Political Behavior

, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp 193–223 | Cite as

Judging presidential character: The demise of Gary Hart

  • Laura Stoker


This article investigates the public reaction to the scandal which effectively ended Gary Hart's quest for the 1988 Democratic presidential nomination. Employing NES panel data covering the period in which the scandal surfaced, and integrating arguments drawn from research on attitude change, media priming, and candidate evaluation, this analysis of the Hart case illuminates more general questions about how citizens respond to media communications during the course of an election campaign and of the factors that facilitate or inhibit attitude change. The investigation lends support to contemporary theories of attitude change that emphasize citizens' levels of political involvement and prior predispositions; uncovers evidence of media priming as views about controversial standards of morality were newly engaged in defining citizens' post-scandal evaluations of Hart; and yields evidence that negative responses to Hart in the wake of the scandal were tempered among citizens who typically weigh policy criteria alongisde candidate characteristics when formulating their overall candidate evaluations.


Panel Data Media Communication Attitude Change Negative Response General Question 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abelson, Robert P. (1959). Modes of resolution of belief dilemmas.Journal of Conflict Resolution 3: 343–352.Google Scholar
  2. Conover, Johnston, Pamela, and Feldman, Stanley (1985). Morality items on the 1985 pilot study. Report to the NES board of overseers. University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research.Google Scholar
  3. Converse, Philip E. (1962). Information flow and the stability of partisan attitudes.Public Opinion Quarterly 26: 578–599.Google Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Heider, F. (1958).The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  6. Iyengar, Shanto (1990). Shortcuts to political knowledge: The role of selective attention and accessibility. In John A. Ferejohn and James H. Kuklinski, (eds.),Information and Democratic Processes. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois.Google Scholar
  7. Iyengar, Shanto, and Kinder, Donald R. (1987).News that Matters. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  8. Kinder, Donald R., Peters, M. D., Abelson, R. P., and Fiske, S. T. (1980). Presidential prototypes.Political Behavior 2: 315–337.Google Scholar
  9. Kinder, Donald R. (1986). Presidential Character Revisited. In Richard Lau and David Sears (eds.),Political Cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Krosnick, Jon A., and Kinder, Donald R. (1990). Altering the foundations of support for the president through priming.American Political Science Review 84: 497–512.Google Scholar
  11. Lau, Richard. (1986). Political schemata, candidate evaluations, and voting behavior. In Richard Lau and David Sears, (eds.),Political Cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  12. Lau, Richard (1989). Construct accessibility and electoral choice.Political Behavior 11: 5–32.Google Scholar
  13. Lodge, Milton, and Hamill, Ruth (1986). A partisan schema for political information processing.American Political Science Review 80: 505–519.Google Scholar
  14. Lodge, Milton, Stroh, Patrick, and Wahlke, John (1990). Black-box models of candidate evaluation.Political Behavior 12: 505–519.Google Scholar
  15. Luskin, Robert C. (1987). Measuring political sophistication.American Journal of Political Science 31: 856–899.Google Scholar
  16. MacAddams, John. (1986). Alternatives for dealing with errors in variables: An example using panel data.American Journal of Political Science 30: 256–278.Google Scholar
  17. MacKuen, Michael (1984). Exposure to information, belief integration, and individual responsiveness to agenda change.American Political Science Review 78: 372–391.Google Scholar
  18. McClosky, Herbert, Zaller, John, and Chong, Dennis (1985). Social learning and the acquisition of political norms. In McClosky and Zaller (eds.),The American Ethos. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  19. McGraw, Kathleen M. (1991). Managing blame: An experimental test of the effects of political accounts.American Political Science Review 85: 1133–1157.Google Scholar
  20. McGuire, William J. (1968). Personality and susceptibility to social influence. In E. E. Borgatta and W. W. Lambert, (eds.),Handbook of Personality Theory and Research. New York: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  21. Markus, Gregory B. (1979).Analyzing Panel Data. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Markus, Gregory, B. (1982). Political attitudes in an election year: A report of the 1980 NES panel study.American Political Science Review 76: 538–560.Google Scholar
  23. Miller, Arthur H., Wattenberg, M. P., and Malanchuk, O. (1986). Schematic assessments of presidential candidates.American Political Science Review 80: 521–540.Google Scholar
  24. Price, Vincent and Zaller, John (1992). Who gets the news? Predicting news reception and assessing its impact. Revised version of a paper presented at the 1990 meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco, California.Google Scholar
  25. Popkin, Samuel L. (1991).The Reasoning Voter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  26. Rahn, Wendy M., Aldrich, John H., Borgida, Eugene, and Sullivan, John L. (1990). A social-cognitive model of candidate appraisal. In John A. Ferejohn and James H. Kuklinski (eds.),Information and Democratic Processes. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  27. Sears, David O. and Whitney, Richard E. (1973). Political persuasion. In Pool,et al. (eds.),Handbook of Communications. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  28. Sniderman, Paul M. (1975).Personality and Democratic Politics. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  29. Stoker, Laura (1987). Morality and politics: Conduct and control. A report on new items in the 1987 national election pilot study. Report to the NES board of overseers. University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research.Google Scholar
  30. Taylor, Shelley E., and Crocker, Jennifer (1981). Schematic bases of social information processing. In E. T. Higgins, P. Hermann, and M. P. Zanna (eds.),The Ontario Symposium on Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 1. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  31. Thorndike, E. L. (1924). The influence of chance imperfections of measures upon the relationship of initial score to gain or loss.Journal of Experimental Psychology 7: 225–232.Google Scholar
  32. Zaller, John (1986). Analysis of information items in the 1985 pilot study. Report to the NES Board of Overseers. University of Michigan, Institute of Social Research.Google Scholar
  33. Zaller, John (1987). Diffusion of political attitudes.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53: 821–833.Google Scholar
  34. Zaller, John (1989). Bringing converse back in: modeling information flow in political campaigns. In James A. Stimson (ed.),Political Analysis. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  35. Zaller, John (1990). Political awareness, elite opinion leadership, and the mass survey response.Social Cognition 8: 125–153.Google Scholar
  36. Zaller, John (1991). Information, values, and opinion.American Political Science Review 85: 1215–1238.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laura Stoker
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Political Science, Survey Research CenterUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeley

Personalised recommendations