Skip to main content

Evaluative bias and issue proximity

Abstract

This study identifies two forms of evaluative bias toward political objects — positivity and negativity — in addition to the familiar one of partisanship. Bias is measured, predominantly, using open-ended responses to questions on political parties in the NES studies. The incidence of varieties of evaluative orientation toward the parties over time, beginning in 1952, is reported; so also are demographic and cognitive correlates of evaluative bias. Finally, hypotheses on differential assimilation and contrast effects in candidate perception are tested.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  • Granberg, Donald, and Edward E. Brent, Jr. (1974). “Dove-Hawk Placement in the 1968 Election.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 29: 687–695.

    Google Scholar 

  • -- (1980). “Perceptions of Issue Positions of Presidential Candidates.”American Scientist (November–December): 617–625.

  • Jordan, Nehemiah (1965). “The ‘Asymmetry’ of ‘Liking’ and ‘Disliking’: A Phenomenon Meriting Further Reflection and Research.”Public Opinion Quarterly 39: 315–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keith, Bruce E., David B. Magleby, Candice J. Nelson, Elizabeth Orr, Mark Wetlye, and Raymond E. Wolfinger (1977). “The Myth of the Independent Voter.” Paper delivered at the 1977 annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C.

  • King, Michael (1978). “Assimilation and Contrast of Presidential Candidate's Issue Positions, 1972.”Public Opinion Quarterly 41: 515–522.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lau, Richard R., David O. Sears, and Richard Centers (1979). “The ‘Positivity Bias’ in Evaluations of Public Figures: Evidence Against Instrument Artifacts.”Public Opinion Quarterly 43: 347–358.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nie, Norman, Sidney Verba, and John R. Petrocik (1976).The Changing American Voter. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Page, Benjamin I. (1978).Choices and Echoes in Presidential Elections. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Page, Benjamin I., and Richard A. Brody (1972). “Policy Voting and the Electoral Process.”American Political Science Review 66: 979–995.

    Google Scholar 

  • Page, Benjamin I., and Calvin C. Jones (1979). “Reciprocal Effects of Policy Preferences, Party Loyalties, and the Vote.”American Political Science Review 73: 1071–1089.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rook, Karen S., David O. Sears, Donald R. Kinder, and Richard R. Lau (1978). “The ‘Positivity Bias,’ in Evaluations of Public Figures: Evidence Against Interpersonal Artifacts.”Political Methodology 5: 469–499.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sears, David O. (1969). “Political Behavior.” In Gardner Lindsey and Elliot Aronson, eds.,Handbook of Social Psychology (rev. ed., Vol. 5). Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sears, David O., and Richard E. Whitney (1973). “Political Persuasion.” In Ithiel de Sola Pool, Wilbur Schramm, Frederick W. Frey, Nathan Maccoby, and Edwin B. Parker, eds.,Handbook of Communication. Chicago: Rand-McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selznick, Gertrude, and Stephen Steinberg (1969).The Tenacity of Prejudice. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wattenberg, Martin P. (1980). “Decline of Political Parties: Negativity or Neutrality?” Paper delivered at American Political Science Association meeting, Washington, D.C.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sniderman, P.M., Brody, R.A., Siegel, J.W. et al. Evaluative bias and issue proximity. Polit Behav 4, 115–131 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00987184

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00987184

Keywords

  • Political Party
  • Contrast Effect
  • Political Object
  • Political Psychology
  • Cognitive Correlate