It's not easy being green: Minor party labels as heuristic aids

Political Psychology

Volumn 29, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 389-405

  Coan, Travis G ^a   Merolla, Jennifer L ^a   Stephenson, Laura B ^b   Zechmeister, Elizabeth J ^c  

^a CLAREMONT GRADUATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Heuristics; Information shortcuts; Minor parties; Party cues

Indexed keywords

EID: 43049084095     PISSN: 0162895X     EISSN: 14679221     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2008.00636.x     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Alvarez, R. M., & Franklin, C. H. (1994). Uncertainty and political perceptions. The Journal of Politics, 56 (3), 671–688.
2. Bartels, L. (1986). Issue voting under uncertainty: An empirical test. American Journal of Political Science, 30, 709–728.
3. Burden, B. C. (2005). Minor parties and strategic voting in recent U.S. presidential elections. Electoral Studies, 24, 603–618.
4. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
5. Carmines, E. G., & Stimson, J. A. (1980). The two faces of issue voting. The American Political Science Review, 74, 78–91.
6. Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752–766.
7. Collet, C. (1996). Trends: Third parties and the two‐party system. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 60, 431–449.
8. Conover, P. J., & Feldman, S. (1981). The origins and meaning of liberal/conservative self‐identifications. American Journal of Political Science, 25, 617–645.
9. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper and Row.
10. Huckfeldt, R., Levine, J., Morgan, W., & Sprague, J. (1999). Accessibility and the political utility of partisan and ideological orientations. American Journal of Political Science, 43, 888–911.
11. Kam, C. D. (2005). Who toes the party line? Cues, values, and individual differences. Political Behavior, 27, 163–182.
12. King, G., Tomz, M., & Wittenberg, J. (2000). Making the most of statistical analyses: Improving interpretation and presentation. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 347–61.
13. Koch, J. W. (2001). When parties and candidates collide: Citizen perception of House candidates' positions on abortion. Public Opinion Quarterly, 65, 1–21.
14. Lacy, D., & Monson, Q. (2002). The origins and impact of voter support for third‐party candidates: A case study of the 1998 Minnesota gubernatorial election. Political Research Quarterly, 55, 409–37.
15. Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2001). Advantages and disadvantages of cognitive heuristics in political decision making. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 951–971.
16. Lupia, A., & McCubbins, M. D. (1998). The democratic dilemma: Can citizens learn what they really need to know? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17. McKelvey, R. D., & Ordeshook, P. C. (1986). Information, electoral equilibria, and the democratic ideal. The Journal of Politics, 48 (4), 909–937.
18. Merolla, J. L., Stephenson, L. B., & Zechmeister, E. J. (2007). Can Canadians take a hint? The (in) effectiveness of party labels as information shortcuts in Canada. Presented at the 2007 annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, Saskatoon, Canada.
19. Miller, J. M., & Krosnick, J. A. (2000). News media impact on the ingredients of presidential evaluations: Politically knowledgeable citizens are guided by a trusted source. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 301–315.
20. Miller, S. J., Mazis, M. B., & Wright, P. L. (1971). The influence of brand ambiguity on brand attitude development. Journal of Marketing Research, 8 (4), 455–459.
21. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer‐Verlag New York, Inc.
22. Rahn, W. M. (1993). The role of partisan stereotypes in information processing about political candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 472–496.
23. Ratneshwar, S., & Chaiken, S. (1991). Comprehension's role in persuasion: The case of its moderating effect on the persuasive impact of source cues. The Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (1), 52–62.
24. Sniderman, P. M., Brody, R. A., & Tetlock, P. E. (1991). Reasoning and choice: Explorations in political psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25. Sternthal, B., Dholakia, R., & Leavitt, C. (1978). The persuasive effect of source credibility: Tests of cognitive response. The Journal of Consumer Research, 4 (4), 252–260.
26. Tomz, M., Wittenberg J., & King, G. (2001). CLARIFY: Software for interpreting and presenting statistical results. Version 2.0. Cambridge: Harvard University [software on‐line; available from http://gking.harvard.edu.
27. Weisbuch, M., Mackie, D. M., & Garcia‐Marques, T. (2003). Prior source exposure and persuasion: Further evidence of misattributional processes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29 (6), 691–700.
28. Ziegler, R., & Diehl, M. (2003). Is politician A or politician B more persuasive? Recipients' source preference and the direction of biased message processing. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 623–637.
29. Ziegler, R., Diehl, M., & Ruther, A. (2002). Multiple source characteristics and persuasion: Source inconsistency as a determinant of message scrutiny. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28 (4), 496–508.