Political Behavior

, 30:259 | Cite as

Testing Zaller’s Reception and Acceptance Model in an Intense Election Campaign

  • Agnieszka DobrzynskaEmail author
  • André Blais
Original Paper


The paper provides a test of Zaller’s reception and acceptance model. The theory describes conditions under which a political message is received, and, if received, accepted or rejected. The study deals with the 1988 Canadian election that was fiercely fought over one central issue, the Free Trade Accord with the United States. We use the 1988 Canadian Election Study campaign rolling cross-section survey, and we test Zaller’s propositions about who is most likely to receive and then accept party messages. Our findings provide little support for the model. We suggest that when an issue is hotly debated in an election campaign voters who receive party messages are able to connect these messages to their values and predispositions whatever their level of political awareness.


Opinion formation RAS model Electoral campaign Party messages Political awareness Political predispositions 


  1. Althaus, S. L. (1998). Information effects in collective preferences. American Political Science Review, 92, 545–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alvarez, M. R., & Nagler, J. (1998). When politics and models collide: Estimating models of multiparty elections. American Journal of Political Science, 42, 55–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bartels, L. M. (1993). Messages received: The political impact of media exposure. American Political Science Review, 87, 267–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beck, P. A., Dalton, R. J., Greene, S., & Huckfeldt, R. (2002). The social calculus of voting: Interpersonal, media, and organizational influences on presidential choices. American Political Science Review, 96, 57–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bützer, M., & Marquis, L. (2002). Public opinion formation in Swiss federal referendums. In D. Farrell & R. Schmitt-Beck (Eds.), Do political campaigns matter? Campaign effects in elections and referendums (pp. 163–182). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  7. Clarke, H. D., Kornberg, A., McIntyre, C., Bauer-Kaase, P., & Kaase, M. (1999). The effect of economic priorities on the measurement of value change: New experimental evidence. American Political Science Review, 93, 637–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cobb, M. D., & Kuklinski, J. (1997). Changing minds: Political arguments and political persuasion. American Journal of Political Science, 41, 88–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Converse, P. (1962). Information flow and the stability of partisan attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 26, 578–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Converse, P. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and discontent (pp. 206–261). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  11. Dalton, R. J., Beck, P. A., & Huckfeldt, R. (1998). Partisan cues and the media: Information flows in the 1992 presidential election. American Political Science Review, 92, 111–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Doern, G. B., & Tomlin, B. W. (1991). Faith and fear: The free trade story. Toronto: Stoddart.Google Scholar
  13. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  14. Feldman, S., & Zaller, J. (1992). The political culture of ambivalence: Ideological responses to the welfare state. American Journal of Political Science, 36, 268–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fiorina, M. (1981). Retrospective voting in American national elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Fraser, G. (1989). Playing for keeps. The making of the prime minister, 1988. Toronto: McClelland and Stuart.Google Scholar
  17. Gabel, M., & Scheve, K. (2007). Estimating the effect of elite communications on public opinion using instrumental variables. American Journal of Political Science, 51, 1013–1028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gilens, M. (2001). Political ignorance and collective policy preferences. American Political Science Review, 95, 379–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goren, P. (2004). Political sophistication and policy reasoning: A reconsideration. American Journal of Political Science, 48, 462–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hansen, J. M. (1998). Individuals, institutions, and public preferences over public finance. American Political Science Review, 92, 513–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Herrmann, R. K., Tetlock, P. E., & Visser, P. S. (1999). Mass public decisions to go to war: A cognitive-interactionist framework. American Political Science Review, 93, 553–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hetherington, M. J. (2001). Resurgent mass partisanship: The role of elite polarization. American Political Science Review, 95, 619–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Iyengar, S., & Kinder, D. R. (1987). News that matters: Television and American public opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  24. Johnston, R., Blais, A., Brady, H. E., & Crête, J. (1992). Letting the people decide: Dynamics of a Canadian election. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
  25. King, G., Tomz, M., & Wittenberg, J. (2000). Making the most of statistical analyses: Improving interpretation and presentation. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 347–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kriesi, H. (2002). Individual opinion formation in a direct democratic campaign. British Journal of Political Science, 32, 171–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Krosnick, J. A., & Branon, L. A. (1993). The impact of the Gulf War on the ingredients of presidential evaluations: Multidimensional effects of political involvement. American Political Science Review, 87, 963–978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McGuire, W. J. (1969). The nature of attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (2nd ed., pp. 136–314). Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  29. Nelson, T. E., Clawson, R. A., & Oxley, Z. M. (1997). Media framing of a civil liberties conflict and its effect on tolerance. American Political Science Review, 91, 567–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Page, B. I., & Shapiro, R. Y. (1992). The rational public: Fifty years of trends in Americans’ policy preferences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  31. Schuman, H., & Presser, S. (1981). Questions and answers in attitude surveys: Experiments on question form, wording, and context. New York: Academic Press, Toronto.Google Scholar
  32. Stimson, J. A. (1991). Public opinion in America: Moods, cycles, and swings. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  33. Tomz, M., Wittenberg, J., & King, G. (2001). CLARIFY: Software for interpreting and presenting statistical results. Version 2.0 Cambridge: Harvard University, June 1,
  34. Woodside, K. (1989). Review: The Canada-United States free trade agreement. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 22, 155–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zaller, J. (1991). Information, values and opinion. American Political Science Review, 85, 1215–1237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Zaller, J. (1996). The myth of massive media impact revived. In D. Mutz, P. M. Sniderman, & R. A. Brody (Eds.), Political persuasion and attitude change (pp. 17–78). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  38. Zaller, J. (1998). Monica Lewinsky’s contribution to political science. PS: Political Science and Politics, 31, 182–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Canada Research Chair in Electoral StudiesUniversité de MontréalMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceUniversité de MontréalMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations