Personifying the state: Consequences for attitude formation

Political Psychology

Volumn 28, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 299-327

  McGraw, Kathleen M ^a   Dolan, Thomas M ^a  

^a OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Attitude formation; Entitativity; On line processing; Personification; State

Indexed keywords

EID: 34249027743     PISSN: 0162895X     EISSN: 14679221     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2007.00570.x     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Asch, S. E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41, 258 290.
2. Bagehot, W. (1867/2001). The English constitution. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
3. Bizer, G. Y., Krosnick, J. A., Holbrook, A. L., Wheeler, S. Christian, Rucker, D. D. Petty, R. E. (2004). The impact of personality on cognitive, behavioral, and affective political processes: The effects of need to evaluate. Journal of Personality, 72, 995 1027.
4. Bizer, G. Y., Tormala, Z. L., Rucker, D. D. Petty, R. E. (2006). Memory-based versus on-line processing: Implications for attitude strength. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 646 653.
5. Brewer, M. B. Harasty, A. S. (1996). Seeing groups as entities: The role of perceiver motivation. In R. M. Sorrentino E. T. Higgins (Eds Handbook of motivation and cognition: The interpersonal context (Vol. 3, pp. 347 370). New York : The Guilford Press.
6. Brody, R. A. Page, B. I. (1975). The impact of events on presidential popularity. In A. Wildavsky (Ed Perspectives on the presidency (pp. 136 148). Boston : Little, Brown, and Co.
7. Campbell, D. T. (1958). Common fate, similarity, and other indices of the status of aggregates as social entitites. Behavioral Science, 3, 14 25.
8. Castano, E. (2004). On the advantages of reifying the ingroup. In V. Yzerbyt, C. M. Judd O. Corneille (Eds The psychology of group perception: Perceived variability, entitativity, and essentialism (pp. 381 400). New York : Psychology Press.
9. Castano, E., Sacchi, S. Gries, P. H. (2003). The perception of the other in international relations: Evidence for the polarizing effect of entitativity. Political Psychology, 24, 449 468.
10. Castano, E., Yzerbyt, V. Bourguignon, D. (2003). We are one and I like it: The impact of ingroup entitativity on ingroup identification. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 735 754.
11. Clement, R. W. Krueger, J. (1998). Liking persons versus liking groups: A dual-process hypothesis. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 457 469.
12. Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. E. Apter (Ed Ideology and discontent (pp. 206 261). London : Collier-Macmillan.
13. Crawford, M. T., Sherman, S. J. Hamilton, D. L. (2002). Perceived entitativity, stereotype formation, and the interchangeability of group members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1076 1094.
14. Delli Carpini, M. Keeter, S. (1993). Measuring political knowledge: Putting first things first. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 1179 1206.
15. Easton, D. Dennis, J. (1969). Children in the political system. New York : McGraw-Hill.
16. Fazio, R. H. (1995). Attitudes as object-evaluation associations: Determinants, consequences, and correlates of attitude accessibility. In R. E. Petty J. A. Krosnick (Eds Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 247 282). Mahwah, NJ : Erlbaum.
17. Fox, J. (1991). Regression diagnostics. Newbury Park : Sage Publications.
18. Hamilton, D. L. Sherman, S. J. (1996). Perceiving persons and groups. Psychological Review, 103, 336 355.
19. Hamilton, D. L., Sherman, S. J. Lickel, B. (1998). Perceiving social groups: The importance of the entitativity continuum. In C. Sedikides, J. Schopler C. Insko (Eds Intergroup cognition and intergroup behavior (pp. 47 74). Mahwah, NJ : Erlbaum.
20. Hamilton, D. L., Sherman, S. J. Maddox, K. B. (1999). Dualities and continua: Implications for understanding perceptions of persons and groups. In S. Chaiken Y. Trope (Eds Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 606 626). New York : The Guilford Press.
21. Hastie, R. Park, B. (1986). The relationship between memory and judgment depends on whether the task is memory-based or on-line. Psychological Review, 93, 258 268.
22. Hastie, R. Pennington, N. (1989). Notes on the distinction between memory-based versus on-line judgments. In J. N. Bassili (Ed On-line cognition in person perception (pp. 1 17). Hillsdale, NJ : Erlbaum.
23. Herrmann, R. K. (2003). Image theory and strategic interaction in international politics. In D. O. Sears, L. Huddy R. Jervis (Eds Oxford handbook of political psychology (pp. 285 314). New York : Oxford University Press.
24. Herrmann, R. K., Tetlock, P. E. Visser, P. (1999). Mass public decisions to go to war: A cognitive-interactionist framework. American Political Science Review, 93, 553 573.
25. Hess, R. D. Torney, J. V. (1967). The development of political attitudes in children. New York : Aldane.
26. Holbrook, A., Krosnick, J. A., Visser, P. S., Gardner, W. L. Cacioppo, J. T. (2001). Attitudes toward presidential candidates and political parties: Initial optimism, inertial first impressions, and a focus on flaws. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 930 950.
27. Jarvis, W. B. G. Petty, R. E. (1996). The need to evaluate. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 172 194.
28. Lane, R. E. (1962). Political ideology. New York : Free Press.
