Campaign mixed-message flows and timing of vote decision

International Journal of Public Opinion Research

Volumn 20, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 326-346

  Nir, Lilach ^a   Druckman, James N ^b,c,d  

^a HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM   (Israel)

^b Department of Political Science ^*

^c NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d AARHUS UNIVERSITY   (Denmark)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 50949124324     PISSN: 09542892     EISSN: 14716909     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/ijpor/edn035     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. American Association for Public Opinion Research. (2004). Standard definitions: Final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys (3rd ed.). Lenexa, KS: AAPOR.
2. American National Election Studies. (2007). Time of presidential election vote decision 1948-2004. Retrieved February 25, 2007, from http://www.electionstudies.org/ nesguide/toptable/tab9a_3.htm.
3. Bartels, L. M. (1993). Messages received: The political impact of media exposure. American Political Science Review, 87, 267-285.
4. Basinger, S. J., & Lavine, H. (2005). Ambivalence, information, and electoral choice. American Political Science Review, 99, 169-184.
5. Berelson, B. B., Lazarsfeld, P. F., & McPhee, W. N. (1968). Voting: A study of opinion formation in a presidential campaign (Midway reprint ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (First ed. 1954, University of Chicago).
6. Bowen, L. (1994). Time of voting decision and use of political advertising: The Slade Gorton-Brock Adams senatorial campaign. Journalism Quarterly, 71, 665-675.
7. Box-Steffensmeier, J. M., & Kimball, D. (1999, April). The timing of voting decisions in presidential campaigns. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.
8. Chaffee, S. H., & Choe, S. Y. (1980). Time of decision and media use during the Ford-Carter campaign. Public Opinion Quarterly, 44, 53-69.
9. Chaffee, S. H., & Rimal, R. N. (1996). Time of vote decision and openness to persuasion. In D. C. Mutz, P. M. Sniderman & R. A. Brody (Eds.), Political persuasion and attitude change (pp. 267-291). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
10. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007a). A theory of framing and opinion formation in competitive elite environments. Journal of Communication, 57, 99-118.
11. Chong, D., & Druckman, J.N. (2007b). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 103-126.
12. Converse, P. E. (1962). Information flow and the stability of partisan attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 26, 578-599.
13. Dalton, R. J., Beck, P.A., & Huckfeldt, R. (1998). Partisan cues and the media. American Political Science Review, 92, 111-126.
14. De Vreese, C. H., & Boomgaarden, H. G. (2006). Media message flows and interpersonal communication: The conditional nature of effects on public opinion. Communication Research, 33, 19-37.
15. Druckman, J. N. (2004a). Political preference formation: Competition, deliberation, and the (ir)relevance of framing effects. American Political Science Review, 98, 671-686.
16. Druckman, J. N. (2004b). Priming the vote: Campaign effects in a US Senate election. Political Psychology, 25, 577-594.
17. Druckman, J. N., & Lupia, A. (2000). Preference formation. Annual Review of Political Science, 3, 1-24.
18. Druckman, J. N., & Nelson, K. R. (2003). Framing deliberation: How citizens' conversations limit elite influence. American Journal of Political Science, 47, 729-745.
19. Druckman, J. N., & Parkin, M. (2005). The impact of media bias: How editorial slant affects voters. The Journal of Politics, 67, 1030-1049.
20. Fournier, P., Nadeau, R., Blais, A., Gidengil, E., & Nevitte, N. (2001). Validation of time of voting decision recall. Public Opinion Quarterly, 65, 95-107.
21. Fournier, P., Nadeau, R., Blais, A., Gidengil, E., & Nevitte, N. (2004). Time-of-voting decision and susceptibility to campaign effects. Electoral Studies, 23, 661-681.
22. Funk, C. L. (1999). Bringing the candidate into models of candidate evaluation. Journal of Politics, 61, 700-720.
23. Gopoian, D., & Hadjiharalambous, S. (1994). Late deciding voters in presidential elections. Political Behavior, 16, 55-78.
24. Hamilton, J. T. (2004). All the news that's fit to sell. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.
25. Hardy, B. W. (2005, May). Political discussion and democratic citizenship: Comparing heterogeneous and homogeneous political discussion networks as promoters of active citizenry. Paper presented at the annual convention of the International Communication Association, New York.
26. Hochschild, J. L. (1993). Disjunction and ambivalence in citizens' political outlooks. In G. E. Marcus & R. L. Hanson (Eds.), Reconsidering the democratic public (pp. 187-210). University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
27. Huckfeldt, R., Johnson, P. E., & Sprague, J. (2004). Political disagreement: The survival of diverse opinions within communication networks. New York: Cambridge.
28. Huckfeldt, R., Mendez, J. M., & Osborn, T. (2004). Disagreement, ambivalence, and engagement: The political consequences of heterogeneous networks. Political Psychology, 25, 65-95.
29. Kahn, K. F. (1991). Senate Elections in the news. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 16, 349-374.
30. Kahn, K. F., & Kenney, P. J. (2002). The slant of the news. American Political Science Review, 96, 381-394.
31. Kinder, D. R. (2007). Curmudgeonly advice. Journal of Communication, 57, 155-162.
32. Knoke, D. (1990). Political networks: The structural perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.
