Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Unmet Potential of Interdisciplinary Research: Political Psychological Approaches to Voting and Public Opinion

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Political Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Since its founding, political science has embraced interdisciplinary research. Yet there exist few, if any, systematic assessments of the success of these endeavors. We assess what is often seen as a paradigm of interdisciplinary collaboration: political psychological research on voting and public opinion. Surprisingly, we find little evidence of true interdisciplinary work; instead, we uncover misused concepts and scant evidence of conceptual or disciplinary integration. We conclude with suggestions for how to improve interdisciplinary research on voting and public opinion, and more generally.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Consistent with this implication, it has become fairly common for scholars with a Ph.D. in psychology to hold their main academic appointment in a department of political science, but it is rare for scholars with a Ph.D. in political science to hold their main academic appointment in a department of psychology. Herbert Simon was one such rare case, but we are hard-pressed to think of others.

  2. This is particularly true for heuristics, media priming, and on-line processing; because motivated reasoning has emerged more recently in political science (e.g., Taber and Lodge 2006), the centrality of its status is less certain. One of the central concepts we are not considering is emotion; our impression is that a thorough examination of extant political science research might reveal dynamics similar to what we observe for our four concepts (for discussion, see Druckman and McDermott 2008, pp. 301–302).

  3. Alternatively, Lenz (2009) argues that media priming is in fact akin to learning.

  4. Lodge et al. (1989) focus much of their attention on Kelley and Mirer’s (1974, p. 574) model, in which “The voter canvasses his likes and dislikes of the leading candidates and major parties involved in an election. Weighing each like and dislike equally, he votes for the candidate toward whom he has the greatest number of net favorable attitudes.” However, Lodge et al. (1989, p. 417) also note the contrast with rational choice, stating “It is increasingly evident that citizens are not well informed and cannot engage in the computations required by most theories of voter rationality. We add to this the caveat that candidate memory is distorted by systematic biases that stem directly from impression-driven processing. However, from a cognitive perspective, these consequences of impression-driven evaluation are a natural and (dare we say) ‘reasonable’ way to compensate for the severe limitations on human information processing that render models of unbounded rationality psychologically unrealistic.”

  5. The basic idea of motivated reasoning was not new to political science (e.g., Sears and Whitney 1973), but there had previously been no grounded theory.

  6. One is, however, more likely to engage in motivated reasoning when one’s OL tally is strong (Lodge and Taber 2000, p. 211).

  7. However, for further development of the model in yet to be published papers, see Lodge et al. (2008), and Taber et al. (2009). Also, see Braman and Nelson (2007), which was published after 2006, the cut-off year in our content analysis.

  8. That other individual difference variables significantly matter is made clear by the aforementioned research by McGraw and her colleagues.

  9. Another possible hurdle to integration is that the methods and measures used in psychology often differ from those employed in political science. For example, response latency measures are more common in psychology, and many psychological measures are captured with lengthier batteries of questions (e.g., the original need-to-evaluate measure uses 16 items, versus the two or three used on the National Election Study). It is important for scholars from each discipline to consider such differences when collaborating and integrating.

  10. Psychologists do explore other concepts that clearly fall within the realm of political behavior, such as collective guilt, intergroup conflict, and ideology/values (e.g., Schwartz 1994; Branscombe and Doosje 2004; Jost et al. 2008). However, much of this work has not penetrated very deeply into political science.

  11. Some recent political science studies that explore over-time processes include Mutz and Reeves (2005); Gerber et al. (2007); Chong and Druckman (2008).

  12. Interestingly, the three examples we explore—heuristics, media priming, and on-line processing/motivated reasoning—all entered the political science literature due to collaborative projects involving political scientists and psychologists (e.g., Sniderman and Tetlock, Iyengar and Kinder, Lodge and McGraw). There are some positive signs of further movement in this direction. For example, applications for the Summer Institute for the Study of Political Psychology are now largely split between the two disciplines (personal communication); the National Election Studies board of overseers is now made up of scholars from multiple disciplines; and psychologists and political behavior scholars have shown considerable recent interest in the phenomena of implicit and explicit priming (e.g., Althaus and Kim 2006; Lodge et al. 2008).

References

  • Allen, B., O’Loughlin, P., Jasperson, A., & Sullivan, J. L. (1994). The media and the Gulf War: Framing, priming, and the spiral of silence. Polity, 27, 255–284. doi:10.2307/3235175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Althaus, S. L., & Kim, Y. M. (2006). Priming effects in complex environments. The Journal of Politics, 68, 960–976. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00483.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, N. H., & Hubert, S. (1963). Effects of concomitant verbal recall on order effects in personality impression formation. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 2, 379–391. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(63)80039-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bargh, J. A., Bond, R., Lombardi, W., & Tota, M. (1986). The additive nature of chronic and temporary sources of construct accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 869–878. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.5.869.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartels, L. M. (1996). Uninformed votes: Information effects in presidential elections. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 194–230. doi:10.2307/2111700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartels, L. M. (2003). Democracy with attitudes. In M. B. MacKuen & G. Rabinowitz (Eds.), Electoral democracy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berelson, B. R., Lazarsfeld, P. F., & McPhee, W. N. (1954). Voting: A study of opinion formation in a presidential campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birnbaum, P. H. (1981). Integration and specialization in academic research. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 487–503. doi:10.2307/255570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bizer, G. Y., Krosnick, J. A., Holbrook, A. L., Wheller, S. C., Rucker, D. D., & Petty, R. E. (2004). The impact of personality on cognitive, behavioral, and affective political processes: The effects of need to evaluate. Journal of Personality, 72, 995–1027. doi:10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00288.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bizer, G. Y., Tormala, Z. L., Rucker, D. D., & Petty, R. E. (2006). Memory-based versus on-line processing: Implications for attitude strength. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 646–653. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2005.09.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bohman, J. (1998). Survey article: The coming age of deliberative democracy. Journal of Political Philosophy, 6, 400–425. doi:10.1111/1467-9760.00061.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braman, E. (2006). Reasoning on the threshold: Testing separability of preferences in legal decision making. The Journal of Politics, 68, 308–321. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00408.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braman, E., & Nelson, T. E. (2007). Mechanism of motivated reasoning?: Analogical perception in discrimination disputes. American Journal of Political Science, 51, 940–956. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00290.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Branscombe, N. R., & Doosje, B. (Eds.). (2004). Collective guilt. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Briñol, P., & Petty, R. E. (2005). Individual differences in attitude change. In D. Albarracín, B. T. Johnson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes and attitude change. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaiken, S., & Trope, Y. (Eds.). (1999). Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chong, D. (1993). How people think, reason, and feel about rights and liberties. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 867–899. doi:10.2307/2111577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chong, D. (2007). The value of information and endorsements. Unpublished paper, Northwestern University.

  • Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 103–126. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.072805.103054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2008). Dynamic public opinion: Framing effects over time. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, MA, August 28–August 31.

  • Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research. (2005). Facilitating interdisciplinary research. Washington: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. E. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and discontent. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Converse, P. E. (2000). Assessing the capacity of mass electorates. Annual Review of Political Science, 3, 331–353. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.3.1.331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: HarperCollins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Druckman, J. N. (2004). Political preference formation: Competition, deliberation, and the (ir)relevance of framing effects. The American Political Science Review, 98, 671–686. doi:10.1017/S0003055404041413.

    Google Scholar 

  • Druckman, J. N., Jacobs, L. R., & Ostermeier, E. (2004). Candidate strategies to prime issues and image. The Journal of Politics, 66, 1180–1202. doi:10.1111/j.0022-3816.2004.00295.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Druckman, J. N., & Lupia, A. (2000). Preference formation. Annual Review of Political Science, 3, 1–24. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.3.1.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Druckman, J. N., & Lupia, A. (2006). Mind, will, and choice: Lessons From experiments in contextual variation”. In R. E. Goodin & C. Tilly (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of contextual political analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Druckman, J. N., & McDermott, R. (2008). Emotion and the framing of risky choice. Political Behavior, 30, 297–321. doi:10.1007/s11109-008-9056-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Druckman, J. N., & Nelson, K. R. (2003). Framing and deliberation. American Journal of Political Science, 47, 728–744. doi:10.1111/1540-5907.00051.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, W., Lindman, H., & Savage, L. J. (1963). Bayesian statistical inference for psychological research. Psychological Review, 38, 193–242. doi:10.1037/h0044139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fazio, R. H. (1995). Attitudes as object-evaluation associations. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fazio, R. H. (2000). Accessible attitudes as tools for object appraisal: Their costs and benefits. In G. R. Maio & J. M. Olson (Eds.), Why we evaluate: Functions of attitudes. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fazio, R. H. (2007). Attitudes as object-evaluation associations of varying strength. Social Cognition, 25, 603–637. doi:10.1521/soco.2007.25.5.603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Federico, C. M., & Schneider, M. C. (2007). Political expertise and the use of ideology: Moderating effects of evaluative motivation. Public Opinion Quarterly, 71, 221–252. doi:10.1093/poq/nfm010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferejohn, J. A., & Kuklinski, J. H. (Eds.). (1990). Information and democratic processes. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiorina, M. (1981). Retrospective voting in American elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaines, B. J., Kuklinski, J. H., & Quirk, P. J. (2007). The logic of the survey experiment reexamined. Political Analysis, 15, 1–20. doi:10.1093/pan/mpl008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerber, A., Gimpel, J. G., Green, D. P., & Shaw, D. R. (2007). The influence of television and radio advertising on candidate evaluations: Results from a large scale randomized experiment. Unpublished paper, Yale University.

