Political Behavior

, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 265–288 | Cite as

An examination of how voters form impressions of candidates' issue positions during the nomination campaign

  • Patrick J. Kenney
Article

Abstract

There is increasing evidence that issues influence voter preferences during the nomination campaign (Bartels, 1985; Bartels, 1988); however, only Bartels (1988) and Conover and Feldman (1986, 1989) have examined how partisans forge perceptions of candidates' positions on issues prior to the general election campaign. The goal of this paper, then, is to examine how individuals develop perceptions of candidates' issue positions during the crucial months leading to the nominating conventions. Relying on theories developed in social-psychology, I tested five competing hypotheses known to influence individuals' perceptions of candidates' issue positions. An examination of the findings revealed that there is strong support for one of the hypotheses and modest support for three additional hypotheses. In summary, it appears that voters are quite ingenious in forming impressions of where candidates stand on the issues. They rely on stored information about politics, they actually adjust candidates' true positions to relieve cognitive inconsistencies, they evoke their own issue positions to assume candidates they like agree with them and candidates they dislike disagree with them, and finally they evoke their own issue positions to assume candidates agree with them even when they hold no sentiment toward the candidate.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, J. A., and Avery, R. K. (1978). An analysis of changes in voter perceptions of candidates' positions.Communication Monographs 45: 354–361.Google Scholar
  2. Bartels, L. M. (1985). Expectations and preferences in presidential nominating campaigns.American Political Science Review 79: 804–815.Google Scholar
  3. Bartels, L. M. (1988).Presidential Primaries and the Dynamics of Public Choice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bradley, G. W. (1978). Self-serving biases in the attribution process: A reexamination of the fact or fiction question.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36: 56–71.Google Scholar
  5. Brady, H. E., and Johnston, R. (1987). What's the primary message: Horse race or issue journalism? In G. R. Orren and N. W. Polsby (eds.),Media and Momentum. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publishers.Google Scholar
  6. Brody, R. A., and Page, B. L. (1972). Comment: The assessment of policy voting.American Political Science Review 66: 450–458.Google Scholar
  7. Conover, P. J., and Feldman, S. (1982). Projection and the perception of candidates' issue positions.Western Political Quarterly 35: 228–244.Google Scholar
  8. Conover, P. J., and Feldman, S. (1986). The role of inference in the perception of political candidates. In Richard R. Lau and David O. Sears (eds.),Political Cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  9. Conover, P. J., and Feldman, S. (1989). Candidate perception in an ambiguous world: Campaigns, cues, and inference processes.American Journal of Political Science 33: 912–940.Google Scholar
  10. Feldman, S., and Conover, P. J. (1983). Candidates, issues and voters: The role of inference in political perception.The Journal of Politics 45: 811–839.Google Scholar
  11. Festinger, L. (1957).A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.Google Scholar
  12. Granberg, D. (1985). An anomaly in political perception.Public Opinion Quarterly 49: 504–516.Google Scholar
  13. Granberg, D., and Brent, E. E. (1974). Dove-Hawk placements in the 1968 election: Applications of social judgment and balance theories.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 29: 687–695.Google Scholar
  14. Heider, F. (1958).The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  15. Jacoby, W. G. (1988). The impact of party identification on issue attitudes.American Journal of Political Science 32: 643–661.Google Scholar
  16. Kinder, D. R. (1978). Political person perception: The asymmetrical influence of sentiment and choice on perceptions of presidential candidates.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36: 859–871.Google Scholar
  17. Kinder, D. R. (1983). Diversity and complexity in American public opinion. In Ada W. Finifter (ed.),Political Science: The State of the Discipline. Washington DC: The American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
  18. Krosnick, J. A. (1988). Psychological perspectives on political candidate perception: A review of research on the projection hypothesis. Paper presented at the 1988 annual meetings of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  19. Markus, G. B. (1982). Political attitudes during an election year: A report on the 1980 NES panel study.American Political Science Review 76: 538–560.Google Scholar
  20. Markus, G. B., and Converse, P. E. (1979). A dynamic simultaneous equation model of electoral choice.American Political Science Review 73: 1055–1070.Google Scholar
  21. Miller, L. W., and Sigelman, L. (1978). Is the audience the message? A note on LBJ's Vietnam statements.Public Opinion Quarterly 42: 71–80.Google Scholar
  22. Newcomb, T. M. (1968). Interpersonal balance. In R. P. Abelson et al. (eds),Theories of Cognitive Consistency: A Sourcebook. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  23. Osgood, C. E., and Tannenbaum, P. (1955). The principle of congruity and the prediction of attitude change.Psychological Review 62: 42–55.Google Scholar
  24. Page, B. I. (1978).Choices and Echoes in Presidential Elections: Rational Man and Electoral Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  25. Page, B. I., and Brody, R. A. (1972). Policy voting and the electoral process: The Vietnam War issue.American Political Science Review 66: 389–400.Google Scholar
  26. Patterson, T. E. (1980).The Mass Media Election: How Americans Choose Their President. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  27. Schaffer, S. D. (1981). Balance theory and political cognitions.American Politics Quarterly 9: 291–320.Google Scholar
  28. Sherif, C. W., Sherif, M., and Nebergall, R. E. (1965).Attitude and Attitude Change. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.Google Scholar
  29. Sherif, M., and Hovland, C. I. (1961).Social Judgment: Assimilation and Contrast Effects in Communication and Attitude Change. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Sherman, S. J., Presson, C. C., and Chassin, L. (1984). Mechanisms underlying the false consensus effect: The special role of threats to the self.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 10: 127–138.Google Scholar
  31. Taylor, S. E., and Crocker, J. (1981). Schematic bases of social information processing. In E. T. Higgens, C. A. Herman, and M. P. Zanna (eds.),Social Cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  32. Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Cognitive theories in social psychology. In G. Lindzey and E. Aronson (eds.),The Handbook of Social Psychology, 2nd ed., vol. 1. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patrick J. Kenney
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceArizona State UniversityTempe

Personalised recommendations