Political communication, social cognitive processes, and voters’ judgments

Social Cognition and Communication

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 283-296

  Catellani, Patrizia ^a   Bertolotti, Mauro ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÀ CATTOLICA DEL SACRO CUORE   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84893791201     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203744628     Document Type: Chapter

References (61)

1. Bartels, L. M. (2002). Beyond the running tally: Partisan bias in political perceptions. Political Behavior, 24, 117-150.
2. Bavelas, J. B., Black, A., Bryson, L., & Mullett, J. (1988). Political equivocation: A situational explanation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 7, 137-145.
3. Benoit, W. L., & Hartcock, A. (1999). Functions of the great debates: Acclaims, attacks, and defense in the 1960 presidential debates. Communication Monographs, 66, 341-357.
4. Bertolotti, M., Catellani, P., Douglas, K., & Sutton, R. M. (2013). The “big two” in political communication: The effects of attacking and defending politicians’ leadership and morality. Social Psychology, 44, 117-128.
5. Beukeboom, C. J., Finkenauer, C., & Wigboldus, H. J. (2010). The negation bias: When negations signal stereotypic expectancies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 978-992.
6. Branscombe, N. R., Wohl, M. J., Owen, S., Allison, J. A., & N’gbala, A. (2003). Counterfactual thinking, blame assignment, and well-being in rape victims. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 25, 265-273.
7. Brehm, J. W. (2000). Reactance. In A. E. Kazdin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 10-12). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
8. Bull, P E. (2000). Equivocation and the rhetoric of modernization: An analysis of televised interviews with Tony Blair in the 1997 British General Election. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 19, 222-247.
9. Bull, P. E. (2008). Slipperiness, evasion and ambiguity. Equivocation and facework in noncommittal political discourse. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 27, 333-344.
10. Bull P E., & Mayer, K. (1993). How not to answer questions in political interviews. Political Psychology, 14, 651-666.
11. Carraro, L., Gawronski, B., & Castelli, L. (2010). Losing on all fronts: The effects of negative versus positive person-based campaigns on implicit and explicit evaluations of political candidates. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49, 453-470.
12. Catellani, P. (2011). Counterfactuals in the social context: The case of political interviews and their effects. In D. Birke, M. Butter, & T. Koeppe (Eds.), Counterfactual thinking-counterfactual writing (pp. 81-94). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.
13. Catellani, P., Alberici, A. I., & Milesi, P. (2004). Counterfactual thinking and stereotypes: The nonconformity effect. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 421-436.
14. Catellani, P., & Bertolotti, M. (2013a). The effects of factual and counterfactual attacks on morality: The case of politicians. Manuscript submitted for publication.
15. Catellani, P., & Bertolotti, M. (2013b). The effects of counterfactual defences. Manuscript under review.
16. Catellani, P., & Milesi, P. (2001). Counterfactuals and roles: Mock victims’ and perpetrators’ accounts ofjudicial cases. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 247-264.
17. Catellani, P., & Milesi, P. (2005). When the social context frames the case: Counterfactuals in the courtroom. In D. Mandel, D. Hilton, & P. Catellani (Eds.), The psychology of counterfactual thinking (pp. 183-198). London, England: Routledge.
18. Cislak, A., & Wojciszke, B. (2008). Agency and communion are inferred from actions serving interests of self or others. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 1103-1110.
19. Davis, C. G., Lehman, D. R., Wortman, C. B., Silver, R. C., & Thompson, S. C. (1995). The undoing of traumatic life events. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 109-124.
20. Douglas, K. M., & Sutton, R. M. (2003). Effects of communication goals and expectancies on language abstraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 682-696.
21. Douglas, K. M., & Sutton, R. M. (2006). When what you say about others says something about you: Language abstraction and inferences about describers’ attitudes and goals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 500-508.
22. Douglas, K. M., Sutton, R. M., & Wilkin, K. (2008). Could you mind your language? An investigation of communicators’ ability to inhibit linguistic bias. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 27, 123-139.
23. Fiedler, K. (2007). Social communication. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
24. Funk, C. L. (1997). Implications of political expertise in candidate trait evaluations. Political Research Quarterly, 50, 675-697.
25. Gomez, B. T., & Wilson, J. M. (2001). Political sophistication and economic voting in the American electorate: A theory of heterogeneous attribution. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 899-914.
26. Haddock, G., & Zanna, M. (1997). Impact of negative advertising on evaluations of political candidates: The 1993 Canadian federal election. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 19, 205-223.
27. Hill, R. P. (1989). An exploration of voter responses to political advertisements. Journal of Advertising, 18, 14-22.
28. Hornsey, M. J., Robson, E., Smith, J., Esposo, S., & Sutton, R. M. (2008). Sugaring the pill: Assessing rhetorical strategies designed to minimize defensive reactions to group criticism. Human Communication Research, 34, 70-98.
29. Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in person perception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 219-266). New York, NY: Academic Press.
30. Kahneman, D., & Miller, D. T. (1986). Norm theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives. Psychological Review, 93, 136-153.
31. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1982). The simulation heuristic. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 201-208). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
32. Kaid, L. L., & Holtz-Bacha, C. (Eds.). (2008). The encyclopedia of political communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
33. Kim, P., Dirks, K., Cooper, C., & Ferrin, D. (2006). When more blame is better than less: The implications of internal vs. external attributions for the repair of trust after a competence-vs. integrity-based trust violation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99, 49-65.
34. Kuklinski, J. (Ed.). (2001). Citizens and politics. Perspectives from political psychology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
35. Luskin, R. (1990). Explaining political sophistication. Political Behavior, 12, 331-361.
36. Maass, A., Salvi, D., Arcuri, L., & Semin, G. R. (1989). Language use in intergroup contexts: The linguistic intergroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 981-993.
37. Mandel, D., & Dhami, M. (2005). “What I did” versus “what I might have done”: Effect of factual versus counterfactual thinking on blame, guilt, and shame in prisoners. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 627-635.
38. Markman, K. D., Gavanski, I., Sherman, S. J., & McMullen, M. N. (1993). The mental simulation of better and worse possible worlds. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 87-109.
39. Markman, K. D., & Tetlock, P E. (2000). ‘I couldn’t have known’: Accountability, foreseeability and counterfactual denials of responsibility. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 313-325.
40. McGraw, K. M. (1990). Avoiding blame: An experimental investigation of political excuses and justifications. British Journal of Political Science, 20, 119-131.
41. McGraw, K. M. (1991). Managing blame: An experimental test of the effects of political accounts. The American Political Science Review, 85, 1133-1157.
42. McGraw, K. M. (2003). Political impressions. In D. O. Sears, L. Huddy, & R. Jervis (Eds.), Oxford handbook of political psychology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
43. McGraw, K. M., Lodge, M., & Jones, J. (2002). The pandering politicians of suspicious minds. Journal of Politics, 64, 362-383.
44. McMullen, M. N. (1997). Affective contrast and assimilation in counterfactual thinking. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 77-100.
45. McMullen, M. N., & Markman, K. D. (2000). Downward counterfactuals and motivation: The wake-up call and the pangloss effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 575-584.
46. Medvec, V. H., Madey, S. F., & Gilovich, T. (1995). When less is more: Counterfactual thinking and satisfaction among Olympic medalists. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 603-610.
47. Nario-Redmond, M., & Branscombe, N. (1996). It could have been better or it might have been worse: Implications for blame assignment in rape cases. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 18, 347-366.
48. Roese, N. J. (1994). The functional basis of counterfactual thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 805-818.
49. Roese, N. J. (1997). Counterfactual thinking. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 133-148.
50. Roese, N. J., & Sande, G. N. (1993). Backlash effect in attack politics. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 632-653.
51. Sanna, L. J., & Turley-Ames, K. J. (2000). Counterfactual intensity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 273-296.
52. Sanna, L. J., Turley-Ames, K. J., & Meier, S. (1999). Mood, self-esteem, and simulated alternatives: Thought-provoking affective influences on counterfactual direction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 543-558.
53. Semin, G. R., & Fiedler, K. (1988). The cognitive functions of linguistic categories in describing persons: Social cognition and language. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 558-568.
54. Sevdalis, N., & Kokkinaki, F. (2006). The differential effect of realistic and unrealistic counterfactual thinking on regret. Acta Psychologica, 122, 111-128.
55. Tal-Or, N., Boninger, D. S., Poran, A., & Gleicher, F. (2004). Counterfactual thinking as a mechanism in narrative persuasion. Human Communication Research, 30, 301-328.
56. Van Dijk, E., & Zeelenberg, M. (2005). On the psychology of ‘if only’: Regret and the comparison between factual and counterfactual outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97, 152-160.
57. Wänke, M. (2007). What is said and what is meant: Conversational implicatures in natural conversations, research settings, media, and advertising. In K. Fiedler (Ed.), Social communication (pp. 223-256). NewYork, NY: PsychologyPress.
58. Wells, G. L., & Gavanski, I. (1989). Mental simulation of causality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 161-169.
59. Wigboldus, D. H. J., Semin, G. R., & Spears, R. (2000). How do we communicate stereotypes? Linguistic bases and inferential consequences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 5-18.
60. Wigboldus, D. H. J., Semin, G. R., & Spears, R. (2006). Communicating expectancies about others. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 815-824.
61. Wong, E. M. (2010). It could have been better: The effects of counterfactual communication on impression formation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 1251-1260.