Advertisement

Politisches Lernen im Wahlkampf bei der Bundestagswahl 2009

  • Sascha Huber
Chapter
Part of the Veröffentlichung des Arbeitskreises "Wahlen und politische Einstellungen" der Deutschen Vereinigung für Politische Wissenschaft (DVPW) book series (DVPW)

Zusammenfassung

Parteien führen Wahlkämpfe, um möglichst viele Wähler zu beeinflussen und am Ende möglichst viele Wählerstimmen zu erhalten. Das eigene Programm wird möglichst ansprechend dargestellt, die Positionen anderer Parteien möglicherweise unfair attackiert, politische Streitfragen werden verkürzt und in Bezugsrahmen gestellt, von denen die Parteien denken, sie nützten ihnen am meisten, bei anderen Streitfragen wird versucht, sie von der Agenda zu nehmen oder möglichst unkonkrete Aussagen zu treffen.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. Alvarez, Richard M. (1997). Information and elections. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  2. Ansolabehere, Stephen und Shanto Iyengar (1995). Going Negative: How Attack Ads Shrink and Polarize the Electorate. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  3. Arceneaux, Kevin (2006). Do Campaigns Help Voters Learn? A Cross-National Analysis, in: British Journal of Political Science 36: 159–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barabas, Jason und Jennifer Jerit (2009). Estimating the Causal Effects of Media Coverage on Policy-Specific Knowledge, in: American Journal of Political Science 53:73–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bartels, Larry M. (1993). Messages Received: The Political Impact of Media Exposure, in: American Political Science Review 87: 267–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bartels, Larry. M. (1988). Presidential primaries and the dynamics of public choice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Berelson, Bernard R., Paul F. Lazarsfeld und William N. McPhee (1954).Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  8. Berinsky, Adam and Donald R. Kinder (2006). Making Sense of Issues Through Media Frames: Understanding the Kosovo Crisis, in: The Journal of Politics 68: 640–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bizer , George Y., Jon A. Krosnick, Allyson L. Holbrook, Christian Wheeler, Derek D. Rucker und Richard E (2004). The Impact of Personality on Cognitive, Behavioral, and Affective Political Processes: The Effect of Need to Evaluate, in: Journal of Personality 72: 995–1028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bless , Herbert , Gerald L Clore, Norbert Schwarz, Verena Golisano, Christina Rabe , und Marcus Wölk (1996). Mood and the Use of Scripts: Does a Happy Mood Really Lead to Mindlessness?, in: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71: 665–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bodenhausen, Gale V., Geoffrey P. Kramer, und Karin Süsser (1994). Happiness and Stereotypic Thinking in Social Judgment, in: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 66: 621–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brewer, Paul R. und Kimberly Gross (2005). Values, Framing, and Citizens’ Thoughts about policy Issues: Effects on Content and Quantity, in: Political Psychology 26: 929–948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brians, Craig L., und Martin P. Wattenberg (1996). Campaign Issue Knowledge and Salience: Comparing Reception from TV Commercials, TV News, and Newspapers, in: American Journal of Political Science 40: 172–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cacioppo, John T. und Richard E. Petty (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition, in: Journal of Personality Assessment 48: 306–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cacioppo, John T., Richard E. Petty, Jeffrey A. Feinstein und W. Blair Jarvis (1996). Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition, in: Psychological Bulletin 119: 197–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Campbell, James E. und James C. Garand. (1999). Before the Vote: Forecasting American National Elections Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  17. Chong, Dennis und James N. Druckman (2007). Framing Theory, in: Annual Review of Political Science 10: 103–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Conover , Pamela Johnston, Donald D. Searing und Ivor. Crewe(2002). The Deliberative Potential of Political Discussion, in: British Journal of Political Science 32: 21–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Converse, Philip E. (1964). The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics, in: David E. Apter (Hg.) Ideology and Discontent. New York: Free Press. pp.206–261.Google Scholar