  • Gilovich, T., & Griffin, D. (2002). Introduction—Heuristics and biases: Then and now. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goren, P. (2002). Character weakness, partisan bias, and presidential evaluation. American Journal of Political Science, 46, 627–641. doi:10.2307/3088404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hastie, R., & Park, B. (1986). The relationship between memory and judgment depends on whether the judgment task is memory-based or online. Psychological Review, 93, 258–268. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.93.3.258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, E. T. (1996). Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, E. T., & King, G. (1981). Social constructs: Information-processing consequences of individual and contextual variability”. In N. Cantor & J. F. Kihlstrom (Eds.), Personality, cognition, and social interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, E. T., Rholes, W. S., & Jones, C. R. (1977). Category accessibility and impression formation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 13, 141–154. doi:10.1016/S0022-1031(77)80007-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holbrook, T. M. (2006). Cognitive style and political learning in the 2000 US presidential campaign. Political Research Quarterly, 59, 343–352. doi:10.1177/106591290605900302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huckfeldt, R., Johnson, P. E., & Sprague, J. (2004). Political disagreement: The survival of diverse opinions within communication networks. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Iyengar, S., & Kinder, D. R. (1987). News that matters: Television and American opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iyengar, S., Kinder, D. R., Peters, M. D., & Krosnick, J. A. (1984). The evening news and presidential evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 778–787. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.46.4.778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackman, S., & Sniderman, P. M. (2002). The institutional organization of choice spaces: A political conception of political psychology. In K. Monroe (Ed.), Political psychology. Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarvis, W. B., & Petty, R. E. (1996). The need to evaluate. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 172–194. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.1.172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., Nosek, B. A., & Gosling, S. D. (2008). Ideology: Its resurgence in social, personality, and political psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 126–136. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2008.00070.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (Eds.). (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kam, C. D. (2005). Who toes the party line?: Cues, values, and individual differences. Political Behavior, 27, 163–182. doi:10.1007/s11109-005-1764-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, S., Jr, & Mirer, T. W. (1974). The simple act of voting. The American Political Science Review, 68, 572–591. doi:10.2307/1959506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kinder, D. R. (1998). Opinion and action in the realm of politics. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinder, D. R., & Sears, D. O. (1985). Public opinion and political action. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (3rd ed.). New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krosnick, J. A. (2002). Is political psychology sufficiently psyhological: Distinghuishing political psychology from psychological political science. In J. H. Kuklinksi (Ed.), Thinking about political psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuklinski, J. H. (Ed.). (2001). Citizens and politics: Perspectives from political psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuklinski, J. H. (Ed.). (2002). Thinking about political psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuklinski, J. H., & Jerit, J. (2001). Commentary. In J. H. Kuklinski (Ed.), Citizens and politics: Perspectives from political psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuklinski, J. H., & Quirk, P. J. (2000). Reconsidering the rational public: Cognition, heuristics, and mass opinion”. In A. Lupia, M. D. McCubbins, & S. L. Popkin (Eds.), Elements of reason: Understanding and expanding the limits of political rationality. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuklinski, J. H., Quirk, P. J., Jerit, J., & Rich, R. F. (2001). The political environment and citizen competence. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 410–424. doi:10.2307/2669349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480–498. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lasswell, H. D. (1946). Describing the contents of communication. In B. L. Smith, H. D. Lasswell, & R. D. Casey (Eds.), Propaganda, communication, and public opinion. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2006). How voters decide: Information processing in election campaigns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenz, G. S. (2009). Learning and opinion change, not priming: Reconsidering the evidence for the priming hypothesis. American Journal of Political Science, 53 (forthcoming).

  • Lippmann, W. (1922). Public opinion. New York: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lodge, M. (1995). Toward a procedural model of candidate evaluation. In M. Lodge & K. M. McGraw (Eds.), Political judgment: Structure and process. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lodge, M., McGraw, K. M., & Stroh, P. (1989). An impression-driven model of candidate evaluation. The American Political Science Review, 83, 399–420. doi:10.2307/1962397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lodge, M., Steenbergen, M. R., & Brau, S. (1995). The responsive voter: Campaign information and the dynamics of candidate evaluation. The American Political Science Review, 89, 309–326. doi:10.2307/2082427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lodge, M., & Taber, C. S. (2000). Three steps toward a theory of motivated political reasoning. In A. Lupia, M. D. McCubbins, & S. L. Popkin (Eds.), Elements of reason: Cognition, choice, and the bounds of rationality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lodge, M., & Taber, C. S. (2008). The rationalizing voter: Unconscious thought in political information processing. Unpublished paper, Stony Brook University.

  • Lodge, M., Taber, C. S., & Burdein, I. (2008). The impact of self-identification on political attitudes: An experimental test employing subliminal priming. Unpublished Manuscript, Stony Brook University.

  • Lupia, A., & McCubbins, M. D. (1998). The democratic dilemma: Can citizens learn what they need to know?. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lupia, A., McCubbins, M. D., & Popkin, S. L. (2000). Beyond rationality: Reason and the study of politics. In A. Lupia, M. D. McCubbins, & S. L. Popkin (Eds.), Elements of reason: Understanding and expanding the limits of political rationality. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luskin, R. C. (2001). The heavenly public: What would be the ideal democratic citizenry be like. In G. Rabinowitz & M. B. MacKuen (Eds.), Electoral democracy. Ann Arbor, Mi: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald, P. K. (2003). Useful fiction or miracle maker: The competing epistemological foundations of rational choice theory. The American Political Science Review, 97, 551–565. doi:10.1017/S000305540300087X.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, L. L. (1986). Set/reset: Use and disuse of concepts in impression formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 493–504. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.3.493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, L. L., & Achee, J. W. (1992). Beyond accessibility: The role of processing objectives in judgment. In L. L. Martin & A. Tesser (Eds.), The construction of social judgments. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGraw, K. M. (2003). Political impressions: Formation and management. In D. O. Sears, L. Huddy, & R. Jervis (Eds.), Oxford handbook of political psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGraw, K. M. (2006). The infrastructure of political psychology. In L. Valenty (Ed.), Political psychology. Oplanden & Farmington Hills: Barbara Budich Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGraw, K. M., & Dolan, T. (2007). Personifying the state: Consequences for attitude formation. Political Psychology, 28, 299–328. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2007.00570.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGraw, K. M., Hasecke, E., & Conger, K. (2003). Ambivalence, uncertainty, and processes of candidate evaluation. Political Psychology, 24, 421–448. doi:10.1111/0162-895X.00335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGraw, K. M., Lodge, M., & Stroh, P. (1990). On-line processing in candidate evaluation: The effects of issue order, issue salience, and sophistication. Political Behavior, 12, 41–58. doi:10.1007/BF00992331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mendelsohn, M. (1996). The media and interpersonal communication: The priming of issues, leaders, and party identification. The Journal of Politics, 58, 112–125. doi:10.2307/2960351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. M., & Krosnick, J. A. (2000). News media impact on the ingredients of presidential evaluations: Politically knowledgeable citizens are guided by a trusted source. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 295–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monroe, K. (Ed.). (2002). Political psychology. Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mutz, D. C. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mutz, D. C., & Reeves, B. (2005). The new videomalaise: Effects of televised incivility on political trust. The American Political Science Review, 99, 1–15. doi:10.1017/S0003055405051452.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, T. E., Clawson, R. A., & Oxley, Z. M. (1997). Media framing of a civil liberties conflict and its effect on tolerance. The American Political Science Review, 91, 567–583. doi:10.2307/2952075.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. D. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Keefe, D. J. (2002). Persuasion (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oppenheim, P., & Putnam, H. (1958). Unity of science as a working hypothesis. In H. Fiegel, M. Scriven, & G. Maxwell (Eds.), Studies in the philosophy of science (Vol. II). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Page, B. I., & Shapiro, R. Y. (1992). The rational public: Fifty years of trends in Americans’ policy preferences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1993). The adaptive decision maker. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popkin, S. L. (1991). The reasoning voter: Communication and persuasion in presidential campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Proceedings of the American Political Science Association. (1904). The organization of the American Political Science Association. Proceedings of the American Political Science Association, 1, 5–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rahn, W. M., Aldrich, J. H., & Borgida, E. (1994). Individual and contextual variations in political candidate appraisal. The American Political Science Review, 88, 193–199. doi:10.2307/2944891.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Redlawsk, D. (2001). Hot cognition or cool consideration: Testing the effects of motivated reasoning on political decision making. The Journal of Politics, 64, 1021–1044.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riker, W. H. (1995). The political psychology of rational choice theory. Political Psychology, 16, 23–44. doi:10.2307/3791448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riker, W. H. (1996). The strategy of rhetoric: Campaigning for the American constitution. New Haven: Yale University Press.

  • Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and content of human values? The Journal of Social Issues, 50, 19–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sears, D. O., Huddy, L., & Jervis, R. (Eds.). (2003). Oxford handbook of political psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sears, D. O., & Whitney, R. W. (1973). Political persuasion. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherif, M., & Sherif, C. W. (Eds.). (1969). Interdisciplinary relationships in the social sciences. Chicago: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, S. J., Mackie, D. M., & Driscoll, D. M. (1990). Priming and the differential use of dimensions in evaluation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 405–418. doi:10.1177/0146167290163001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1957). Models of man. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1963). Problems of methodology. American Economic Review Proceedings, 53, 229–231. Discussion.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sniderman, P. M. (2000). Taking sides: A fixed choice theory of political reasoning. In A. Lupia, M. D. McCubbins, & S. L. Popkin (Eds.), Elements of reason: Cognition, choice, and the bounds of rationality. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sniderman, P. M., Brody, R. A., & Tetlock, P. E. (1991). Reasoning and choice: Explorations in political psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Somin, I. (2006). Knowledge about ignorance: New directions in the study of political information. Critical Review, 18, 255–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stapel, D., Koomen, W., & Zeelenberg, M. (1998). The impact of accuracy motivation on interpretation, comparison, and correction processes: Accuracy × knowledge accessibility effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 878–893. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.4.878.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taber, C. S. (2003). Information processing in public opinion. In D. O. Sears, L. Huddy, & R. Jervis (Eds.), Oxford handbook of political psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taber, C. S., Cann, A., & Kucsova, S. (2009). The motivated processing of political arguments. Unpublished paper, Stony Brook University.

  • Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluations of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 755–769. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taber, C. S., Lodge, M., & Glather, J. (2001). The motivated construction of political judgment. In J. H. Kuklinski (Ed.), Citizens and politics: Perspectives from political psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, S. E., & Fiske, S. T. (1978). Salience, attention, and attribution: Top-of-the-head phenomena. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 11). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tetlock, P. E. (1983). Accountability and complexity of thought. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 74–83. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.45.1.74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, E. P., Roman, R. J., Moskowitz, G. B., Chaiken, S., & Bargh, J. (1994). Accuracy motivation attenuates covert priming: The systematic reprocessing of social information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 474–489. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.66.3.474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. (2001). On-line versus memory-based processing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1599–1612. doi:10.1177/01461672012712004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131. doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Visser, P. S., Bizer, G. Y., & Krosnick, J. A. (2006). Exploring the latent structure of strength-related attitude attributes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 1–67. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38001-X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, E. O. (1998). Conscilience: The unity of knowledge. New York: Vintage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittman, D. (1995). The myth of democratic failure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wyer, R. S., Jr, & Srull, T. K. (1980). The processing of social stimulus information: A conceptual integration. In R. Hastie, T. Ostrom, E. Ebbesen, R. Wyer, D. Hamilton, & D. Carlston (Eds.), Person memory: The cognitive basis of social perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wyer, R. S., Jr, & Srull, T. K. (1981). Category accessibility: Some theoretical issues concerning the processing of social stimulus information”. In E. T. Higgins, C. P. Herman, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Social cognition: The Ontario symposium on personality and social psychology (Vol. 1). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wyer, R. S., Jr, & Srull, T. K. (1989). Memory and cognition in its social context. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Jon Krosnick, Milt Lodge, Kathleen McGraw, and Chuck Taber for helpful advice.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA

    James N. Druckman

  2. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL, USA

    James H. Kuklinski

  3. George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA

    Lee Sigelman

Authors
  1. James N. Druckman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. James H. Kuklinski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lee Sigelman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James N. Druckman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Druckman, J.N., Kuklinski, J.H. & Sigelman, L. The Unmet Potential of Interdisciplinary Research: Political Psychological Approaches to Voting and Public Opinion. Polit Behav 31, 485–510 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-009-9092-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-009-9092-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation