Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T21:54:35.547Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3 - (Political) Impression Formation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2014

Stuart N. Soroka
Affiliation:
McGill University, Montréal
Get access

Summary

The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interr'd with their bones

– Shakespeare

A set of new investigations into negativity biases in public opinion begins here, with an analysis of U.S. presidential evaluations, building directly on models of impression formation in the psychological literature discussed in Chapter 1. As past work in psychology suggests, negative domain-specific evaluations matter more to overall U.S. presidential assessments than do positive domain-specific evaluations. Analyses demonstrating this fact, which follow in this chapter, are partly a replication of past work, albeit with considerably more data and a somewhat different approach to modeling the asymmetry. But subsequent analyses then extend considerably what we know about political impression formation. First, comparative results make clear that the same dynamic is evident in other countries, supporting the notion that the negativity bias is not just a U.S. phenomenon. Subsequent analyses reveal heterogeneity in negativity biases as well. In short, they make clear that some people rely more strongly on negative information than do others. A final section then considers the difficulties in distinguishing “neutral” in interval-level measures – difficulties that make capturing the negativity bias difficult in some circumstances, and that point to the possibility that some past work finding a lack of evidence of a negativity bias may have been mistaken.

Each of these issues is dealt with in turn throughout this chapter. Demonstrations rely on individual-level survey data drawn primarily from the American National Election Studies, but also from a series of Australian National Election Studies. In sum, results make clear the connection between work on impression formation in psychology and public attitudes toward political candidates. Moreover, they provide strong illustrations of a negativity bias in political behavior.

Type
Chapter
Information
Negativity in Democratic Politics
Causes and Consequences
, pp. 32 - 50
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×