  20. Delli Carpini, Michael X. und Scott Keeter (1996). What Americans Know About Politics and Why It Matters. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Druckman James N. (2003). Media Matter: How Newspapers and Television News Cover Campaigns and Influence Voters, in: Political Communication 22: 463–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Druckman, James. N. (2004). Political Preference Formation: Competition, Deliberation, and the (Ir)relevance of Framing Effects, in: American Political Science Review 98: 671–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Druckman, James. N. und Kjersten R. Nelson (2003). Framing and Deliberation: How Citizens’ Conversations Limit Elite Influence, in: American Journal of Political Science 47, 729–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Entman, Robert M. (1993). Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm, in: Journal of Communication 43: 51–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Faas, Thorsten und Jürgen Maier (2004). Mobilisierung, Verstärkung, Konversion? Ergebnisse eines Experiments zur Wahrnehmung der Fernsehmodelle im Vorfeld der Bundestagswahl 2002, in: Politische Vierteljahresschrift 45: 55–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Faas, Thorsten und Jürgen Maier (2011). Medienwahlkampf: Sind TV-Duelle nur Show und damit nutzlos?, in: Evelyn Bytzek und Sigrid Roßteutscher (Hg.) Der unbekannte Wähler? Mythen und Fakten über das Wahlverhalten der Deutschen. Frankfurt am Main: Campus. pp.99–113.Google Scholar
  27. Farrell, David M, und Rüdiger Schmitt-Beck, Hg., (2002). Do Political Campaigns Matter? Campaign Effects in Elections and Referendums. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Finkel, Steven E. (1993) Re-examining the “Minimal Effects” Model in Recent Presidential Campaigns, in: Journal of Politics 55: 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Frazer, Elizabeth und Kenneth Macdonald (2003) Sex Difference in Political Knowledge in Britain, in: Political Studies 51: 67–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gelman, Andrew und Gary King (1993). Why are American Presidential Election Campaign Polls So Variable When Votes are So Predictable? British Journal of Political Science 23: 409–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Graber, Doris A. (2004). Mediated Politics and Citizenship in the Twenty-First Century, in: Annual Review of Psychology 55: 545–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hermans, Dirk, Jan De Houwer, und Paul Eelen (2001). The affective priming effect: Automatic activation of evaluative information in memory, in: Cognition and Emotion 8: 515–533.Google Scholar
  33. Holbrook, Thomas M. (2006) Cognitive Style and Political Learning in the 2000 U.S. Presidential Campaign, in: Political Research Quarterly 59:343–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Huckfeldt, Robert, Paul E. Johnson und John Sprague (2004). Political Disagreement. The Survival of Diverse Opinions within Communication Networks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Huddy , Leonie , Stanley Feldman, Charles Taber , und Gallya Lahav (2005). Threat, Anxiety, and Support for Antiterrorism Policies, in: American Journal of Political Science 49: 593–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Iyengar Shanto (1991). Is Anyone Responsible?: How Television Frames Political Issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jacoby, William G. (2000). Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending, in: American Journal of Political Science 44: 750–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jarvis, Blair und Richard Petty (1996) The need to evaluate, in: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70: 172–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kim, Joohan, Robert O. Wyatt und Elihu Katz (1999). News, Talk, Opinion, Participation: The Part Played by Conversation in Deliberative Democracy, in: Political Communication 16: 361–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kinder, Donald R. and Lynn M. Sanders (1996). Divided by Color: Racial Politics and Democratic Ideals. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  41. Kruglanski, Arie, Donna M. Webster und Adena Klem (1993). Motivated resistance and openness to persuasion in the presence or absence of prior information, in: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65: 861–876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lachat, Richard und Pascal Sciarini (2002). When do election campaigns matter, and to whom? Results from the 1999 Swiss election panel study, in: Farrell, David M und Rüdiger Schmitt-Beck (Hg.) Do Political Campaigns Matter? Campaign Effects in Elections and Referendums. London: Routledge. pp. 41–57.Google Scholar
