Motivated Reasoning and Political Parties: Evidence for Increased Processing in the Face of Party Cues

Political Behavior

Volumn 35, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 831-854

  Petersen, Michael Bang ^a   Skov, Martin ^b,c   Serritzlew, Søren ^a   Ramsøy, Thomas ^b,c  

^a AARHUS UNIVERSITY   (Denmark)

^b HVIDOVRE HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

^c Copenhagen Business School ^*  (Denmark)

Author keywords

Heuristic processing; Motivated reasoning; Party cues; Political parties; Public opinion

Indexed keywords

EID: 84886752446     PISSN: 01909320     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11109-012-9213-1     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Bassili, J. N. (1993). Response latency versus certainty as indexes of the strength of voting intentions in a Cati survey. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 57, 54-61.
2. Bassili, J. N. (1995). On the psychological reality of party identification: Evidence from the accessibility of voting intentions and of partisan feelings. Political Behavior, 17, 339-358.
3. Bullock, J. G. (2011). Elite influence on public opinion in an informed electorate. American Political Science Review, 105, 496-515.
4. Burdein, I., Lodge, M., & Taber, C. (2006). Experiments on the automaticity of political beliefs and attitudes. Political Psychology, 7, 359-371.
5. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. (1960). The American voter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
6. Cohen, G. L. (2003). Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 808-822.
7. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Belmont: Wardsworth Group/Thomson Learning.
8. Fazio, R. H. (1990). A practical guide to the use of response latency in social psychological research. In C. Hendrick & M. S. Clark (Eds.), Research methods in personality and social psychology (pp. 74-97). Sage, Thousand Oaks: Review of Personality and Social Psychology.
9. Goren, P. (2005). Party identification and core political values. American Journal of Political Science, 49, 881-896.
10. Green, D., Palmquist, B., & Schickler, E. (2002). Partisan hearts and minds. New Haven: Yale University Press.
11. Greene, S. (1999). Understanding party identification: A social identity approach. Political Psychology, 20, 393-403.
12. Greitemeyer, T., Fischer, P., Frey, D., & Schulz-Hardt, S. (2009). Biased assimilation: The role of source position. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 22-39.
13. Habyarimana, J., Humphreys, M., Posner, D. N., & Weinstein, J. M. (2007). Why does ethnic diversity undermine public goods provision? American Political Science Review, 101, 709-725.
14. Hobolt, S. B. (2007). Taking cues on Europe? Voter competence and party endorsements in referendums on European integration. European Journal of Political Research, 46, 151-182.
15. Huckfeldt, R., Levine, J., Morgan, W., & Sprague, J. (1999). Accessibility and the political utility of partisan and ideological orientations. American Journal of Political Science, 43, 888-911.
16. Huckfeldt, R., Mondak, J. J., Craw, M., & Mendez, J. M. (2005). Making sense of candidates: Partisanship, ideology, and issues as guides to judgment. Cognitive Brain Research, 23, 11-23.
17. Huckfeldt, R., & Sprague, J. (2000). Political consequences of inconsistency: The accessibility and stability of abortion attitudes. Political Psychology, 21, 57-79 (Special issue: Response latency measurement in telephone surveys).
18. Jennings, K. M., & Niemi, R. G. (1974). The political character of adolescence. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
19. Jennings, K. M., & Niemi, R. G. (1981). Generations and politics: A panel study of young adults and their parents. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
20. Kam, C. D. (2005). Who toes the party line? Cues, values, and individual differences. Political Behavior, 27, 163-182.
21. Koch, J. W. (2001). When parties and candidates collide: Citizen perception of house candidates' positions on abortion. Public Opinion Quarterly, 65, 1-21.
22. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivating reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480-498.
23. Kurzban, R., Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2001). Can race be erased? Coalitional computation and social categorization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98, 15387-15392.
24. Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2001). Advantages and disadvantages of cognitive heuristics in political decision making. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 951-971.
25. Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2006). How voters decide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26. Layman, G. C., & Carsey, T. M. (1998). Why do party activists convert? An analysis of individual-level change on the abortion issue. Political Research Quarterly, 51, 723-749.
27. Lebo, M. J., & Cassino, D. (2007). The aggregated consequences of motivated reasoning and the dynamics of partisan presidential approval. Political Psychology, 28, 719-746.
28. Malhotra, N., & Kuo, A. G. (2009). Emotions as moderators of information cue use. American Politics Research, 37, 301-326.
29. Malhotra, N., & Margalit, Y. (2010). Short-term communication effects or longstanding dispositions? The public's response to the financial crisis of 2008. Journal of Politics, 72, 852-867.
30. Matz, D. C., & Wood, W. (2005). Cognitive dissonance in groups: The consequences of disagreement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 22-37.
31. McDermott, R. (2007). Cognitive neuroscience and politics: Next steps. In R. Neumann, G. Marcus, A. Crigler, & M. MacKuen (Eds.), The affect effect (pp. 375-397). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
32. Mondak, J. J. (1993). Source cues and policy approval: The cognitive dynamics of public support for the Reagan agenda. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 186-212.
33. Mulligan, K., Grant, T. J., Mockabee, S. T., & Monson, J. Q. (2003). Response latency methodology for survey research: Measurement and modelling strategies. Political Analysis, 11, 289-301.
34. Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. (1990). The adaptive decision maker: Effort and accuracy in choice. In R. M. Hogarth (Ed.), Insights in decision making (pp. 129-153). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
35. Petersen, M. B. (2012). Social welfare as small-scale help: Evolutionary psychology and the deservingness heuristic. American Journal of Political Science, 56, 1-16.
36. Petersen, M. B., Slothuus, R., Stubager, R., & Togeby, L. (2010). Political parties and value consistency in public opinion formation. Public Opinion Quarterly, 74, 530-550.
37. Petersen, M. B., Slothuus, R., Stubager, R., & Togeby, L. (2011). Deservingness versus values in public opinion on welfare: The automaticity of the deservingness heuristic. European Journal of Political Research, 50, 24-52.
38. Petersen, M. B., Sznycer, D., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2012). Who deserves help? Evolutionary psychology, social emotions and public opinion about welfare. Political Psychology, 33, 395-418.
39. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches. Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown.
40. Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 134-148.
41. Pietraszewski, D., Curry, O., Petersen, M. B., Cosmides, L. & Tooby, J. (2012). Politics erases race but not sex: Evidence that signals of political party support engage coalitional psychology. Working paper.
42. Rahn, W. M. (1993). The role of partisan stereotypes in information processing about political candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 472-496.
43. Redlawsk, D. P. (2002). Hot cognition or cool consideration? Testing the effects of motivated reasoning on political decision-making. Journal of Politics, 64, 1021-1044.
44. Rosema, M. (2006). Partisanship, candidate evaluations, and prospective voting. Electoral Studies, 25, 467-488.
45. Schaffner, B. F., & Streb, M. J. (2002). The partisan heuristic in low information elections. Public Opinion Quarterly, 66, 559-581.
46. Slothuus, R., & de Vreese, C. H. (2010). Political parties, motivated reasoning, and issue framing effects. The Journal of Politics, 72, 630-645.
47. Squire, P., & Smith, E. R. A. N. (1988). The effect of partisan information on voters in nonpartisan elections. The Journal of Politics, 50, 169-179.
48. Stanton, S. J., Beehner, J. C., Saini, E. K., Kuhn, C. M., & LaBar, K. S. (2009). Dominance, politics, and physiology: Voters' testosterone changes on the night of the 2008 United States Presidential Election. PLoS ONE, 4, e7543. doi: 10. 1371/journal. pone. 0007543.
49. Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 755-769.
50. van Harreveld, F., van der Pligt, J., de Vries, N. K., Wenneker, C., & Verhue, D. (2004). Ambivalence and information integration in attitudinal judgment. British Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 431-447.
51. Westen, D., Blagov, P. S., Harenski, K., Kilts, C., & Hamann, S. (2006). Neural bases of motivated reasoning: An FMRI study of emotional constraints on partisan political judgment in the 2004 U. S. Presidential Election. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 1947-1958.
52. Yamagishi, T., & Mifune, N. (2008). Does shared group membership promote altruism? Fear, greed, and reputation. Rationality and Society, 20, 5-30.
53. Zaller, J. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.