Advertisement

Political Behavior

, Volume 31, Issue 4, pp 485–510 | Cite as

The Unmet Potential of Interdisciplinary Research: Political Psychological Approaches to Voting and Public Opinion

  • James N. DruckmanEmail author
  • James H. Kuklinski
  • Lee Sigelman
Original Paper

Abstract

Since its founding, political science has embraced interdisciplinary research. Yet there exist few, if any, systematic assessments of the success of these endeavors. We assess what is often seen as a paradigm of interdisciplinary collaboration: political psychological research on voting and public opinion. Surprisingly, we find little evidence of true interdisciplinary work; instead, we uncover misused concepts and scant evidence of conceptual or disciplinary integration. We conclude with suggestions for how to improve interdisciplinary research on voting and public opinion, and more generally.

Keywords

Interdisciplinary research Voting Public opinion Political psychology 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Jon Krosnick, Milt Lodge, Kathleen McGraw, and Chuck Taber for helpful advice.

References

  1. Allen, B., O’Loughlin, P., Jasperson, A., & Sullivan, J. L. (1994). The media and the Gulf War: Framing, priming, and the spiral of silence. Polity, 27, 255–284. doi: 10.2307/3235175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Althaus, S. L., & Kim, Y. M. (2006). Priming effects in complex environments. The Journal of Politics, 68, 960–976. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00483.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, N. H., & Hubert, S. (1963). Effects of concomitant verbal recall on order effects in personality impression formation. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 2, 379–391. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(63)80039-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bargh, J. A., Bond, R., Lombardi, W., & Tota, M. (1986). The additive nature of chronic and temporary sources of construct accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 869–878. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.50.5.869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bartels, L. M. (1996). Uninformed votes: Information effects in presidential elections. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 194–230. doi: 10.2307/2111700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bartels, L. M. (2003). Democracy with attitudes. In M. B. MacKuen & G. Rabinowitz (Eds.), Electoral democracy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  7. Berelson, B. R., Lazarsfeld, P. F., & McPhee, W. N. (1954). Voting: A study of opinion formation in a presidential campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  8. Birnbaum, P. H. (1981). Integration and specialization in academic research. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 487–503. doi: 10.2307/255570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bizer, G. Y., Krosnick, J. A., Holbrook, A. L., Wheller, S. C., Rucker, D. D., & Petty, R. E. (2004). The impact of personality on cognitive, behavioral, and affective political processes: The effects of need to evaluate. Journal of Personality, 72, 995–1027. doi: 10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00288.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bizer, G. Y., Tormala, Z. L., Rucker, D. D., & Petty, R. E. (2006). Memory-based versus on-line processing: Implications for attitude strength. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 646–653. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2005.09.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bohman, J. (1998). Survey article: The coming age of deliberative democracy. Journal of Political Philosophy, 6, 400–425. doi: 10.1111/1467-9760.00061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Braman, E. (2006). Reasoning on the threshold: Testing separability of preferences in legal decision making. The Journal of Politics, 68, 308–321. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00408.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Braman, E., & Nelson, T. E. (2007). Mechanism of motivated reasoning?: Analogical perception in discrimination disputes. American Journal of Political Science, 51, 940–956. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00290.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Branscombe, N. R., & Doosje, B. (Eds.). (2004). Collective guilt. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Briñol, P., & Petty, R. E. (2005). Individual differences in attitude change. In D. Albarracín, B. T. Johnson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes and attitude change. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  16. Chaiken, S., & Trope, Y. (Eds.). (1999). Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  17. Chong, D. (1993). How people think, reason, and feel about rights and liberties. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 867–899. doi: 10.2307/2111577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chong, D. (2007). The value of information and endorsements. Unpublished paper, Northwestern University.Google Scholar
  19. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 103–126. doi: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.072805.103054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2008). Dynamic public opinion: Framing effects over time. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, MA, August 28–August 31.Google Scholar
  21. Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research. (2005). Facilitating interdisciplinary research. Washington: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  22. Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. E. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and discontent. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  23. Converse, P. E. (2000). Assessing the capacity of mass electorates. Annual Review of Political Science, 3, 331–353. doi: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.3.1.331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  25. Druckman, J. N. (2004). Political preference formation: Competition, deliberation, and the (ir)relevance of framing effects. The American Political Science Review, 98, 671–686. doi: 10.1017/S0003055404041413.Google Scholar
  26. Druckman, J. N., Jacobs, L. R., & Ostermeier, E. (2004). Candidate strategies to prime issues and image. The Journal of Politics, 66, 1180–1202. doi: 10.1111/j.0022-3816.2004.00295.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Druckman, J. N., & Lupia, A. (2000). Preference formation. Annual Review of Political Science, 3, 1–24. doi: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.3.1.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Druckman, J. N., & Lupia, A. (2006). Mind, will, and choice: Lessons From experiments in contextual variation”. In R. E. Goodin & C. Tilly (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of contextual political analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Druckman, J. N., & McDermott, R. (2008). Emotion and the framing of risky choice. Political Behavior, 30, 297–321. doi: 10.1007/s11109-008-9056-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Druckman, J. N., & Nelson, K. R. (2003). Framing and deliberation. American Journal of Political Science, 47, 728–744. doi: 10.1111/1540-5907.00051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
  32. Edwards, W., Lindman, H., & Savage, L. J. (1963). Bayesian statistical inference for psychological research. Psychological Review, 38, 193–242. doi: 10.1037/h0044139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Fazio, R. H. (1995). Attitudes as object-evaluation associations. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  34. Fazio, R. H. (2000). Accessible attitudes as tools for object appraisal: Their costs and benefits. In G. R. Maio & J. M. Olson (Eds.), Why we evaluate: Functions of attitudes. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  35. Fazio, R. H. (2007). Attitudes as object-evaluation associations of varying strength. Social Cognition, 25, 603–637. doi: 10.1521/soco.2007.25.5.603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Federico, C. M., & Schneider, M. C. (2007). Political expertise and the use of ideology: Moderating effects of evaluative motivation. Public Opinion Quarterly, 71, 221–252. doi: 10.1093/poq/nfm010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ferejohn, J. A., & Kuklinski, J. H. (Eds.). (1990). Information and democratic processes. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  38. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.Google Scholar
  39. Fiorina, M. (1981). Retrospective voting in American elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Gaines, B. J., Kuklinski, J. H., & Quirk, P. J. (2007). The logic of the survey experiment reexamined. Political Analysis, 15, 1–20. doi: 10.1093/pan/mpl008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Gerber, A., Gimpel, J. G., Green, D. P., & Shaw, D. R. (2007). The influence of television and radio advertising on candidate evaluations: Results from a large scale randomized experiment. Unpublished paper, Yale University.Google Scholar
  42. Gilovich, T., & Griffin, D. (2002). Introduction—Heuristics and biases: Then and now. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Goren, P. (2002). Character weakness, partisan bias, and presidential evaluation. American Journal of Political Science, 46, 627–641. doi: 10.2307/3088404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hastie, R., & Park, B. (1986). The relationship between memory and judgment depends on whether the judgment task is memory-based or online. Psychological Review, 93, 258–268. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.93.3.258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Higgins, E. T. (1996). Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  46. Higgins, E. T., & King, G. (1981). Social constructs: Information-processing consequences of individual and contextual variability”. In N. Cantor & J. F. Kihlstrom (Eds.), Personality, cognition, and social interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  47. Higgins, E. T., Rholes, W. S., & Jones, C. R. (1977). Category accessibility and impression formation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 13, 141–154. doi: 10.1016/S0022-1031(77)80007-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Holbrook, T. M. (2006). Cognitive style and political learning in the 2000 US presidential campaign. Political Research Quarterly, 59, 343–352. doi: 10.1177/106591290605900302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Huckfeldt, R., Johnson, P. E., & Sprague, J. (2004). Political disagreement: The survival of diverse opinions within communication networks. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Iyengar, S., & Kinder, D. R. (1987). News that matters: Television and American opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  51. Iyengar, S., Kinder, D. R., Peters, M. D., & Krosnick, J. A. (1984). The evening news and presidential evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 778–787. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.46.4.778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Jackman, S., & Sniderman, P. M. (2002). The institutional organization of choice spaces: A political conception of political psychology. In K. Monroe (Ed.), Political psychology. Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  53. Jarvis, W. B., & Petty, R. E. (1996). The need to evaluate. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 172–194. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.70.1.172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Jost, J. T., Nosek, B. A., & Gosling, S. D. (2008). Ideology: Its resurgence in social, personality, and political psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 126–136. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2008.00070.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (Eds.). (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Kam, C. D. (2005). Who toes the party line?: Cues, values, and individual differences. Political Behavior, 27, 163–182. doi: 10.1007/s11109-005-1764-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Kelley, S., Jr, & Mirer, T. W. (1974). The simple act of voting. The American Political Science Review, 68, 572–591. doi: 10.2307/1959506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Kinder, D. R. (1998). Opinion and action in the realm of politics. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  59. Kinder, D. R., & Sears, D. O. (1985). Public opinion and political action. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (3rd ed.). New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  60. Krosnick, J. A. (2002). Is political psychology sufficiently psyhological: Distinghuishing political psychology from psychological political science. In J. H. Kuklinksi (Ed.), Thinking about political psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Kuklinski, J. H. (Ed.). (2001). Citizens and politics: Perspectives from political psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Kuklinski, J. H. (Ed.). (2002). Thinking about political psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Kuklinski, J. H., & Jerit, J. (2001). Commentary. In J. H. Kuklinski (Ed.), Citizens and politics: Perspectives from political psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Kuklinski, J. H., & Quirk, P. J. (2000). Reconsidering the rational public: Cognition, heuristics, and mass opinion”. In A. Lupia, M. D. McCubbins, & S. L. Popkin (Eds.), Elements of reason: Understanding and expanding the limits of political rationality. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Kuklinski, J. H., Quirk, P. J., Jerit, J., & Rich, R. F. (2001). The political environment and citizen competence. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 410–424. doi: 10.2307/2669349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480–498. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Lasswell, H. D. (1946). Describing the contents of communication. In B. L. Smith, H. D. Lasswell, & R. D. Casey (Eds.), Propaganda, communication, and public opinion. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2006). How voters decide: Information processing in election campaigns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Lenz, G. S. (2009). Learning and opinion change, not priming: Reconsidering the evidence for the priming hypothesis. American Journal of Political Science, 53 (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  70. Lippmann, W. (1922). Public opinion. New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  71. Lodge, M. (1995). Toward a procedural model of candidate evaluation. In M. Lodge & K. M. McGraw (Eds.), Political judgment: Structure and process. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  72. Lodge, M., McGraw, K. M., & Stroh, P. (1989). An impression-driven model of candidate evaluation. The American Political Science Review, 83, 399–420. doi: 10.2307/1962397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Lodge, M., Steenbergen, M. R., & Brau, S. (1995). The responsive voter: Campaign information and the dynamics of candidate evaluation. The American Political Science Review, 89, 309–326. doi: 10.2307/2082427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Lodge, M., & Taber, C. S. (2000). Three steps toward a theory of motivated political reasoning. In A. Lupia, M. D. McCubbins, & S. L. Popkin (Eds.), Elements of reason: Cognition, choice, and the bounds of rationality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  75. Lodge, M., & Taber, C. S. (2008). The rationalizing voter: Unconscious thought in political information processing. Unpublished paper, Stony Brook University.Google Scholar
  76. Lodge, M., Taber, C. S., & Burdein, I. (2008). The impact of self-identification on political attitudes: An experimental test employing subliminal priming. Unpublished Manuscript, Stony Brook University.Google Scholar