29. Lavine, H. (2002). On-line versus memory-based models of political evaluation. In K. R. Monroe (Ed Political psychology (pp. 225 248). Mahwah, NJ : Erlbaum.
30. Levy, S. R., Stroessner, S. J. Dweck, C. S. (1998). Stereotype formation and endorsement: The role of implicit theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1421 1436.
31. Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. New York : Harper & Row.
32. Lickel, B., Hamilton, D. L., Wiecsorkowska, G., Lewis, A., Sherman, S. J. Uhles, A. N. (2000). Varieties of groups of the perception of group entitativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 223 246.
33. Lippmann, W. (1922/1965). Public opinion. New York : Free Press.
34. Lodge, M., McGraw, K. M. Stroh, P. (1989). An impression-driven model of candidate evaluation. American Political Science Review, 83, 399 419.
35. Lodge, M. Steenbergen, M. (1995). The responsive voter: Campaign information and the dynamics of candidate evaluation. American Political Science Review, 89, 309 326.
36. Machiavelli, N. (1517/1999). The Prince. George Bull, trans. New York : Penguin Classics.
37. Macrae, C. N. Bodenhausen, G. V. (2000). Social cognition: Thinking categorically about others. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 93 120.
38. McConnell, A. R. (2001). Implicit theories: Consequences for social judgments of individuals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 215 227.
39. McGraw, K. M. (2000). Contributions of the cognitive approach to political psychology. Political Psychology, 21, 805 832.
40. McGraw, K. M. (2003). Political impressions: Formation and management. In D. O. Sears, L. Huddy R. Jervis (Eds Handbook of political psychology (pp. 394 432). New York : Oxford University Press.
41. McGraw, K. M. (2006). How and why psychology matters. In R. Goodin C. Tilly (Eds The Oxford handbook of contextual political analysis (pp. 131 156). New York : Oxford University Press.
42. McGraw, K. M., Hasecke, E. Conger, K. (2003). Ambivalence, uncertainty, and processes of candidate evaluation. Political Psychology, 24, 421 448.
43. McGraw, K. M., Lodge, M. Stroh, P. (1990). On-line processing in candidate evaluation: The effects of issue order, issue importance, and sophistication. Political Behavior, 12, 41 58.
44. McGraw, K. M. Pinney, N. (1990). The effects of general and domain-specific expertise on political memory and judgment processes. Social Cognition, 8, 9 30.
45. Pettit, P. (2002). Collective persons and powers. Legal Theory, 8, 443 470.
46. Petty, R. E. Krosnick, J. A. (1998) Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences. Mahwah, NJ : Erlbaum.
47. Rahn, W. M., Aldrich, J. H. Borgida, E. (1994). Individual and contextual variations in political candidate appraisal. American Political Science Review, 88, 193 199.
48. Rahn, W. M., Krosnick, J. A. Breuning, M. (1994). Rationalization and derivation processes in survey studies of political candidate evaluation. American Journal of Political Science, 38, 582 600.
49. Redlawsk, D. (2001). You must remember this: A test of the on-line model of voting. Journal of Politics, 63, 29 58.
50. Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed Advances in experimental social psychology pp. 173 220. New York : Academic Press.
51. Sherman, S. J., Beike, D. R. Ryalls, K. R. (1999). Dual-processing accounts of inconsistencies in responses to general versus specific cases. In S. Chaiken Y. Trope (Eds Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 203 230). New York : The Guilford Press.
52. Sigelman, L. Knight, K. (1985). Public opinion and presidential responsibility for the economy: Understanding personalization. Political Behavior, 7, 167 191.
53. Smith, R. (2003). Stories of peoplehood. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
54. Susskind, J., Maurer, K., Thakkar, V., Hamilton, D. L. Sherman, J. W. (1999). Perceiving individuals and groups: Expectancies, dispositional inferences, and causal attributions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 181 191.
55. Taber, C. Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 755 769.
56. Tormala, Z. L. Petty, R. E. (2001). On-line versus memory-based processing: The role of "need to evaluate" in person perception. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1599 1612.
57. Tyler, T. R. (1982). Personalization in attributing responsibility for national problems to the president. Political Behavior, 4, 379 399.
58. Weber, M. (1918/1946). Politics as a vocation. In H. H. Gerth C. Wright Mills (Eds/trans From Max Weber: Essays in sociology (pp. 77 83). Oxford : Oxford University Press.
59. Wendt, A. (1999). Social theory of international politics. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
60. Wendt, A. (2004). The state as person in international theory. Review of International Studies, 30, 289 316.
61. Yzerbyt, V., Judd, C. M. Corneille, O. (Eds 2004). The psychology of group perception: Perceived variability, entitativity, and essentialism. New York : Psychology Press.
62. Yzerbyt, V. Y., Rogier, A. Fiske, S. (1998). Group entitativity and social attribution: On translating situational constraints into stereotypes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1090 1104.
63. Zaller, J. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York : Cambridge University Press.
64. Zaller, J. R. Feldman, S. (1992). A simple theory of the survey response: Answering questions versus revealing preferences. American Journal of Political Science, 36, 579 616.