On-line and Memory-based: Revisiting the Relationship Between Candidate Evaluation Processing Models

Political Behavior

Volumn 34, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 345-368

  Kim, Young Mie ^a   Garrett, Kelly ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^b OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Candidate evaluation; Hybrid model; Memory based information processing; On line information processing; Presidential election debate; Vote choice

Indexed keywords

EID: 84861740740     PISSN: 01909320     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11109-011-9158-9     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. An, S., Jin, H. S., & Pfau, M. (2006). The effects of issue advocacy advertising on voters' candidate issue knowledge and turnout. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 83(1), 7-24.
2. Bennett, W. L. (1996). News: The politics of illusion (7th ed.). New York: Longman.
3. 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 (pp. 212-252). New York: Guilford Press.
4. Chaiken, S., & Maheswaran, D. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: The effect of source credibility, argument ambiguity and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 460-473.
5. Chaiken, S., & Trope, Y. (Eds.). (1999). Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York: Guilford Press.
6. Chen, S., & Chaiken, S. (1999). The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 73-96). New York: Guilford Press.
7. Chen, S., Shechter, D., & Chaiken, S. (1996). Getting at the truth or getting along: Accuracy- versus impression-motivated heuristic and systematic processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 262-275.
8. Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven: Yale University Press.
9. Epstein, S., & Pacini, R. (1999). Some basic issues regarding dual-process theories from the perspective of cognitive-experiential self-theory. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual process theories in social psychology (pp. 462-482). New York: Guilford Publishers.
10. Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1984). Social cognition. Reading Mass: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.
11. Gans, H. (1979). Decidin what's news: A study of CBSEvening news, NBC Nightly news, newsweek and time. New York: Vintage.
12. Hallin, D. C. (1992). Sound bite news: Television coverage of elections, 1968-1988. Journal of Communication, 42(2), 5-24.
13. Hamilton, D. L., Sherman, S. J., & Maddox, K. B. (1999). Dualities and continua: Implications for understanding perceptions of persons and groups. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual process theories in social psychology. New York: Guilford Press.
14. Hastie, R., & Park, B. (1986). The relationship between memory and judgment depends on whether the judgment task is memory-based or on-line. Psychological Review, 93(3), 258-268.
15. Hastie, R., & Pennington, N. (1989). Notes on the distinction between memory-based versus on-line judgments. In J. N. Bassili (Ed.), On-line cognition in person perception (pp. 1-17). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
16. Just, M. R., Crigler, A. N., Alger, D. E., & Cook, T. E. (1996). Crosstalk: Citizens, candidates, and the media in a presidential campaign. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
17. Kelley, S., Jr., & Mirer, T. W. (1974). The simple act of voting. American Political Science Review, 68(2), 572-591.
18. Kelly, H. H. (1972). Attribution in social interaction. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, H. H. Kelly, R. E. Nisbet, S. Valins, & B. Weiner (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
19. Kim, S.-Y., Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2010). A computational model of citizens as motivated reasoner: Model of the dynamics of the 2000 Presidential election. Political Behavior, 32, 1-28.
20. Kim, Y. M., & Vishak, J. (2008). Just Laugh! You don't need to remember: The Effects of entertainment media on political information acquisition and information processing in political judgment. Journal of Communication, 58, 338-360.
21. Lau, R. R. (1995). Information search during an election campaign: Introducing a processing-tracing methodology for political scientists. In M. Lodge & K. M. McGraw (Eds.), Political judgment: structure and process (pp. 179-206). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
22. Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. (2001). An experimental study of information search, memory, and decision making during a presidential campaign. In J. H. Kuklinski (Ed.), Citizens and politics: perspectives from political psychology (pp. 136-159). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23. Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2006). How voters decide: Information processing during election campaigns. New York: Cambridge University Press.
24. Lavine, H. (2002). On-line vs. memory-based process models of political evaluation. In K. R. Monroe (Ed.), Political psychology (pp. 225-247). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
25. Lodge, M., McGraw, K. M., & Stroh, P. (1989). An impression-driven model of candidate evaluation. American Political Science Review, 83(2), 399-419.
26. Lodge, M., Steenbergen, M., & Brau, S. (1995). The Responsive Voter: Campaign information and the dynamics of candidate evaluation. American Political Science Review, 89(2), 309-326.
27. Lodge, M., Taber, C., & Weber, C. (2006). First steps towards a dual-process accessibility model of political beliefs, attitudes, and behavior. In D. Redlawsk (Ed.), Feeling politics: Emotion in political information processing (Ch. 2). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
28. McConnell, A. R., & Leibold, J. M. (2001). Relations among the implicit association test, discriminatory behavior, and explicit measures of racial attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37(5), 435-442.
29. McGraw, K. M. (2003). Political impressions: formation and management. In D. O. Sears, L. Huddy, & R. Jervis (Eds.), Oxford handbook of political psychology (pp. 394-432). New York: Oxford University Press.
30. McGraw, K. M., Hasecke, E., & Conger, K. (2003). Ambivalence, uncertainty, and processes of candidate evaluation. Political Psychology, 24(3), 421-448.
31. McGraw, K. M., Lodge, M., & Stroh, P. (1990). On-line processing in candidate evaluation: The effects of issue order, issue importance, and sophistication. Political Behavior, 12(1), 41-58.
32. Rahn, W. M., Aldrich, J. H., & Borgida, E. (1994a). Individual and contextual variations in political candidate appraisal. American Political Science Review, 88(1), 193-199.
33. Rahn, W. M., Krosnick, J. A., & Breuning, M. (1994b). Rationalization and derivation processes in survey studies of political candidate evaluation. American Journal of Political Science, 38(3), 582-600.
34. Redlawsk, D. (2001). You must remember this: A test of the on-line model of voting. Journal of Politics, 63(1), 29-58.
35. Schudson, M. (1978). Discovering the news: A social history of American newspapers. New York: Basic.
36. Schudson, M. (1998). The good citizen: A history of American public life. New York: Free Press.
37. Sloman, S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 3-22.
38. Smith, E. R., & DeCoster, J. (1999). Associative and rule-based processing: A connectionist interpretation of dual-process models. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. xiii, 657 p). New York: Guilford Press.
39. Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755-769.
40. Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. (2002). What doesn't kill me makes me stronger. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1298-1313.
41. Uleman, J. S., Newman, L. S., & Moskowitz, G. B. (1996). People as flexible interpreters: Evidence and issues from spontaneous trait inference. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 28, pp. 179-211). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
42. Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35, 151-175.
43. Zajonc, R. B. (2000). Feeling and thinking: Closing the debate over the independence of affect. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.), Feeling and thinking: The role of affect in social cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
44. Zaller, J. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.
45. Zaller, J. R., & Feldman, S. (1992). A simple theory of the survey response: Answering questions versus revealing preferences. American Journal of Political Science, 36(3), 579-616.