing the 2000 National Election Study." Political Analysis 13(1): 109-111.
6. Converse, Philip. 1964. "The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Public." In Ideology and Discontent, ed. David E. Apter. New York: Free Press, pp. 206-61.
7. Converse, Philip E. 2000. "Assessing the Capacity of Mass Electorates." Annual Review of Political Science 3: 332-53.
8. Delli Carpini, Michael X., and Scott Keeter. 1996. What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters. New Haven: Yale University Press.
9. Erikson, Robert S., Michael B. MacKuen, and James A. Stimson. 2002. The Macro Polity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
10. Fogarty, Brian J., Nathan J. Kelly, and H. Whitt Kilburn. 2005. "Issue Attitudes and Survey Continuity Across Interview Mode in the 2000 NES." Political Analysis 13 (1): 95-108.
11. Gilens, Martin. 2001. "Political Ignorance and Collective Policy Preferences." American Political Science Review 95 (2): 379-98.
12. Hacker, Jacob. 1997. The Road to Nowhere: The Genesis of President Clinton's Plan for Health Security. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
13. Jacobs, Lawrence R., and Robert Y. Shapiro. 2000. Politicians Don't Pander: Political Manipulation and the Loss of Democratic Responsiveness. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
14. Lau, Richard R., and David P. Redlawsk. 2001. "Advantages and Disadvantages of Cognitive Heuristics in Political Decision Making." American Journal of Political Science 45 (4): 951-71.
15. Lupia, Arthur, and Matthew D. McCubbins. 1998. The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need to Know? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16. Luskin, Robert C. 1987. "Measuring Political Sophistication." American Journal of Political Science 31 (4): 856-99.
17. New York Times. 1993. "Clinton's Health Plan: Transcript of President's Address to Congress on Health Care." September 23, A24.
18. Page, Benjamin I. and Robert Y. Shapiro. 1992. The Rational Public: Fifty Years of Trends in Americans' Policy Preferences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
19. Popkin, Samuel L. 1991. The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
20. Sniderman, Paul M., Richard Brody, and Philip Tetlock.eds. 1991. Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
21. Skocpol, Theda. 1997. Boomerang: Clinton's Health Security Effort and the Turn Against Government in the U.S. Politics. New York: Norton.
22. Stimson, James A. 1999. Public Opinion in America: Moods, Cycles, and Swings, 2nd ed. Boulder: Westview Press.
23. Wittman, Donald. 1989. "Why Democracies Produce Efficient Results." Journal of Political Economy 97 (6): 1395-1424.
24. Zaller, John R. 1985. Pre-Testing Information Items on the 1986 NES Pilot Survey. Report to the National Election Study Board of Overseers.
25. Zaller, John R. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.