A computational model of the citizen as motivated reasoner: Modeling the dynamics of the 2000 presidential election

Political Behavior

Volumn 32, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 1-28

  Kim, Sung youn ^a   Taber, Charles S ^b   Lodge, Milton ^b  

^a Stony Brook University ^*

^b STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

ACT R; Attitude updating; Bayesian learning; Computational modeling; Motivated reasoning; Political attitudes

Indexed keywords

EID: 76649088655     PISSN: 01909320     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11109-009-9099-8     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Abelson, R. (1963). Computer simulation of personality. New York: Wiley.
2. Achen, C. (1992). Social psychology, demographic variables, and linear regression: Breaking the iron triangle in voting research. Political Behavior, 14, 195-211.
3. Anderson, N. (1968). Likableness ratings of 555 personality-trait words. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 272-279.
4. Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
5. Anderson, J. R. (1993). Rules of the mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
6. Anderson, J. R., Bothell, D., Byrne, M. D., Douglass, S., Lebiere, C., & Qin, Y. (2004). An integrated theory of mind. Psychological Review, 111, 1036-1060.
7. Bartels, L. M. (2002). Beyond the running tally: Partisan bias in political perceptions. Political Behavior, 24, 117-150.
8. Bradley, M., & Lang, P. (1999). Affective norms for English words (ANEW). Gainesville, FL: The NIMH Center for the Study of Emotion and Attention, University of Florida.
9. Bullock, J. G. (2009). Partisan bias and the Bayesian ideal in the study of public opinion. Journal of Politics, 71, 1109-1124.
10. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. New York: Wiley.
11. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper and Row.
12. Fazio, R. (2001). On the automatic activation of associated evaluations: An overview. Cognition and Emotion, 15, 115-141.
13. Gerber, A., & Green, D. P. (1998). Rational learning and partisan attitudes. American Journal of Political Science, 42, 794-818.
14. Hamill, R., & Lodge, M. (1985). Cognitive consequences of political sophistication. In R. R. Lau & D. O. Sears (Eds.), Political cognition (pp. 69-93). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
15. Hastie, R., & Pennington, N. (1989). Notes on the distinction between memory-based and on-line judgment. In J. Bassili (Ed.), On-line cognition in person perception (pp. 1-19). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
16. Kim, S. (2005). A model of political information processing: The dynamics of candidate evaluation and strategic behaviors in social dilemma games. Unpublished Dissertation, Stony Brook University.
17. Kinder, D. R. (1998). Opinion and action in the realm of politics. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 778-867). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
18. LeDoux, J. (1996). The emotional brain: The mysterious underpinnings of emotional life. New York: Simon and Schuster.
19. LeDoux, J. (2003). Synaptic self: How our brains become who we are. London: Penguin Books.
20. Lodge, M., Steenbergen, M., & Brau, S. (1995). The responsive voter: Campaign information and the dynamics of candidate evaluation. American Political Science Review, 89, 309-326.
21. Lodge, M., & Taber, C. S. (2000). Three steps toward a theory of motivated political reasoning. In A. Lupia, M. McCubbins, & S. Popkin (Eds.), Elements of reason (pp. 183-213). New York: Cambridge University Press.
22. Lodge, M., & Taber, C. S. (2005). The primacy of affect for political candidates, groups, and issues: An experimental test of the hot cognition hypothesis. Political Psychology, 26, 333-487.
23. Miller, G. A. (1957). The magic number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81-93.
24. Niemi, R. G., & Jennings, M. K. (1991). Issues and inheritance in the formation of party identification. American Journal of Political Science, 35, 970-988.
25. Page, B. I., & Shapiro, R. Y. (1992). The rational public. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
26. Romer, D., Kenski, K., Waldman, P., Adasiewicz, C., & Jamieson, K. H. (2003). Capturing campaign dynamics: The National Annenberg Election Survey. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
27. Taber, C. S. (2003). Information processing and public opinion. In D. O. Sears, L. Huddy, & R. Jervis (Eds.), Oxford handbook of political psychology (pp. 433-476). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
28. Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 755-769.
29. Taber, C. S., & Steenbergen, M. R. (1995). Computational experiments in electoral behavior. In M. Lodge & K. McGraw (Eds.), Political judgment: Structure and process (pp. 141-206). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
30. Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., & Rasinski, K. (2000). The psychology of the survey response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31. Zajonc, R. B. (1984). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35, 151-175.
32. Zajonc, R. B. (2000). Feeling and thinking: Closing the debate over the independence of affect. In J. Forgas (Ed.), Feeling and thinking: The role of affect in social cognition (pp. 31-58). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
33. Zaller, J. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.
34. Zaller, J., & Feldman, S. (1992). A simple theory of the survey response. American Journal of Political Science, 36, 579-616.