Political Behavior

, Volume 10, Issue 2, pp 117–135 | Cite as

Political evocation and styles of candidate evaluation

  • Stuart Elaine Macdonald
  • James W. Prothro
  • George Rabinowitz
  • Keith J. Brown
Article

Abstract

Recent work in cognitive processing and individual decision making has emphasized that individuals vary in the criteria they bring to bear to evaluate political objects. In this paper we argue that individual differences are but one piece of the decision-making puzzle, and that environmental factors are also important. Of particular interest to us is the idea that different candidates evoke different evaluative criteria. Using data from a 1984 sample of undergraduates and the 1980 National Election Study, we find evidence that political evocation effects do exist. This result has implications for understanding both the decision calculus of individuals and the collective rationality of the electorate.

Keywords

Environmental Factor Decision Making Recent Work Individual Difference Cognitive Processing 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E. (1960).The American Voter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  2. Converse, Philip E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In David E. Apter (ed.),Ideology and Discontent, pp. 206–261. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  3. Gant, Michael M. (1983). Citizens' evaluations of 1980 presidential candidates: Influence of campaign strategies.American Politics Quarterly 11: 327–348.Google Scholar
  4. Hamill, Ruth, Lodge, Milton, and Blake, Frederick (1985). The breadth, depth, and utility of class, partisan, and ideological schemata.American Journal of Political Science 29: 850–870.Google Scholar
  5. Jacoby, William G. (1986). Levels of conceptualization and reliance on the liberal-conservative continuum.Journal of Politics 48: 423–432.Google Scholar
  6. Knight, Kathleen (1985). Ideology in the 1980 elections: Ideological sophistication does matter.Journal of Politics 47: 828–853.Google Scholar
  7. Lau, Richard R. (1986). Political schemata, candidate evaluations, and voting behavior. In Richard R. Lau and David O. Sears (eds.),Political Cognition, pp. 95–126. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  8. Lau, Richard R., and Sears, David O. (1986).Political Cognition. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  9. Lodge, Milton, and Tursky, Bernard (1979). Comparison between category and magnitude scaling of political opinion employing SRC/CPS items.American Political Science Review 73: 50–66.Google Scholar
  10. Luskin, Robert (1987). Measuring political sophistication, or will someone here please turn on the lights?American Journal of Political Science 31: 856–899.Google Scholar
  11. Mauser, Gary A. (1983).Political Marketing. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  12. Miller, Arthur H., Wattenberg, Martin P., and Malanchuk, Oksana (1986). Schematic assessments of presidential candidates.American Political Science Review 80: 521–540.Google Scholar
  13. Rabinowitz, George (1978). On the nature of political issues: Insights from a spatial analysis.American Journal of Political Science 22: 793–817.Google Scholar
  14. Rabinowitz, George, Prothro, James W., and Jacoby, William (1982). Salience as a factor in the impact of issues on candidate evaluation.Journal of Politics 44: 41–63.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Agathon Press, Inc 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stuart Elaine Macdonald
    • 1
  • James W. Prothro
    • 1
  • George Rabinowitz
    • 1
  • Keith J. Brown
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel Hill

Personalised recommendations