Political Behavior

, Volume 27, Issue 2, pp 163–182 | Cite as

Who Toes the Party Line? Cues, Values, and Individual Differences


This article explores individual differences in citizens’ reliance on cues and values in political thinking. It uses experimental evidence to identify which citizens are likely to engage in heuristic processing and which citizens are likely to engage in systematic processing in developing opinions about a novel issue. The evidence suggests that political awareness crisply distinguishes between heuristic and systematic processors. The less politically aware rely on party cues and not on an issue-relevant value. As political awareness increases, reliance on party cues drops and reliance on an issue-relevant value rises. Need for cognition fails to yield clear results. The results suggest two routes to opinion formation: heuristic processing and systematic processing. Political awareness, not need for cognition, predicts which route citizens will take.


public opinion political psychology political awareness party cues dual-process models need for cognition. 


  1. Althaus, Scott L. 1998Information effects in collective preferencesAmerican Political Science Review92545558Google Scholar
  2. Bargh, John A. 1999

    The cognitive monster: the case against the controllability of automatic stereotype effects

    Shelly, ChaikenYaacov, Trope eds. Dual-Process Theories in Social PsychologyGuilfordNew York361382
    Google Scholar
  3. Bartels, Larry M. 1996Uninformed votes: information effects in presidential electionsAmerican Journal of Political Science40194230Google Scholar
  4. Bizer, George Y., Krosnick, Jon A., Petty, Richard E., Rucker, Derek D. and Wheeler, S. Christian (2000). Need for cognition and need to evaluate in the 1998 National Election Survey Pilot Study. Report to the Board of Overseers for the National Election StudiesGoogle Scholar
  5. Cacioppo, John T., Petty, Richard E. 1982The need for cognitionJournal of Personality and Social Psychology42116131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cacioppo, John T., Petty, Richard E., Feinstein, Jeffrey A., Jarvis, W. B. G. 1996Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: the life and times of individuals varying in need for cognitionPsychological Bulletin119197253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E. ([1960]1980). The American Voter: Unabridged Edition. Chicago: University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen, Serena, Chaiken, Shelly 1999

    The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context

    Shelly, ChaikenYaacov, Trope eds. Dual-Process Theories in Social PsychologyGuilfordNew York7396
    Google Scholar
  9. Chen, Serena, Shechter, David, Chaiken, Shelly 1996Getting at the truth or getting along: accuracy- versus impression-motivated heuristic and systematic processingJournal of Personality and Social Psychology71262275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clark, Herbert H., Schober, Michael F. 1992

    Asking questions and influencing answers

    Tanur, Judith M. eds. Questions About Questions: Inquiries into the Cognitive Bases of SurveysRussell Sage FoundationNew York1548
    Google Scholar
  11. Conover, Pamela Johnston, Feldman, Stanley 1989Candidate perception in an ambiguous world: campaigns, cues, and inference processesAmerican Journal of Political Science33912940Google Scholar
  12. Converse, Philip E. 1962Information flow and the stability of partisan attitudesPublic Opinion Quarterly26578599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Converse, Philip E. (1990). Popular representation and the distribution of information. In John A. Ferejohn and James H. Kuklinski (eds.), Information and Democratic Processes, pp. 369–388. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois PressGoogle Scholar
  14. Dewey, John ([1927]1954). The Public and its Problems. Athens, OH: Swallow PressGoogle Scholar
  15. Dewey, John ([1933]1997). How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process, Boston: D.C. Heath and CompanyGoogle Scholar
  16. Downs, Anthony 1957An Economic Theory of DemocracyHarperNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Druckman James, N. 2000Using credible advice to overcome framing effectsWashington, D.CPaper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science AssociationGoogle Scholar
  18. Druckman James, N., Nelson, Kjersten R. 2003Framing and deliberation: how citizens’ conversations limit elite influenceAmerican Journal of Political Science47729745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Egeland, Byron 1974Training impulsive children in the use of more efficient scanning techniquesChild Development45165171PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Fazio, Russell H. 1999

    The MODE model of attitude-behavior processes

    Shelly, ChaikenYaacov, Trope eds. Dual-Process Theories in Social PsychologyGuilfordNew York97116
    Google Scholar
  21. Feldman, Stanley 1988Structure and consistency in public opinion: the role of core beliefs and valuesAmerican Journal of Political Science32416440Google Scholar
  22. Feldman, Stanley 2003

    Values, ideology, and the structure of political attitudes

    David, O. SearsLeonie, HuddyRobert, Jervis eds. Oxford Handbook of Political PsychologyOxfordNew York477508
    Google Scholar
  23. Feldman, Stanley, Conover, Pamela J. 1983Candidates, issues, and voters: the role of inference in political perceptionJournal of Politics45810839Google Scholar
  24. Feldman, Stanley, Zaller, John R. 1992The political culture of ambivalenceAmerican Journal of Political Science36268307Google Scholar
  25. Gilens, Martin 2001Political ignorance and collective policy preferencesAmerican Political Science Review95379396Google Scholar
  26. Giner-Sorolla, Roger 1999

    Affect in attitude: immediate and deliberative perspectives

    Shelly, ChaikenYaacov, Trope eds. Dual-Process Theories in Social PsychologyGuilfordNew York441461
    Google Scholar
  27. Grice, H.P. 1975