  43. Lanoue, David J. (1992) One that made a difference: Cognitive Consistency, Political Knowledge and the 1980 Debate, in: Public Opinion Quarterly 56:168–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lazarsfeld, Paul, Bernard Berelson, und Hazel Gaudet (1944). The People‘s Choice. How the Voter Makes Up his Mind in a Presidential Campaign. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  45. MacKuen , Michael , George Marcus, W.Russell Neuman , und Luke Keele (2007). The Third Way: The Theory of Affective Intelligence and American Democracy, in: W. Russel Neuman, et al. (Hg.) The Affect Effect. Dynamics of Emotion in Political Thinking and Behavior. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. pp. 124–151.Google Scholar
  46. Marcus, George E., W. Russell Neuman, und Michael MacKuen (2000). Affective Intelligence and Political Judgment. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  47. Miller, W. (1990). How Voters Change: The 1987 British Election Campaign in Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Mondak, Jeffrey und Mary R. Anderson (2004) The Knowledge Gap: A Reexamination of Gender-Based Differences in Political Knowledge, in: Journal of Politics 66: 492–512.Google Scholar
  49. Nelson, Thomas E., Rosalee A. Clawson und Zoe M. Oxley (1997). Media Framing of a Civil Liberties Conflict and Its Effect on Tolerance, in: American Political Science Review 91: 567–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Norris, Pippa und David Sanders (2003). Message or Medium? Campaign Learning During the 2001 British General Election, in: Political Communication 20: 233–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Patterson, Thomas E. und Robert D. McClure (1976). The Unseeing Eye: The Myth of Television Power in National Politics. New York: Putnam.Google Scholar
  52. Poguntke Thomas und Paul Webb (2005). The Presidentialization of Politics. A Comparative Study of Modern Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Prior, Markus (2005). News vs. Entertainment: How Increasing Media Choice widens Gaps in Political Knowledge and Turnout, in: American Journal of Political Science 49: 557–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Riker, William H. (1986). The Art of Political Manipulation. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Sabato, L. J., Mark Stencel und S. Robert Lichter. (2000). Peep show: Media and politics in an age of scandal. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  56. Schwarz, Norbert (2000). Emotion, Cognition, and Decision Making, in: Cognition and Emotion 14: 433–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Shepsle, Kenneth A. (1972). The Strategy of Ambiguity: Uncertainty and Electoral Competition, in: American Political Science Review 66: 555–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sigelman, L. und David Bullock (1991). Candidates, issues, horse races, and hoopla: Presidential campaign coverage, 1888–1988, in: American Politics Quarterly 19: 5–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sniderman, Paul M. und Sean M. Theriault (2004). The Structure of Political Argument and the Logic of Issue Framing, in: Willem E. Saris und Paul Sniderman (Hg.) Studies in Public Opinion: Attitudes, Nonattitudes, Measurement Error and Change. Princeton: Princeton University Press. pp. 133–165.Google Scholar
  60. Stevenson, Randolph und Lynn Vavreck (2000). Does Campaign Length Matter? Testing for Cross-National Effects, in: British Journal of Political Science 30: 217–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tichenor, Philip, George A. Donuhue und Calice A. Olien (1970). Mass Flow and Differential Growth in Knowledge, in: Public Opinion Quarterly 34: 149–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Tomz, Michael und Robert P. van Houweling (2009) The Electoral Implicaitons of Candidate Ambiguity, in: American Political Science Review 103: 83–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Verba, Sidney, Nancy Burns, und Kay Lehman Schlozman (1997). Knowing and Caring About Politics: Gender and Political Engagement, in: Journal of Politics 59: 1051–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Viswanath, Kasisomayajula und John R. Finnegan (1996). The Knowledge Gap Hypothesis: Twenty-Five Years later, in: Brant Burleson (Hg.) Communication Yearbook. Thousand Oaks: Sage. pp.187–227.Google Scholar
  65. Weaver, David. und Dan Drew (1993). Voter learning in the 1990 off-year election: Did the media matter?, in: Journalism Quarterly, 70, 356–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Zaller, John R. (1992). The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.MannheimDeutschland

Personalised recommendations