Comparing the anes and naes for political communication research

The Sourcebook for Political Communication Research: Methods, Measures, and Analytical Techniques

Volumn , Issue , 2011, Pages 96-113

  Wagner, Michael W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA LINCOLN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84925728711     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203938669     Document Type: Chapter

References (58)

1. Alford, J. R., Funk, C. L., & Hibbing, J. R. (2005). Are political orientations genetically transmitted? American Political Science Review, 99(2): 153–68.
2. Alford, J. R., & Hibbing, J. R. (2008). The new empirical biopolitics. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 183–203.
3. Althaus, S. L. (2001). Who’s voted in when the people tune out? Information effects in congressional elections. In R. P. Hart & D. Shaw (Eds.) Communication in U.S. elections: New agendas. Lanhan, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
4. Althaus, S. L., & Tewksbury, D. H. (2007). “Toward a new generation of media use measures for the ANES.” Report to the Board of Overseers for the American National Election Studies, ANES Pilot Study Report, No. nes011903.
5. American National Election Studies. (2004). The 2004 national election study. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies, http://www.electionstudies.org
6. Barabas, J. (2008). “Measuring media exposure in the 2006 ANES pilot study and beyond,” in Political Communication Report, http://www.jour.unr.edu/pcr/1801_2008_winter/index.html.
7. Bowers, J., Burns, N., Ensley, M. J., & Kinder, D. R. (2005). Analyzing the 2000 National Election Study, Political Analysis, 13, 109–111.
8. Bowers, J., & Ensley, M. J. (2003). Issues in analyzing data from the dual mode 2000 American National Election Study. National Election Studies Technical Report(available at http://www.umich.edu/~nes).
9. Brewer, P. R. (2003). Values, political knowledge, and public opinion about gay rights: A framing-based account, Public Opinion Quarterly, 67, 173–201.
10. Bucy, E. P., & Gregson, K. S. (2001). Media participation: A legitimizing mechanism of mass democracy, New Media and Society, 3(3), 359–382.
11. Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42,116–131.
12. Campbell, A., Converse, P., Miller, W., & Stokes, D. (1960). The American Voter. New York: Wiley.
13. Carmines, E. G., Gerrity, J. C., & Wagner, M. W. (2008). Did the media do it? The influence of news coverage on the 2006 congressional elections. In J. J. Mondak & D.-G. Mitchell (Eds.), Fault lines: Why the Republicans lost Congress. London: Routledge.
14. Carmines, E. G. & Huckfeldt, R. (1996). Political behavior: An overview. In R. E. Goodin & H.-D. Klingermann (Eds.), A new handbook of political science(pp. 223–254). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
15. Carsey, T. M., & Layman, G. C. (2006). Changing sides or changing minds? Party identification and policy preferences in the American electorate. American Journal of Political Science, 50(2), 464–477.
16. Crigler, A. (Ed.). (1998). The psychology of political communication. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
17. Druckman, J. N. (2004). Political preference formation: Competition, deliberation, and the (ir)relevance of framing effects. American Political Science Review, 98(4), 671–686.
18. Engstrom, R. N. (2005). District geography and voters. In P. F. Galderisis (Ed.), Redistricting in the new millennium(pp. 65–84). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
19. Erikson, R. S. & Tedin, K. L. (2007). American public opinion: Its origins, content, and impact(7th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
20. Fazio, R. H. (1990). A practical guide to the use of response latency in social psychological research. In C. Hendrick & M. S. Clark (Eds.), Review of personality and social psychology: Vol. 11. Research methods in personality and social psychology(pp. 74–97). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
21. Goodin, R. E. & Klingemann, H.-D. (1996). A new handbook of political science. New York: Oxford University Press.
22. Hayes, D. (2005). Candidate qualities through a partisan lens: A theory of trait ownership. American Journal of Political Science, 49, 908–923.
23. Herrnson, P. S. (1995). Replication, verification, secondary analysis, and data collection in political science. PS: Political Science and Politics, 28, 452–455.
24. Hershey, M. R. (1992). The constructed explanation: Interpreting election results in the 1984 presidential race. Journal of Politics, 54(4):944–976.
25. Hibbing, J. R. & Smith, K. B. (2007). The biology of political behavior: An introduction. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 614, 6–14.
26. Hibbing, J. R., Theiss-Morse, E., & Whitaker, E. (2008). Americans’ perceptions of the nature of governing. In Jeffrey J. Mondak & Dona-Gene Mitchell (Eds.), Fault lines: Why the Republicans lost Congress. London: Routledge.
27. Holbrook, T. M. (1996). Do campaigns matter? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28. Huckfeldt, R., Johnson, P. E., & Sprague, J. (2004). Political disagreement: The survival of diverse opinions within communication networks. New York: Cambridge University Press.
29. Huckfeldt, R., Sprague, J., & Levine, J. (2000). The dynamics of collective deliberation in the 1996 election: Campaign effects on accessibility, certainty, and accuracy. American Political Science Review, 94(3), 641–651.
30. Iyengar, S., & Kinder, D. R. (1987). News that matters. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
31. Jamieson, K. H. & Kenski, K. (2006). Why the National Annenberg Election Survey? In D. Romer, K. Kenski, K. Winneg, Christopher Adasiewicz, & Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Capturing campaign dynamics 2000 and 2004. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
32. Johannes, J. R. & McAdams, J. C. (1981). Does casework matter? A reply to Professor Fiorina. American Journal of Political Science, 25, 581–604.
33. Johnston, R., Hagan, M., & Jamieson, K. H. (2004). The 2000 presidential election and the foundations of party politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
34. Johnston, R. (2008). Modeling campaign dynamics on the web in the 2008 National Annenberg Election Study. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion, and Parties, 18(4), 401–412.
35. Kellstedt, P. M. (2003). The mass media and the dynamics of American racial attitudes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36. King, G. (1995). Replication, replication. PS: Political Science and Politics, 28, 444–452.
37. Kiousis, S., & McCombs, M. (2004). Agenda setting effects and attitude strength: Political figures during the 1996 presidential election. Communication Research, 31, 36–57.
38. Kruglanski, A. W., Webster, D. M., & Klem, A. (1993). Motivated resistance and openness to persuasion in the presence or absence of prior information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 861–876.
39. Lasswell, H. (1950). Politics: Who gets what, when, how. New York: P. Smith.
40. Lieberman, M. D., Schreiber, D., & Ochsner, K. N. (2003). Is political thinking like riding a bicycle? How cognitive neuroscience can inform research on political thinking. Political Psychology, 24, 681–704
41. McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of the mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176–187.
42. Mondak, J. J., Carmines, E. G., Huckfeldt, R., Mitchell, D.-G., & Schraufnagel, S. (2007). Does familiarity breed contempt?: The impact of information on mass attitudes toward Congress. American Journal of Political Science, 51, 34–48.
43. Mondak, J. J., & Halperin, K. D. (2008). A framework for the study of personality and political behavior. British Journal of Political Science, 38(2): 335–362.
44. Neale, M.C., & Cardon, L. R. (1992). Methodology for genetic studies of twins and families. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.
45. Page, B. I., & Shapiro, R. Y. (1992). The rational public: Fifty years of trends in Americans’ policy preferences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
46. Petrocik, J. R. (1996). Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science, 40(3), 825–850.
47. Price, V., & Zaller, J. (1993). Who gets the news? Alternative measures of news reception and their implications for research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 57(2), 133–164.
48. Prior, M. (2007). Post-broadcast democracy: How media choice increases inequality in political involvement and polarizes elections. New York: Cambridge University Press.
49. Romer, D., Kenski, K., Winneg, K., Adasiewicz, C., & Jamieson, K. H. (2006). Capturing campaign dynamics, 2000 and 2004: The National Annenberg Election Survey. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
50. Segal, N. L. (1993). Twin, sibling, and adoption methods. American Psychologist, 48(9), 943–956.
51. Sniderman, P. M., & Carmines, E. G. (1997). Reaching beyond race. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
52. Sniderman, P. M., & Theriault, S. M. (2004). The structure of political argument and the logic of issue framing. In W. E. Saris & P. M. Sniderman (Eds.), Studies in public opinion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
53. Wagner, M. W. (2007a). The utility of staying on message: Competing partisan frames and public awareness of elite differences on political issues. The Forum, 5(3), 1–18.
54. Wagner, M. W. (2007b). Beyond policy representation in the U.S. House: partisanship, polarization, and citizens’ attitudes about casework. American Politics Research, 35, 771–789.
55. Winburn, J. C., & Wagner, M. W. (2010). Carving voters out: Redistricting’s influence on political information, turnout, and voting behavior. Political Research Quarterly, 63(2), 373–386.
56. Yiannakis, D. E. (1981). The grateful electorate: Casework and congressional elections. American Journal of Political Science, 25(3), 568–580.
57. Zaller, J. R. (1996). The myth of massive media impact revived: New support for a discredited idea. In D. C. Mutz, P. M. Sniderman, & R. A. Brody (Eds.), Political persuasion and attitude change. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
58. Zaller, J. R. (2002). The statistical power of election studies to detect media exposure effects in political campaigns. Electoral Studies, 21, 297–329.