33. Lavine, H. (2001). The electoral consequences of ambivalence toward presidential candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 915-929.
34. Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1968). The people's choice (3rd ed.). New York: Columbia University Press (First ed. 1944, Duell, Sloan, and Pearce).
35. Lippmann, W. (1922). Public opinion. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
36. McGraw, K. M. (2003). Political impressions. In D. O. Sears, L. Huddy & R. Jervis (Eds.), Oxford handbook of political psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.
37. McGuire, J. W. (1969). Attitude and attitude change. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 136-314). Reading: Addison-Wesley.
38. McLeod, J. M., Scheufele, D. A., Moy, P., Horowitz, E., Holbert, R. L., Zhang, W., Zubric, S., & Zubric, J. (1999). Understanding deliberation: The effects of discussion networks on participation in a public forum. Communication Research, 26, 743-774.
39. Mutz, D. C. (1998). Impersonal influence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
40. Mutz, D. C. (2002). The consequences of cross-cutting networks for political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 46, 838-855.
41. Mutz, D. C., & Martin, P. S. (2001). Facilitating communication across lines of political difference: The role of mass media. American Political Science Review, 95, 97-114.
42. Nir, L. (2005). Ambivalent social networks and their consequences for participation. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17, 422-442.
43. Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
44. Peter, J. (2004). Our long 'return to the concept of powerful mass media': A cross-national comparative investigation of the effects of consonant media coverage. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 16, 144-168.
45. Plumb, E. (1986). Validation of voter recall: Time of electoral decision making. Political Behavior, 8, 302-312.
46. Price, V., Nir, L., & Cappella, J. N. (2005). Framing public discussion of gay civil unions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 69, 179-212.
47. Price, V., & Zaller, J. (1993). Who gets the news? Alternative measures of news reception and their implications for research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 57, 133-164.
48. Prior, M. (2005). News vs. entertainment: How increasing media choice widens gaps in political knowledge and turnout. American Journal of Political Science, 49, 577-592.
49. Rahn, W. M., Aldrich, J. H., Borgida, E., & Sullivan, J. L. (1990). A social-cognitive model of candidate appraisal. In J. A. Ferejohn & J. H. Kuklinski (Eds.), Information and democratic processes (pp. 187-206). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
50. Reuters. (17 April 2007). Poll: Nearly half of French voters undecided. Retrieved April 20, 2007 from http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/ europe/04/09/france.election.poll.reut/index.html.
51. Riffe, D., Lacy, S., & Fico, F.G. (1998). Analyzing media messages. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
52. Saris, W. E., & Sniderman, P. M. (2004). Introduction. In W. E. Saris & P. M. Sniderman (Eds.) Studies in public opinion (pp. 1-13). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
53. Scheufele, D. A., Nisbet, M. C., & Brossard, D. (2003). Pathways to political participation? Religion, communication contexts, and mass media. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 15, 300-323.
54. Scheufele, D. A., Nisbet, M. C., Brossard, D., & Nisbet, E. C. (2004). Social structure and citizenship: Examining the impacts of social setting, network heterogeneity, and informational variables on participation. Political Communication, 21, 315-338.
55. Schmitt-Beck, R., & Faas, T. (2006). The campaign and its dynamics at the 2005 German general election. German Politics, 15, 393-419.
56. Sheafer, T. (2005). Detecting campaign effects in imbalanced campaigns: The Likud's intraparty referendum over Sharon's disengagement plan. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 10, 85-93.
57. Sniderman, P. M., & Theriault, S. M. (2004). The structure of political argument and the logic of issue framing. In W. E. Saris & P. M. Sniderman (Eds.) Studies in public opinion (pp. 133-165). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
58. Sunstein, C. (2001). Republic.com. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
59. Thompson, M. M., Zanna, M. P., & Griffin, D. W. (1995). Let's not be indifferent about (attitudinal) ambivalence. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 361-386). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
60. Tomz, M., Wittenberg, J., & King, G. (1999). Clarify: Software for interpreting and presenting statistical results. Version 1.2.1. Cambridge: Harvard University; accessed June 1, 2005 at http://gking.harvard.edu/.
61. Webster, J. G., & Lichty, L. W. (1991). Ratings analysis: Theory and practice. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
62. Whitney, D. C., & Goldman, S. B. (1985). Media use and time of vote decision: A study of the 1980 presidential election. Communication Research, 12, 511-529.
63. Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.
64. Zaller, J. (1996). The myth of massive media impact revived: New support for a discredited idea. In D. C. Mutz, P. M. Sniderman & R. A. Brody (Eds.), Political persuasion and attitude change (pp. 17-78). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
65. Zaller, J. (2004). Floating voters in U.S. Presidential elections, 1948-2000. In P. M. Sniderman & W. E. Saris (Eds.), Studies in public opinion (pp. 166-212). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.