Political Behavior

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 5–32 | Cite as

Construct accessibility and electoral choice

  • Richard R. Lau


Chronic accessibility refers to a long-term bias to notice, process, and have available for recall certain types of information across a variety of different stimulus objects in a variety of different situations. This paper illustrates the usefulness of studying the chronic accessibility of political constructs in the field of political behavior. The chronic accessibility of four generic political constructs are operationalized: candidates, issues, groups, and parties. The accessibility of these four political constructs is shown to be relatively stable over time and to guide the processing of information about a wide variety of political objects. Next, a voting model is tested that identifieswhich voters will rely chiefly on issue orientations, group orientations, candidate orientations, and/or party orientations in making their vote decision. The voting model is validated across two distinct ways of operationalizing the political chronicities and three different election studies spanning a 28-year period. Finally, although this paper has focused onindividual political behavior, several ways that an information processing approach could shed light on macrolevel political questions are discussed.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bargh, J. A., and Pratto, F. (1986). Individual construct accessibility and perceptual selection.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 22: 293–311.Google Scholar
  2. Bargh, J. A. and Thein, R. D. (1985). Individual construct accessibility, person memory, and the recall-judgment link: the case of information overload.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 49: 1129–1146.Google Scholar
  3. Bentler, P. M. (1980). Multivariate analysis with latent variables: causal modeling.Annual Review of Psychology 31: 419–456.Google Scholar
  4. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E. and Stokes, D. E. (1960).The American Voter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  5. Campbell, A., Gurin, G. and Miller, W. E. (1954).The Voter Decides. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  6. Citrin, J. (1974). Comment: The political relevance of trust in government.American Political Science Review 68: 973–988.Google Scholar
  7. Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. E. Apter (ed.),Ideology and Discontent, pp. 206–261. London: Collier-Macmillan.Google Scholar
  8. Converse, P. E. (1975). Public opinion and voting behavior. In F. Geenstein and N. Polsby (eds.),Handbook of Political Science, Vol. 4, pp. 75–170. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  9. Downs, A. (1957).An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  10. Erber, R. and Lau, R. R. (1986). Political cynicism revisited: the role of political schemata in the decline of trust in government. Paper presented at the 82nd annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C., 1986.Google Scholar
  11. Herstein, J. A., Jr. (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
  12. Higgins, E. T. and King, G. A. (1981). Accessibility of social constructs: information-processing consequences of individual and contextual variability. In N. Cantor and J. F. Kihlstrom (eds.),Personality, Cognition, and Social Interaction, pp. 69–121. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  13. Higgins, E. T., King, G. A., and Mavin, G. H. (1982). Individual construct accessibility and subjective impression and recall.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 42: 35–47.Google Scholar
  14. Joreskog, K. G. and Sorbom, D. (1984).LISREL VI: Analysis of Linear Structural Relationships by the Method of Maximum Likelihood. Chicago: National Educational Resources.Google Scholar
  15. Kelly, G. A. (1955).The Psychology of Personal Constructs, Vols. 1 and 2. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  16. Kinder, D. R. (1986). Presidential character revisited. In R. R. Lau and D. O. Sears (eds.),Political Cognition: The 19th Annual Carnegie Symposium on Cognition, pp. 233–256. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  17. Kinder, D. R. and Kiewiet, D. R. (1979). Economic discontent and political behavior: the role of personal grievances and collective economic judgments in congressional voting.American Journal of Political Science 23: 495–527.Google Scholar
  18. Lasswell, H. D. (1936).Who Gets What, When, How. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  19. Lau, R. R. (1986). Political schemata, candidate evaluations and voting behavior. In R. R. Lau and D. O. Sears (eds.),Political Cognition, pp. 95–126. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  20. Lippman, W. (1922).Public Opinion. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  21. Markus, H. (1977). Self-schemata and processing information about the self.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 35: 63–78.Google Scholar
  22. Miller, A. H. (1974). Political issues and trust in government: 1964–1970.American Political Science Review 68: 951–972.Google Scholar
  23. Miller, A. H., Wattenberg, M. P., and Malanchuk, O. (1986). Schematic assessments of presidential candidates.American Political Science Review 80: 521–540.Google Scholar
  24. Sears, D. O., Lau, R. R., Tyler, T. R. and Allen, H. M., Jr. (1980). Self-interest vs. symbolic politics in policy attitudes and presidential voting.American Political Science Review 74: 670–684.Google Scholar
  25. Simon, H. A. (1985). Human nature in politics: the dialogue of psychology with political science.The American Political Science Review 79: 293–304.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard R. Lau
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Social & Decision SciencesCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburgh

Personalised recommendations