  77. Lupia, A., & McCubbins, M. D. (1998). The democratic dilemma: Can citizens learn what they need to know?. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  78. Lupia, A., McCubbins, M. D., & Popkin, S. L. (2000). Beyond rationality: Reason and the study of politics. In A. Lupia, M. D. McCubbins, & S. L. Popkin (Eds.), Elements of reason: Understanding and expanding the limits of political rationality. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  79. Luskin, R. C. (2001). The heavenly public: What would be the ideal democratic citizenry be like. In G. Rabinowitz & M. B. MacKuen (Eds.), Electoral democracy. Ann Arbor, Mi: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  80. MacDonald, P. K. (2003). Useful fiction or miracle maker: The competing epistemological foundations of rational choice theory. The American Political Science Review, 97, 551–565. doi: 10.1017/S000305540300087X.Google Scholar
  81. Martin, L. L. (1986). Set/reset: Use and disuse of concepts in impression formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 493–504. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.51.3.493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Martin, L. L., & Achee, J. W. (1992). Beyond accessibility: The role of processing objectives in judgment. In L. L. Martin & A. Tesser (Eds.), The construction of social judgments. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  83. McGraw, K. M. (2003). Political impressions: Formation and management. In D. O. Sears, L. Huddy, & R. Jervis (Eds.), Oxford handbook of political psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  84. McGraw, K. M. (2006). The infrastructure of political psychology. In L. Valenty (Ed.), Political psychology. Oplanden & Farmington Hills: Barbara Budich Publishers.Google Scholar
  85. McGraw, K. M., & Dolan, T. (2007). Personifying the state: Consequences for attitude formation. Political Psychology, 28, 299–328. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2007.00570.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. McGraw, K. M., Hasecke, E., & Conger, K. (2003). Ambivalence, uncertainty, and processes of candidate evaluation. Political Psychology, 24, 421–448. doi: 10.1111/0162-895X.00335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. McGraw, K. M., Lodge, M., & Stroh, P. (1990). On-line processing in candidate evaluation: The effects of issue order, issue salience, and sophistication. Political Behavior, 12, 41–58. doi: 10.1007/BF00992331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Mendelsohn, M. (1996). The media and interpersonal communication: The priming of issues, leaders, and party identification. The Journal of Politics, 58, 112–125. doi: 10.2307/2960351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Miller, J. M., & Krosnick, J. A. (2000). News media impact on the ingredients of presidential evaluations: Politically knowledgeable citizens are guided by a trusted source. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 295–309.Google Scholar
  90. Monroe, K. (Ed.). (2002). Political psychology. Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  91. Mutz, D. C. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Mutz, D. C., & Reeves, B. (2005). The new videomalaise: Effects of televised incivility on political trust. The American Political Science Review, 99, 1–15. doi: 10.1017/S0003055405051452.Google Scholar
  93. Nelson, T. E., Clawson, R. A., & Oxley, Z. M. (1997). Media framing of a civil liberties conflict and its effect on tolerance. The American Political Science Review, 91, 567–583. doi: 10.2307/2952075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. D. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  95. O’Keefe, D. J. (2002). Persuasion (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  96. Oppenheim, P., & Putnam, H. (1958). Unity of science as a working hypothesis. In H. Fiegel, M. Scriven, & G. Maxwell (Eds.), Studies in the philosophy of science (Vol. II). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  97. 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
  98. Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1993). The adaptive decision maker. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  99. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  100. Popkin, S. L. (1991). The reasoning voter: Communication and persuasion in presidential campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  101. Proceedings of the American Political Science Association. (1904). The organization of the American Political Science Association. Proceedings of the American Political Science Association, 1, 5–15.Google Scholar
  102. Rahn, W. M., Aldrich, J. H., & Borgida, E. (1994). Individual and contextual variations in political candidate appraisal. The American Political Science Review, 88, 193–199. doi: 10.2307/2944891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Redlawsk, D. (2001). Hot cognition or cool consideration: Testing the effects of motivated reasoning on political decision making. The Journal of Politics, 64, 1021–1044.Google Scholar
  104. Riker, W. H. (1995). The political psychology of rational choice theory. Political Psychology, 16, 23–44. doi: 10.2307/3791448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Riker, W. H. (1996). The strategy of rhetoric: Campaigning for the American constitution. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  106. Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and content of human values? The Journal of Social Issues, 50, 19–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Sears, D. O., Huddy, L., & Jervis, R. (Eds.). (2003). Oxford handbook of political psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  108. Sears, D. O., & Whitney, R. W. (1973). Political persuasion. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.Google Scholar
  109. Sherif, M., & Sherif, C. W. (Eds.). (1969). Interdisciplinary relationships in the social sciences. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  110. Sherman, S. J., Mackie, D. M., & Driscoll, D. M. (1990). Priming and the differential use of dimensions in evaluation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 405–418. doi: 10.1177/0146167290163001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Simon, H. A. (1957). Models of man. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  112. Simon, H. A. (1963). Problems of methodology. American Economic Review Proceedings, 53, 229–231. Discussion.Google Scholar
  113. Sniderman, P. M. (2000). Taking sides: A fixed choice theory of political reasoning. In A. Lupia, M. D. McCubbins, & S. L. Popkin (Eds.), Elements of reason: Cognition, choice, and the bounds of rationality. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  114. Sniderman, P. M., Brody, R. A., & Tetlock, P. E. (1991). Reasoning and choice: Explorations in political psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  115. Somin, I. (2006). Knowledge about ignorance: New directions in the study of political information. Critical Review, 18, 255–278.Google Scholar
  116. Stapel, D., Koomen, W., & Zeelenberg, M. (1998). The impact of accuracy motivation on interpretation, comparison, and correction processes: Accuracy × knowledge accessibility effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 878–893. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.74.4.878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Taber, C. S. (2003). Information processing in public opinion. In D. O. Sears, L. Huddy, & R. Jervis (Eds.), Oxford handbook of political psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  118. Taber, C. S., Cann, A., & Kucsova, S. (2009). The motivated processing of political arguments. Unpublished paper, Stony Brook University.Google Scholar
  119. Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluations of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 755–769. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Taber, C. S., Lodge, M., & Glather, J. (2001). The motivated construction of political judgment. In J. H. Kuklinski (Ed.), Citizens and politics: Perspectives from political psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  121. Taylor, S. E., & Fiske, S. T. (1978). Salience, attention, and attribution: Top-of-the-head phenomena. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 11). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  122. Tetlock, P. E. (1983). Accountability and complexity of thought. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 74–83. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.45.1.74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Thompson, E. P., Roman, R. J., Moskowitz, G. B., Chaiken, S., & Bargh, J. (1994). Accuracy motivation attenuates covert priming: The systematic reprocessing of social information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 474–489. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.66.3.474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. (2001). On-line versus memory-based processing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1599–1612. doi: 10.1177/01461672012712004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131. doi: 10.1126/science.185.4157.1124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Visser, P. S., Bizer, G. Y., & Krosnick, J. A. (2006). Exploring the latent structure of strength-related attitude attributes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 1–67. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38001-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Wilson, E. O. (1998). Conscilience: The unity of knowledge. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  128. Wittman, D. (1995). The myth of democratic failure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  129. Wyer, R. S., Jr, & Srull, T. K. (1980). The processing of social stimulus information: A conceptual integration. In R. Hastie, T. Ostrom, E. Ebbesen, R. Wyer, D. Hamilton, & D. Carlston (Eds.), Person memory: The cognitive basis of social perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  130. Wyer, R. S., Jr, & Srull, T. K. (1981). Category accessibility: Some theoretical issues concerning the processing of social stimulus information”. In E. T. Higgins, C. P. Herman, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Social cognition: The Ontario symposium on personality and social psychology (Vol. 1). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  131. Wyer, R. S., Jr, & Srull, T. K. (1989). Memory and cognition in its social context. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  132. Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • James N. Druckman
    • 1
    Email author
  • James H. Kuklinski
    • 2
  • Lee Sigelman
    • 3
  1. 1.Northwestern UniversityEvanstonUSA
  2. 2.University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignChampaignUSA
  3. 3.George Washington UniversityWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations