Going Maverick: How Candidates Can Use Agenda-Setting to Influence Citizen Motivations and Offset Unpopular Issue Positions
- 396 Downloads
Holding an unpopular position on an issue important to voters can endanger a candidate’s electoral success. What is the candidate’s best agenda-setting strategy? To focus on other issue positions congruent with the same ideological stereotype, shoring up support among like-minded voters? Or to “go maverick” by discussing some issues that signal liberal positions and some that signal conservative positions? Existing voting models suggest the answer depends on voter preferences, since going maverick should have symmetric effects—support among voters who agree with the candidate’s positions will decrease, proportionally, as support increases among voters who disagree. We argue, however, that stereotype incongruence prompts these voters to process information differently, yielding asymmetric effects. We test our expectations experimentally, using a fictional candidate webpage to show how the benefits of going maverick can outweigh the costs.
KeywordsAgenda-setting Candidate Campaign Ideology Motivated reasoning Stereotyping
- Ansolebehere, S (2006) CCES Common Content. http://hdl.handle.net/1902.1/14002. Accessed March 22, 2010.
- Associated Press. (2009, December 11). Drug Imports Roil Health Care Debate. The Dallas Morning News.Google Scholar
- Bailey, D., & Alimadhi, F. (2007a). ls.mixed: Mixed Effects Linear Regression [Computer Program]. In K. Imai, G. King, & O. Lau (Eds.), Zelig: Everyone’s Statistical Software, http://gking.harvard.edu/zelig.
- Bailey, D., & Alimadhi, F. (2007b). logit.mixed: Mixed Effects Logistic Regression [Computer Program]. In K. Imai, G. King, & O. Lau (Eds.), Zelig: Everyone’s Statistical Software, http://gking.harvard.edu/zelig.
- Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. New York, NY: WileyGoogle Scholar
- Canes-Wrone, B., Brady, D. W., & Cogan, J. F. (2002). Out of step, out of office: electoral accountability and house members’ voting. The American Political Science Review, 96(1), 127–140.Google Scholar
- Carson, J. L. (2005). Strategy, selection, and candidate competition in US House and Senate Elections. Journal of Politics, 67(1), 1–28.Google Scholar
- Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 212–252). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York, NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
- Fazio, R. H. (1990). A practical guide to the use of response latency in social psychological research. In C. A. Hendrick & M. S. Clark (Eds.), Research methods in personality and social psychology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- Fenno, R. F. (1978). Home style: house members in their districts. Boston: Little Brown.Google Scholar
- Gerlach, J (2006) Campaign Website Issues Page, as Archived November 4, 2006. http://web.archive.org/web/20061115205449/www.jimgerlachforcongress.com/issues/default.aspx. Accessed June 7, 2010.
- Imai, K., King, G., & Lau, O. (2009). Zelig: Everyone’s statistical software, http://gking.harvard.edu/zelig.
- Iyengar, S., & Kinder, D. R. (1987). News that matters: television and American opinion. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Jacobson, G. C. (2007). Referendum: The 2006 Midterm Congressional Elections. Political Science Quarterly, 122(1), 1–24.Google Scholar
- Kam, C. D., & Franzese, R. J. (2007). Modeling and interpreting interactive hypotheses in regression analysis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
- Kunda, Z., & Sinclair, L. (1999). Motivated reasoning with stereotypes: Activation, application, and inhibition. Psychological Inquiry: An International Journal for the Advancement of Psychological Theory, 10(1), 12–22.Google Scholar
- 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. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- McCarthy, S. (2004). Kerry would legalize import of Canadian prescription drugs. Canada: The Globe and Mail.Google Scholar
- Miller, S. A. (2007). Senate nixes imports of drug. Washington, DC: The Washington Times.Google Scholar
- Nicholson, S. P. (2005). Voting the agenda: Candidates, elections, and Ballot propositions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Pear, R. (2004). IInsider challenges drug industry on imports. New York: The New York Times.Google Scholar
- Roper Center (2006) National Election Pool Poll # 2006-NATELEC: National Election Day Exit Poll [USMI2006-NATELEC]. Edison Media Research/Mitofsky International. http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/common/exitpolls.html. Accessed March 22, 2010.
- Sniderman, P. M., Brody, R. A., & Tetlock, P. E. (1993). Reasoning and choice: Explorations in political psychology. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Stone, W. J., Hadley, N. J., Peterson, R. D., Maestas, C. D., & Maisel, L. S. (2008). Candidate entry, voter response, and Partisan tides in the 2002 and 2006 elections. In J. J. Mondak & D.-G. Mitchell (Eds.), Fault lines: Why the republicans lost congress. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Tetlock, P. E. (1985). Accountability: The neglected social context of judgment and choice. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7(1), 297–332.Google Scholar
- Welna, D. (2009). Senate democrats split on prescription drug imports.NPR.com.Google Scholar