Can partisan cues diminish democratic accountability?

Political Behavior

Volumn 30, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 139-160

  Arceneaux, Kevin ^a  

^a TEMPLE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Candidate evaluations; Counter stereotypical position taking; Dual processing; Partisan cues; Partisan stereotypes

Indexed keywords

EID: 43949119124     PISSN: 01909320     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11109-007-9044-7     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Abramowitz, A. I. (1995). It's abortion, stupid: Policy voting in the 1992 presidential election. Journal of Politics, 57(1), 176-186.
2. Adams, G. D. (1997). Abortion: Evidence of an issue evolution. American Journal of Political Science, 41(3), 718-737.
3. Aldrich, J. H. (1995). Why parties? The origin and transformation of political parties in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
4. Bartels, L. M. (1996). Uninformed voters: Information effects in presidential elections. American Journal of Political Science, 40(1), 194-230.
5. Bartels, L. M. (2003). Democracy with attitudes. In M. B. MacKuen & G. Rabinowitz (Eds.), Electoral democracy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
6. Brambor, T., Clark, W. R., & Golder, M. (2006). Understanding interaction models: Improving empirical analyses. Political Analysis, 14, 63-82.
7. Brewer, P. R. (2001). Value words and lizard brains: Do citizens deliberate about appeals to their core values? Political Psychology, 22(1), 45-64.
8. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
9. Carmines, E. G., & Stimson, J. A. (1980). The two faces of issue voting. American Political Science Review, 74(1), 78-91.
10. Carmines, E. G., & Stimson, J. A. (1989). Issue evolution: Race and the transformation of American politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
11. Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought. New York: Guilford Press.
12. Clinton, J. D., & Lapinski, J. S. (2004). "Targeted" advertising and voter turnout: An experimental study of the 2000 presidential election. Journal of Politics, 66(1), 69-96.
13. Cobb, M. D., & Kuklinski, J. H. (1997). Changing minds: Political arguments and political persuasion. American Journal of Political Science, 41(1), 88-121.
14. Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven: Yale University Press.
15. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. Boston: Addison Wesley.
16. Druckman, J. N. (2001a). The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Political Behavior, 23(3), 225-256.
17. Druckman, J. N. (2001b). On the limits of framing effects: Who can frame? Journal of Politics, 63(4), 1041-1066.
18. Druckman, J. N. (2001c). Using credible advice to overcome framing effects. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 17, 62-82.
19. Green, D., Palmquist, B., & Schickler, E. (2002). Partisan hearts and minds: Political parties and the social identities of voters. New Haven: Yale University.
20. Haider-Markel, D. P., & Josly, M. R. (2001). Gun policy, opinion, tragedy, and blame attribution: The conditional influence of issue frames. Journal of Politics, 63(2), 520-543.
21. Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communication and persuasion. New Haven: Yale University Press.
22. Kam, C. D. (2005). Who toes the party line? Cues, values, and individual differences. Political Behavior, 27(2), 163-182.
23. Krosnick, J. A. (1988). The role of attitude importance in social evaluation: A study of policy preferences, presidential candidate evaluations, and voting behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(2), 196-210.
24. Kuklinski, J. H., & Hurley, N. L. (1994). On hearing and interpreting political messages: A cautionary tale of citizen cue-taking. Journal of Politics, 56(3), 729-751.
25. Kuklinski, J. H., & Quirk, P. J. (2000). Reconsidering the rational public: Cognition, heuristics, and mass opinion. In A. Lupia, M. D. McCubbins, & S. L. Popkin (Eds.), Elements of reason: Cognition, choice, and the bounds of rationality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26. Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. P. (1997). Voting correctly. American Political Science Review, 91(3), 585-598.
27. Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2001). Advantages and disadvantages of cognitive heuristics in political decision making. American Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 951-971.
28. Lavine, H., & Gschwend, T. (2007). Issues, party, and character: The moderating role of ideological thinking on candidate evaluation. British Journal of Political Science, 37(1), 139-163.
29. Lupia, A. (1994). Shortcuts versus encyclopedias: Information and voting behavior in California insurance reform elections. American Political Science Review, 88(1), 63-76.
30. Lupia, A., & McCubbins, M. D. (1998). The democratic dilemma: Can citizens learn what they need to know? New York: Cambridge University Press.
31. Maheswaran, D., & Chaiken, S. (1991). Promoting systematic processing in low-motivation settings: Effect of incongruent information on processing and judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(1), 13-25.
32. Mondak, J. (1993). Source cues and policy approval: The cognitive dynamics of public support for the Regan agenda. American Journal of Political Science, 37(1), 186-212.
33. Mondak, J. (2000). Reconsidering the measurement of political knowledge. Political Analysis, 8(1), 57-82.
34. Nelson, T. E., & Garst, J. (2005). Values-based political messages and persuasion: Relationships among speaker, recipient, and evoked values. Political Psychology, 26(4), 489-515.
35. Nelson, T. E., Clawson, R. A., & Oxley, Z. M. (1997a). Media framing of a civil liberties conflict and its effect on tolerance. American Political Science Review, 91(3), 567-584.
36. Nelson, T. E., Oxley, Z. M., & Clawson, R. A. (1997b). Toward a psychology of framing effects. Political Behavior, 19(3), 221-246.
37. Nisbett, R., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
38. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 124-205.
39. Price, V., & Zaller, J. (1993). Who gets the news? Alternative measures of news reception and their implications for research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 57(2), 133-164.
40. Rahn, W. M. (1993). The role of partisan stereotypes in information processing about political candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 37(2), 472-496.
41. Sanbonmatsu, K. (2002). Democrats, republicans, and the politics of women's place. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
42. Smith, K. B., Larimer, C. W., Littvay, L., & Hibbing, J. R. (2007). Evolutionary theory and political leadership: Why certain people do not trust decision makers. Journal of Politics, 69(2), 285-299.
43. Snyder, J. M. Jr., & Ting, M. (2002). An informational rationale for political parties. American Journal of Political Science, 46(1), 90-110.
44. Stokes, D. E. (1963). Spatial models of party competition. American Political Science Review, 57(2), 368-377.
45. Tomz, M., Wittenberg, J., & King, G. (2003). CLARIFY: software for interpreting and presenting statistical results. Version 2.1. Stanford University, University of Wisconsin, and Harvard University. January 5. Available at http://www.gking.harvard.edu/
46. Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.