Campaign effects on the accessibility of party identification

Political Research Quarterly

Volumn 63, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 811-821

  Grant, J Tobin ^a   Mockabee, Stephen T ^b   Monson, J Quin ^c  

^a SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI   (United States)

^c BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

elections; political participation; public opinion; voting behavior

Indexed keywords

EID: 78649816599     PISSN: 10659129     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1065912909336269     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Aldrich, John H., John L. Sullivan, and Eugene Borgida. 1989. Foreign affairs and issue voting: Do presidential candidates waltz before a blind audience? American Political Science Review 89:123-41.
2. Bartels, Larry M. 1993. Messages received: The political impact of media exposure. American Political Science Review 87:267-85.
3. Bassili, John N. 1993. Response latency versus certainty as indexes of the strength of voting intentions in a CATI survey. Public Opinion Quarterly 57:54-61.
4. Bassili, John N. 1995. On the psychological reality of party identification: Evidence from the accessibility of voting intentions and partisan feelings. Political Behavior 17:339-58.
5. Berelson, Bernard R., Paul F. Lazarsfeld, and William N. McPhee. 1954. Voting: A study of opinion formation in presidential campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
6. Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M., and Bradford S. Jones. 1997. Time is of the essence: Event history models in political science. American Journal of Political Science 41:1414-61.
7. Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M., and Bradford S. Jones. 2004. Event history modeling: A guide for social scientists. New York: Cambridge University Press.
8. Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M., and Christopher J. W. Zorn. 2001. Duration models and proportional hazards in political science. American Journal of Political Science 45:972-88.
9. Campbell, Angus, Philip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller, and Donald E. Stokes. 1960. The American voter. New York: John Wiley.
10. Campbell, James E. 2000. The American campaign: U.S. presidential campaigns and the national vote. College Station: Texas A&M University Press.
11. Cox, D. 1972. Regression models and life tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Serial B 34:187-220.
12. Fazio, Russell H. 1990. A practical guide to the use of response latency in social psychological research. In Research methods in personality and social psychology, eds. Clyde Hendrick and Margaret S. Clark. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
13. Fazio, Russell H. 1995. Attitudes as object-evaluation associations: Determinants, consequences, and correlates of attitude accessibility. In Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences, eds. Richard E. Petty and Jon A. Krosnick. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14. Fazio, Russell H., and Carol J. Williams. 1986. Attitude accessibility as a moderator of the attitude-perception and attitude-behavior relations: An investigation of the 1984 presidential election. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50:505-14.
15. Fazio, Russell H., David M. Sanbonmatsu, Martha C. Powell, and Frank R. Kardes. 1986. On the automatic activation of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50:229-38.
16. Finkel, Steven E. 1993. Reexamining the minimal effects model in recent presidential elections. Journal of Politics 55:1-21.
17. Gelman, A.ndrew, and Gary King. 1993. Why are American presidential election polls so variable when votes are so predictable? British Journal of Political Science 23: 409-51.
18. Gibson, James L., Cornelius P. Cotter, John F. Bibby, and Robert J. Huckshorn. 1983. Assessing party organization strength. American Journal of Political Science 27:193-222.
19. Gibson, James L., Cornelius P. Cotter, John F. Bibby, and Robert J. Huckshorn. 1985. Whither the local parties? American Journal of Political Science 29:139-60.
20. Grambsch, Patricia M., and Terry M. Therneau. 1994. Proportional hazards tests and diagnostics based on weighted residuals. Biometrika 81:515-26.
21. Harrell, F. 1986. The PHGLM procedure. SAS Supplementary Library User's Guide, Version 5. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.
22. Herrnson, Paul S. 1994. The revitalization of national party organizations. In The parties respond: Changes in American parties and campaigns, ed. L. Sandy Maisel, 45-68. Boulder, CO: Westview.
23. Hershey, Marjorie Randon, and Paul Allen Beck. 2002. Party politics in America. 10th Edition. New York: Longman.
24. Hillygus, D. Sunshine, and Simon Jackman. 2003. Voter decision making in Election 2000: Campaign effects, partisan activation, and the Clinton legacy. American Journal of Political Science 47:583-96.
25. Holbrook, Thomas M. 1996. Do campaigns matter? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
26. Huckfeldt, Robert, Jeffrey Levine, William Morgan, and John Sprague. 1998. Election campaigns, social communication, and the accessibility of perceived discussant preference. Political Behavior 20:263-94.
27. Huckfeldt, Robert, Jeffrey Levine, William Morgan, and John Sprague. 1999. Accessibility and the political utility of partisan and ideological orientations. American Journal of Political Science 43:888-911.
28. Huckfeldt, Robert, John Sprague, and Jeffrey Levine. 2000. The dynamics of collective deliberation in the 1996 election: Campaign effects on accessibility, certainty, and accuracy. American Political Science Review 94:641-51.
29. Judd, Charles M., R.A. Drake, James W. Downing, and Jon A. Krosnick. 1991. Some dynamic properties of attitude structures: Context-induced response facilitation and polarization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 60:193-202.
30. Kahn, Kim Fridkin, and Patrick J. Kenney. 1997. A model of candidate evaluations in senate elections: The impact of campaign intensity. Journal of Politics 59:1173-1205.
31. Kessel, John, and Herbert F. Weisberg. 1999. Comparing models of the vote: The answers depend on the questions. In Reelection 1996: How Americans voted, eds. Herbert F. Weisberg and Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
32. Key, V.O. Jr. 1964. Politics, parties, and pressure groups. New York: Crowell.
33. Lazarsfeld, Paul F., Bernard Berelson, and Hazel Gaudet. 1944. The people's choice: How a voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign. New York: Duell, Sloan, and Pearce.
34. Luce, R. Duncan. 1986. Response times: Their role in inferring elementary mental organization. New York: Oxford University Press.
35. Magleby, David B., J. Quin Monson, and Kelly D. Patterson. 2006. Mail communications in political campaigns: The 2004 campaign communications survey. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.
36. Mulligan, Kenneth, J. Tobin Grant, Stephen T. Mockabee, and Joseph Quin Monson. 2003. Response latency methodology for survey research: Measurement and modeling strategies. Political Analysis 11:289-301.
37. Shaw, Daron R. 1999a. The effect of TV ads and candidate appearances on statewide presidential votes, 1988-1996. American Political Science Review 93:345-61.
38. Shaw, Daron R. 1999b. A study of presidential campaign event effects from 1952 to 1992. Journal of Politics 61: 387-422.
39. Sniderman, Paul M., and Edward G. Carmines. 1997. Reaching beyond race. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
40. Sorauf, Frank J. 1964. Party politics in America. Boston: Little, Brown.
41. Westlye, Mark C. 1991. Senate elections and campaign intensity. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
42. Wilkinson, Howard. 1998. Boyle's senate campaign all uphill. Cincinnati Enquirer, October 4, B1.