Political Behavior

, Volume 7, Issue 4, pp 325–334 | Cite as

Chasing an elusive concept: Ideological identifications and candidate choice

  • Susan E. Howell


This research examines the manner in which ideological identifications covary with candidate choice. Ideological ID is not purely an independent variable for evaluating candidates; evaluations of the candidates affect both individual identification and candidate placements. Prospective voters try to create a consistent cognitive system of candidate preference, ideological ID, and ideological placement of their candidate. Results demonstrate that candidate preference has a strong effect on less salient attitudes.


Cognitive System Individual Identification Candidate Preference Political Psychology Elusive Concept 
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. Brody, Richard A., and Page, Benjamin I. (1972). Comment: The assessment of policy voting.APSR 66 (June): 450–458.Google Scholar
  2. Conover, P. J. (1980). The perception of political figures: an application of attribution theory. In Pierce and Sullivan (eds.),The Electorate Reconsidered, pp. 91–909, Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Field, J. O., and Anderson, R. E. (1969). Ideology in the public's conceptualization of the 1964 election.Public Opinion Quarterly 33:380–398.Google Scholar
  4. Fiske, Susan, and Linville, Patricka (1980). What does the schema concept buy us?”Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 6 (December): 543–557.Google Scholar
  5. Heise, David R. (1969). Separating reliability and stability in test-retest correlation,American Sociological Review 34:93–101.Google Scholar
  6. Howell, Susan (1982). Projection, persuasion or confusion in 1980. Manuscript available at University of New Orleans.Google Scholar
  7. Howell, Susan (1980). The behavioral component of changing partisanship.APQ 8:279–302.Google Scholar
  8. Jackson, J. (1975). Issues, party choices and presidential votes.AJPS 19:161–185.Google Scholar
  9. Markus, Gregory B. (1982). Political attitudes during an election year: a report on the 1980 NES Panel Study.APSR (September): 538–560.Google Scholar
  10. Markus, Gregory B., and Converse, Philip E. (1979). A dynamic simultaneous equation model of electoral choice.APSR (December): 1055–1070.Google Scholar
  11. Meier, Kenneth, and Campbell, James E. (1979). Issue voting: an empirical examination of individually necessary and jointly sufficient conditions.APQ (January): 21–50.Google Scholar
  12. Page, Benjamin I., and Jones, Calvin C. (1979). Reciprocal effects of policy preferences, party loyalties and the vote.APSR (December): 1071–1089.Google Scholar
  13. Rumelhart, David, and Ortony, Andrew (1977). The representation of knowledge in memory. In R. C. Anderson, R. J. Shapiro, and W. E. Montague (eds.),Schooling and the Acquisition of Knowledge, pp. 99–135. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  14. Smith, E. R. (1980). The levels of conceptualization: false measures of ideological sophistication.APSR 74:685–696.Google Scholar
  15. Taylor, S. E., and Crocker, J. (1981). Schematic base of social information processing. In E. Torry Higgins, C. P. Herman, and M. P. Zanna (eds.),Social Cognition: The Ontario Symposium, Vol. V, pp. 89–134. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Agathon Press, Inc 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susan E. Howell
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of New OrleansUSA

Personalised recommendations