Political Behavior

, Volume 12, Issue 1, pp 5–18 | Cite as

Black-box models of candidate evaluation

  • Milton Lodge
  • Patrick Stroh
  • John Wahlke


All contemporary models of candidate evaluation are memory-based models in that they treat the direction and strength of evaluation as a function of the mix of positively and negatively valued (valenced) information retrieved from memory. Yet, oddly enough, despite the assumption that memory mediates judgment, none of the major models looks at the processes involved in what information voters recall and how that evidence was integrated into a summary evaluation. In this sense then, political science models of vote choice are black-box models: They are silent about how voters actually go about interpreting information and integrating the “evidence” into a summary evaluation of the candidates. In this article we critique the major political science models, call attention to the implicit assumptions they make about what “evidence” is assumed to be in memory, and conclude with an argument for introducing process into our explanations of vote choice.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson, Norman (1988). A functional approach to person cognition. In Thomas K. Srull and Robert R. Wyer (eds.),Advances in Social Cognition: A Dual-Process Model of Impression Formation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, Dewey, and Davidson, P. E. (1943).Ballots and the Democratic Class Struggle. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bennett, W. Lance, and Salisbury, Bart R. (1987). Rational choice: The emerging paradigm in election studies.Research in Micropolitics 2: 1–30.Google Scholar
  4. Berelson, Bernard, Lazarsfeld, Paul F., and McPhee, William (1954).Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  5. Brody, Richard A., and Page, Benjamin (1972). The Assessment of policy voting.American Political Science Review 66: 221–235.Google Scholar
  6. Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E. and Stokes, Donald E. (1960).The American Voter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  7. Campbell, Angus, Gurin, Gerald, and Miller, Warren E. (1954).The Voter Decides. Evanston, IL: Row Peterson.Google Scholar
  8. Conover, P. J., and Feldman, S. (1986). The role of inference in the perception of political candidates. In R. R. Lau and D. O. Sears (eds.),Political Cognition: The 19th Annual Carnegie Symposium. (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  9. Downs, Anthony (1957).An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Co.Google Scholar
  10. Eldersveld, Samuel J. (1951). Theory and method in voting behavior research.Journal of Politics 13(1): 70–87. Reprinted in Eulau, Heinz, et al., eds. (1956).Political Behavior. Glencoe, IL: Free Press, pp. 267–274.Google Scholar
  11. Enelow, James M., and Hinich, Melvin J. (1985).The Spatial Theory of Voting: An Introduction. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Gant, Michael, and Davis Dwight (1984). Mental economy and voter rationality: The informed citizen problem in voting research.Journal of Politics 46: 132–153.Google Scholar
  13. Gosnell, Harold F. (1930).Why Europe Votes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  14. Gosnell, Harold F. (1942).Grass Roots Politics Washington, DC: American Council on Public Affairs.Google Scholar
  15. Granberg, Donald (1985). An anomaly in political perception.Public Opinion Quarterly 99: 504–516.Google Scholar
  16. Granberg, Donald, and Brent, E. (1980). Perceptions of political candidates.American Scientists 68: 617–625.Google Scholar
  17. Hamilton, D. L. (1981).Cognitive Processes in Stereotyping and Intergroup Behavior. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  18. Hastie, Reid (1988). A computer simulation model of person memory.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 24(5): 423–447.Google Scholar
  19. Hastie, Reid, and Park, Bernadette (1986). The relationship between memory and judgment depends on whether the task is memory-based or on-line.Psychological Review 93: 258–268.Google Scholar
  20. Herstein, John A. (1981). Keeping the voter's limits in mind: A cognitive process analysis of decision making in voting.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 40: 843–861.Google Scholar
  21. Johnson, Joel, and Judd, Charles (1983). Overlooking the incongruent: Categorization biases in the identification of political statements.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45(5): 978–996.Google Scholar
  22. Kelley, Stanley (1983).Interpreting Elections. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Kelley, Stanley, Jr., and Mirer, Thad W. (1974). The simple act of voting.American Political Science Review 68: 572–591.Google Scholar
  24. Key, V. O., and Munger, Frank (1956). Social determinism and electoral decision: The case of Indiana. In Eugene Burdick and Arthur Brodbeck (eds.),American Voting Behavior. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  25. Kinder, Donald (1978). Political person perception: The asymmetric influences of sentiment and choice on percpetions of political candidates.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 8: 859–871.Google Scholar
  26. Krosnick, Jon (1988). Psychological perspectives on political candidate perception: A review of the literature on the projection hypothesis. Paper presented at the Midwest Political Science Association Meeting, Chicago, Illinois, April.Google Scholar
  27. Lazarsfeld, Paul F., Berelson, Bernard, and Gaudet, H. (1944).The People's Choice. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Lodge, Milton, McGraw, Kathleen and Stroh, Patrick (1989). An impression-driven model of candidate evaluation.American Political Science Review 83(2): in press.Google Scholar
  29. Marcus, Gregory B., and Converse, Philip E. (1979). A dynamic simultaneous equation model of electoral choice.American Political Science Review 73: 1053–1070.Google Scholar
  30. McKelvey, Richard D., and Ordeshook, Peter C. (1986). Information, electoral equilibria, and the democratic ideal.Journal of Politics 48: 909–937.Google Scholar
  31. Natchez, Peter B. (1985).Images of Voting/Visions of Democracy. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  32. Nisbett, Richard, and Ross, L. (1980).Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  33. Ostrom, Thomas G. (1988). Computer simulation: The third symbol system.Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology 24: 381–392.Google Scholar
  34. Page, Benjamin I. (1977). Elections and social choice: The state of the evidence.American Journal of Political Science 21: 639–668.Google Scholar
  35. Rossi, Peter (1959). Four landmarks in voting research. In Eugene Burdick and Arthur Brodbeck (eds.),American Voting Behavior. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Google Scholar
  36. Sebald, Howard (1962). Limitations in communication: Mechanisms of image maintenance in form of selective perception, selective memory and selective distortion.Journal of Communication 12: 142–149.Google Scholar
  37. Shaffer, William (1974).Computer Simulations of Voting Behavior. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Simon, Herbert A. (1985). Human nature in politics: The dialgoue of psychology with political science.American Political Science Review 79(2): 293–304.Google Scholar
  39. Tingsten, Herbert (1937).Political Behavior. London: L. P. S. King & Son, Ltd.Google Scholar
  40. Wyer, Robert, and Srull, Thomas (1986). Human cognition in its social context.Psychological Review 93: 322–359.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Milton Lodge
    • 1
  • Patrick Stroh
    • 2
  • John Wahlke
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceSUNY at Stony BrookStony Brook
  2. 2.New York UniversityUSA
  3. 3.University of ArizonaUSA

Personalised recommendations