    Logic and conversation

    Peter, ColeJerry, L. Morgan eds. Syntax and SematicsAcademic PressNew York4158
    Google Scholar
  28. Jacoby, William G. 1988The impact of party identification on issue attitudesAmerican Journal of Political Science32643661Google Scholar
  29. Kam, Cindy D. (2003). Thinking more or less: cognitive effort in the formation of public opinion. Ph.D. dissertation, University of MichiganGoogle Scholar
  30. Kinder, Donald R. 1983

    Diversity and complexity in American public opinion

    Ada, W. Finifter eds. Political Science: The State of the DisciplineAmerican Political Science AssociationWashington, D.C.389425
    Google Scholar
  31. Kinder, Donald R., Sanders, Lynn M. 1996Divided by ColorUniversity of Chicago PressChicagoGoogle Scholar
  32. Krosnick, Jon A. 1990Expertise and political psychologySocial Cognition818Google Scholar
  33. Kruglanski, Arie W., Webster, Donna M. 1996Motivated closing of the mind: ‘Seizing’ and ‘freezing’Psychological Bulletin103263283Google Scholar
  34. Kuklinski, James H., Hurley, Norman L. 1994On hearing and interpreting political messages: a cautionary tale of citizen cue-takingJournal of Politics56729751Google Scholar
  35. Lippmann, Walter ([1922]1997). Public Opinion. New York: Free PressGoogle Scholar
  36. Lupia, Arthur 1994Shortcuts versus encyclopedias: information and voting behavior in California insurance reform electionsAmerican Political Science Review886376Google Scholar
  37. Lupia, Arthur, McCubbins, Mathew 1998The Democratic DilemmaCambridge University PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  38. Lusk, Cynthia M., Judd, Charles M. 1988Political expertise and the structural mediators of candidate evaluationsJournal of Experimental Social Psychology24105126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McClosky, Herbert M., Zaller, John 1984The American Ethos: Public Attitudes Toward Capitalism and DemocracyHarvard University PressCambridge, M.A.Google Scholar
  40. McGraw, Kathleen M., Pinney, Neil, Neumann, David 1991Memory for political actors: contrasting the use of semantic and evaluative organizational strategiesPolitical Behavior13165189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mill, John Stuart ([1859]1998). On liberty. In John Gray (ed.), John Stuart Mill: On Liberty and Other Essays, pp. 1–128. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  42. Mondak, Jeffery J. 1993aPublic opinion and heuristic processing of source cuesPolitical Behavior15167192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mondak, Jeffery J. 1993bSource cues and policy approval: the cognitive dynamics of public support for the Reagan agendaAmerican Journal of Political Science37186212Google Scholar
  44. Mutz, Diana C. 1998Impersonal Influence: How Perceptions of Mass Collectives Affect Political AttitudesCambridge University PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  45. Perkins, David N., Farady, Michael, Bushey, Barbara 1991

    Everyday reasoning and the roots of intelligence

    James, F. VossDavid, N. PerkinsJudith, W. Segal eds. Informal Reasoning and EducationLawrence Erlbaum AssociatesHillsdale, NJ83105
    Google Scholar
  46. Petty, Richard E., Cacioppo, John T. 1981Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasionJournal of Personality and Social Psychology41847855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Petty, Richard E., Haugtvedt, Curtis P., Smith, Stephen M. 1995

    Elaboration as a determinant of attitude strength: creating attitudes that are persistent, resistant, and predictive of behavior

    Richard, E. PettyJon, A. Krosnick eds. Attitude Strength: Antecedents and ConsequencesLawrence Erlbaum AssociatesMahwah, NJ93130
    Google Scholar
  48. Petty, Richard E., Wegener, Duane T. 1999

    The elaboration likelihood model: current status and controversies

    Shelly, ChaikenYaacov, Trope eds. Dual-Process Theories in Social PsychologyGuilfordNew York4172
    Google Scholar
  49. Popkin, Samuel L. 1994The Reasoning Voter, Second EditionUniversity of ChicagoChicagoGoogle Scholar
  50. Rahn, Wendy 1993The role of partisan stereotypes in information processing about political candidatesAmerican Journal of Political Science37472496Google Scholar
  51. Sears, David O. 1986College sophomores in the laboratory: influences of a narrow data base on social psychology’s view of human natureJournal of Personality and Social Psychology51515530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Squire, Peverill, Smith, Eric R. A. N. 1988The effect of partisan information on voters in nonpartisan electionsJournal of Politics5016979Google Scholar
  53. Suchman, Lucy, Jordan, Brigitte 1990Interactional troubles in face-to-face survey interviewsJournal of the American Statistical Association85232241Google Scholar
  54. Sudman, Seymour, Bradburn, Norman M., Schwarz, Norbert 1996Thinking About Answers: The Application of Cognitive Processes to Survey MethodologyJossey-BassSan FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  55. Taber, Charles and Lodge, Milton (1999). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Atlanta, GAGoogle Scholar
  56. Tetlock, Phillip E. 1983Accountability and complexity of thoughtJournal of Personality and Social Psychology457483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Theiss-Morse, Elizabeth, Marcus, George E., Sullivan, John. 1993

    Passion and reason in political life: the organization of affect and cognition and political tolerance

    George, E. MarcusRussell, L. Hanson eds. Reconsidering the Democratic PublicThe Pennsylvania State University PressUniversity Park, PA249272
    Google Scholar
  58. Zaller, John R. 1990Political awareness, elite opinion leadership, and the mass survey responseSocial Cognition8125153Google Scholar
  59. Zaller John, R. 1992The Nature and Origins of Mass OpinionCambridge University PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of California–DavisDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations