Political Behavior

, Volume 34, Issue 2, pp 345–368 | Cite as

On-line and Memory-based: Revisiting the Relationship Between Candidate Evaluation Processing Models

  • Young Mie KimEmail author
  • Kelly Garrett
Original Paper


Reexamining the relationship between the on-line and memory-based information processing models, this study presents a theoretical basis for the co-occurrence of on-line and memory-based processes and proposes a hybrid model. The study empirically tests the hybrid model by employing real-time tracking of participants’ reactions to two candidates in a US presidential primary election debate. The findings confirm an independent, but complementary relationship between on-line and memory-based information processing in an individual’s candidate evaluation and vote choice. The co-occurrence of the two modes applies to an individual’s comparison of candidates as well. The implications of the hybrid model for the functioning of democracy are discussed.


Hybrid model On-line information processing Memory-based information processing Candidate evaluation Vote choice Presidential election debate 



We would like to thank Prabu David for his support for data collection.


  1. An, S., Jin, H. S., & Pfau, M. (2006). The effects of issue advocacy advertising on voters’ candidate issue knowledge and turnout. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 83(1), 7–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bennett, W. L. (1996). News: The politics of illusion (7th ed.). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  3. Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 212–252). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  4. Chaiken, S., & Maheswaran, D. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: The effect of source credibility, argument ambiguity and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 460–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chaiken, S., & Trope, Y. (Eds.). (1999). Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  6. Chen, S., & Chaiken, S. (1999). The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 73–96). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  7. Chen, S., Shechter, D., & Chaiken, S. (1996). Getting at the truth or getting along: Accuracy- versus impression-motivated heuristic and systematic processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 262–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Epstein, S., & Pacini, R. (1999). Some basic issues regarding dual-process theories from the perspective of cognitive-experiential self-theory. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual process theories in social psychology (pp. 462–482). New York: Guilford Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1984). Social cognition. Reading Mass: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.Google Scholar
  11. Gans, H. (1979). Decidin what’s news: A study of CBSEvening news, NBC Nightly news, newsweek and time. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  12. Hallin, D. C. (1992). Sound bite news: Television coverage of elections, 1968–1988. Journal of Communication, 42(2), 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hamilton, D. L., Sherman, S. J., & Maddox, K. B. (1999). Dualities and continua: Implications for understanding perceptions of persons and groups. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual process theories in social psychology. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  14. Hastie, R., & Park, B. (1986). The relationship between memory and judgment depends on whether the judgment task is memory-based or on-line. Psychological Review, 93(3), 258–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hastie, R., & Pennington, N. (1989). Notes on the distinction between memory-based versus on-line judgments. In J. N. Bassili (Ed.), On-line cognition in person perception (pp. 1–17). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  16. Just, M. R., Crigler, A. N., Alger, D. E., & Cook, T. E. (1996). Crosstalk: Citizens, candidates, and the media in a presidential campaign. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  17. Kelley, S., Jr., & Mirer, T. W. (1974). The simple act of voting. American Political Science Review, 68(2), 572–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kelly, H. H. (1972). Attribution in social interaction. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, H. H. Kelly, R. E. Nisbet, S. Valins, & B. Weiner (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.Google Scholar
  19. Kim, S.-Y., Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2010). A computational model of citizens as motivated reasoner: Model of the dynamics of the 2000 Presidential election. Political Behavior, 32, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kim, Y. M., & Vishak, J. (2008). Just Laugh! You don’t need to remember: The Effects of entertainment media on political information acquisition and information processing in political judgment. Journal of Communication, 58, 338–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lau, R. R. (1995). Information search during an election campaign: Introducing a processing-tracing methodology for political scientists. In M. Lodge & K. M. McGraw (Eds.), Political judgment: structure and process (pp. 179–206). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  22. Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. (2001). An experimental study of information search, memory, and decision making during a presidential campaign. In J. H. Kuklinski (Ed.), Citizens and politics: perspectives from political psychology (pp. 136–159). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2006). How voters decide: Information processing during election campaigns. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lavine, H. (2002). On-line vs. memory-based process models of political evaluation. In K. R. Monroe (Ed.), Political psychology (pp. 225–247). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  25. Lodge, M., McGraw, K. M., & Stroh, P. (1989). An impression-driven model of candidate evaluation. American Political Science Review, 83(2), 399–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lodge, M., Steenbergen, M., & Brau, S. (1995). The Responsive Voter: Campaign information and the dynamics of candidate evaluation. American Political Science Review, 89(2), 309–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lodge, M., Taber, C., & Weber, C. (2006). First steps towards a dual-process accessibility model of political beliefs, attitudes, and behavior. In D. Redlawsk (Ed.), Feeling politics:Emotion in political information processing (Ch.2). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  28. McConnell, A. R., & Leibold, J. M. (2001). Relations among the implicit association test, discriminatory behavior, and explicit measures of racial attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37(5), 435–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McGraw, K. M. (2003). Political impressions: formation and management. In D. O. Sears, L. Huddy, & R. Jervis (Eds.), Oxford handbook of political psychology (pp. 394–432). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. McGraw, K. M., Hasecke, E., & Conger, K. (2003). Ambivalence, uncertainty, and processes of candidate evaluation. Political Psychology, 24(3), 421–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McGraw, K. M., Lodge, M., & Stroh, P. (1990). On-line processing in candidate evaluation: The effects of issue order, issue importance, and sophistication. Political Behavior, 12(1), 41–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rahn, W. M., Aldrich, J. H., & Borgida, E. (1994a). Individual and contextual variations in political candidate appraisal. American Political Science Review, 88(1), 193–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rahn, W. M., Krosnick, J. A., & Breuning, M. (1994b). Rationalization and derivation processes in survey studies of political candidate evaluation. American Journal of Political Science, 38(3), 582–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Redlawsk, D. (2001). You must remember this: A test of the on-line model of voting. Journal of Politics, 63(1), 29–58.Google Scholar
  35. Schudson, M. (1978). Discovering the news: A social history of American newspapers. New York: Basic.Google Scholar
  36. Schudson, M. (1998). The good citizen: A history of American public life. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  37. Sloman, S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Smith, E. R., & DeCoster, J. (1999). Associative and rule-based processing: A connectionist interpretation of dual-process models. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. xiii, 657 p). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  39. Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. (2002). What doesn’t kill me makes me stronger. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1298–1313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Uleman, J. S., Newman, L. S., & Moskowitz, G. B. (1996). People as flexible interpreters: Evidence and issues from spontaneous trait inference. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 28, pp. 179–211). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  42. Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35, 151–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zajonc, R. B. (2000). Feeling and thinking: Closing the debate over the independence of affect. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.), Feeling and thinking: The role of affect in social cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Zaller, J. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Zaller, J. R., & Feldman, S. (1992). A simple theory of the survey response: Answering questions versus revealing preferences. American Journal of Political Science, 36(3), 579–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA
  2. 2.Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations