Political Behavior

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 165–189 | Cite as

Memory for political actors: Contrasting the use of semantic and evaluative organizational strategies

  • Kathleen M. McGraw
  • Neil Pinney
  • David Neumann
Article

Abstract

This paper explores the organizational strategies used to represent information about political actors in memory, and it illustrates the usefulness of a specific measure, the adjusted ratio of clustering score (ARC), for inferring memory structure. Assuming the operation of an associative network model, we argue that information about a political actor can be organized along three distinct dimensions: attribute type (differentiating between issue positions and personal attributes), partisanship (differentiating between characteristics typical of Republicans and Democrats), and evaluative type (differentiating between positively and negatively evaluated attributes). The results of a laboratory study indicate that organization along the attribute type dimension was most common, with some evidence of partisan organization. There was no evidence of organization along the evaluative dimension. The implications of the study for understanding individual differences in political reasoning, and the consequences of memory organization strategies, are discussed.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, John R. (1983).The Architecture of Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Brady, Henry E., and Sniderman, Paul M. (1985). Attitude attribution: A group basis for political reasoning.American Political Science Review 79: 1061–1078.Google Scholar
  3. Brown, Steven R. (1980).Political Subjectivity: Applications of Q Methodology in Political Science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bower, Gordon H. (1981). Mood and memory.American Psychologist 36: 129–148.Google Scholar
  5. Clark, Margaret S., and Fiske, Susan T. (eds.) (1982).Affect and Cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  6. Conover, Pamela J., and Feldman, Stanley (1984). How people organize the political world: A schematic model.American Journal of Political Science 28: 95–126.Google Scholar
  7. Converse, Philip E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. Apter (ed.),Ideology and Discontent. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  8. Downs, Anthony (1957).An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  9. Fazio, Russell H. (1989). On the power and functionality of attitudes: The role of attitude accessibility. In Anthony R. Pratkanis, Steven J. Breckler, and Anthony G. Greenwald (eds.),Attitude Structure and Function. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Fazio, Russell H. (1990). A practical guide to the use of response latency in social psychological research. In Clyde Hendrick and Margaret S. Clark (eds.)Research Methods in Personality and Social Psychology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Fiske, Susan T. (1986). Schema-based versus piecemeal politics: A patehwork guilt, but not a blanket, of evidence. In Richard R. Lau and David O. Sears (eds.),Political Cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  12. Fiske, Susan T., and Kinder, Donald R. (1981). Involvement, expertise, and schema use: Evidence from political cognition. In Nancy Cantor and John Kihlstrom (eds.),Personality, Cognition, and Social Interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  13. Fiske, Susan T., Lau, Richard R., and Smith, Richard A. (1990). On the varieties and utilities of political expertise.Social Cognition 8: 31–48.Google Scholar
  14. Fiske, Susan T., and Pavelchak, Mark A. (1986). Category-based versus piecemeal-based affective responses: Development in schema-triggered affect. In Robert M. Sorrentino and E. Tory Higgins (eds.),Handbook of Motivation and Cognition: Foundations of Social Behavior. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  15. Fiske, Susan T., and Taylor, Shelley E. (1984).Social Cognition. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  16. Hamilton, David L., Driscoll, Denise M., and Worth, Leila T. (1989). Cognitive organization of impressions: Effects of incongruency in complex representations.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57: 925–939.Google Scholar
  17. Hastie, Reid (1984). Causes and effects of causal attribution.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46: 44–56.Google Scholar
  18. Hastie, Reid (1986). A primer of information-processing theory for the political scientist. In Richard R. Lau and David. O. Sears (eds.),Political Cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  19. Hastie, Reid and Park, Bernadette (1986). The relationship between memory and judgment depends on whether the task is memory-based or on-line.Psychological Review 93: 258–268.Google Scholar
  20. Hastie, Reid, Park, Bernadette, and Weber, Renee (1984). Social memory. In Robert S. Wyer and Thomas K. Srull (eds.),Handbook of Social Cognition, vol. 2. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  21. Isen, Alice M. (1984). Affect, cognition, and social behavior. In Robert S. Wyer and Thomas K. Srull (eds.),Handbook of Social Cognition, vol. 3. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  22. Judd, Charles M., and Krosnick, Jon A. (1989). The structural bases of consistency among political attitudes: Effects of political expertise and attitude importance. In Anthony R. Pratkanis, Steven J. Breckler, and Anthony G. Greenwald (eds.),Attitude Structure and Function. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  23. Kinder, Donald R. (1986). Presidential character revisited. In Richard R. Lau and David O. Sears (eds.),Political Cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  24. Krosnick, Jon A. (1989). Attitude importance and attitude accessibility.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 15: 297–308.Google Scholar
  25. Lasswell, Harold D. (1936).Who Gets What, When, How. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  26. Lau, Richard R. (1989). Cognitive ability and electoral choice.Political Behavior 11: 5–32.Google Scholar
  27. Lodge, Milton, and Hamill, Ruth (1986). A partisan schema for political information processing.American Political Science Review 80: 505–521.Google Scholar
  28. Lodge, Milton, McGraw, Kathleen M., and Stroh, Patrick (1989). An impression-driven model of candidate evaluation.American Political Science Review 37: 180–194.Google Scholar
  29. Lusk, Cynthia M., and Judd, Charles M. (1988). Political expertise and the structural mediators of candidate evaluation.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 24: 105–126.Google Scholar
  30. Luskin, Robert C. (1987). Measuring political sophistication.American Journal of Political Science 31: 856–899.Google Scholar
  31. Mayer, John D., and Bower, Gordon H. (1986). Learning and memory for personality prototypes.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51: 473–492.Google Scholar
  32. McGraw, Kathleen M., Lodge, Milton, and Stroh, Patrick (1990). On-line processing in candidate evaluation: The effects of issue order, issue importance, and sophistication.Political Behavior 12: 41–58.Google Scholar
  33. McGraw, Kathleen M., and Pinney, Neil (1990). The effects of general and domain-specific expertise on political memory and judgment.Social Cognition 8: 9–30.Google Scholar
  34. Miller, Arthur H., Wattenberg, Martin P., and Malanchuk, Oksana (1986). Schematic assessments of presidential candidates.American Political Science Review 80: 521–541.Google Scholar
  35. Murphy, Martin D. (1979). Measurement of category clustering in free recall. In C. Richard Puff (ed.),Memory Organization and Structure. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  36. Murphy, Martin D., and Puff, C. Richard (1982). Free recall: Basic methodology and analyses. In C. Richard Puff (ed.),Handbook of Research Methods in Human Memory and Cognition. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  37. Ostrom, Thomas M., Pryor, John B., and Simpson, David. O. (1981). The organization of social information. In E. Tory Higgins, C. Peter Herman, and Mark P. Zanna (eds.),Social Cognition: The Ontario Symposium. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  38. Roenker, Daniel L., Thompson, Charles P., and Brown, Sam C. (1971). Comparison of measures for the estimation of clustering in free recall.Psychological Bulletin 76: 45–48.Google Scholar
  39. Scott, William A., Osgood, D. Wayne, and Peterson, Christopher (1979).Cognitive Structure: Theory and Measurement of Individual Differences Washington, DC: Winston & Sons.Google Scholar
  40. Sears, David O., Huddy, Leonie, and Schaffer, Lynitta G. (1986). A shematic variant of symbolic politics theory, as applied to racial and gender equality. In Richard R. Lau and David O. Sears (eds.),Political Cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  41. Sedikides, Constantine, and Ostrom, Thomas M. (1988). Are person categories used when organizing information about unfamiliar sets of persons?Social Cognition 6: 252–267.Google Scholar
  42. Sniderman, Paul M., Brody, Richard A., and Tetlock, Philip, E. (1990). Reasoning and Choice: Exploration in Political Psychology. Unpublished book manuscript.Google Scholar
  43. Sniderman, Paul M., and Tetlock, Philip E. (1986). Interrelationship of political ideology and public opinion. In Margaret G. Hermann (ed.),Political Psychology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  44. Srull, Thomas K. (1981). Person memory: Some tests of associative storage and retrieval models.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory 7: 440–462.Google Scholar
  45. Srull, Thomas K. (1984). Methodological techniques for the study of person memory and social cognition. In Robert S. Wyer and Thomas K. Srull (eds.),Handbook of Social Cognition, vol. 2. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  46. Stimson, James A. (1975). Belief systems: Constraint, complexity, and the 1972 election.American Journal of Political Science 19: 393–418.Google Scholar
  47. Tesser, Abraham, and Shaffer, David R. (1990). Attitudes and attitude change.Annual Review of Psychology 41: 479–523.Google Scholar
  48. Tetlock, Philip, and Levi, Ariel (1982). Attribution bias: On the inconclusiveness of the cognition-motivation debate.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 18: 68–88.Google Scholar
  49. Wyer, Robert S., Budesheim, Thomas L., and Lambert, Alan J. (1990). Cognitive representations of conversations about persons.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58: 218–238.Google Scholar
  50. Wyer, Robert S., and Srull, Thomas K. (1986). Human cognition in its social context.Psychological Review 93: 322–359.Google Scholar
  51. Zaller, John (1990). Political awareness, elite opinion leadership, and the mass survey response.Social Cognition 8: 125–153.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kathleen M. McGraw
    • 1
  • Neil Pinney
    • 1
  • David Neumann
    • 1
  1. 1.Departments of Political Science and PsychologySUNY at Stony BrookStony Brook

Personalised recommendations