Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-05T00:15:26.570Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Impression-Driven Model of Candidate Evaluation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Milton Lodge ,
Kathleen M. McGraw  and
Patrick Stroh
Milton Lodge
Affiliation:
State University of New York, Stony Brook
Kathleen M. McGraw
Affiliation:
State University of New York, Stony Brook
Patrick Stroh
Affiliation:
State University of New York, Stony Brook
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We describe and test two process models of candidate evaluation. The memory-based model holds that evaluations are dependent on the mix of pro and con information retrieved from memory. The impression-driven model holds that evaluations are formed and updated “on-line” as information is encountered. The results provide evidence for the existence of stereotyping and projection biases that render the mix of evidence available in memory a nonveridical representation of the information to which subjects were exposed. People do not rely on the specific candidate information available in memory. Rather, consistent with the logic of the impression-driven processing model, an “on-line” judgment formed when the information was encountered best predicts candidate evaluation. The results raise both methodological and substantive challenges to how political scientists measure and model the candidate evaluation process.

Type
Articles
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 83 , Issue 2 , June 1989 , pp. 399 - 419
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1989

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.)

References

Anderson, James C., and Gerbing, Donald W.. 1988. “Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach.” Psychological Bulletin 103:411–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Norman H., and Hubert, S.. 1963. “Effects of Concomitant Verbal Recall on Order Effects in Personality Impression Formation.” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 17:1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brody, Richard A., and Page, Benjamin I.. 1972. “The Assessment of Policy Voting.” American Political Science Review 66:450–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Phillip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E.. 1960. The American Voter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Chaiken, Shelly, and Stangor, Charles. 1987. ”Attitudes and Attitude Change.” Annual Review of Psychology 38:575–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conover, Pamela J., and Feldman, Stanley. 1986. “The Role of Inference in the Perception of Political Candidates.” In Political Cognition: The Nineteenth Annual Carnegie Symposium on Cognition, ed. Lau, Richard and Sears, David O.. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Dreben, Elizabeth K., Fiske, Susan T., and Hastie, Reid. 1979. “The Independence of Item and Evaluative Information: Impression and Recall Order Effects in Behavior-based Impression Formation.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37:1758–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enelow, James M., and Hinich, Melvin J.. 1984. The Spatial Theory of Voting: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fiske, Susan T., and Taylor, Shelley E.. 1984. Social Cognition. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Gant, Michael, and Davis, Dwight F.. 1984. ”Mental Economy and Voter Rationality: The Informed Citizen Problem in Voting Research.” Journal of Politics 46:132–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granberg, Donald. 1985. ”An Anomaly in Political Perception.” Public Opinion Quarterly 49:504–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, David L. 1981. Cognitive Processes in Stereotyping and Intergroup Behavior. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hamill, Ruth, Lodge, Milton, and Blake, Frederick. 1985. “The Breadth, Depth, and Utility of Partisan, Class, and Ideological Schemas.” American Journal of Political Science 29:850–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hastie, Reid, and Park, Bernadette. 1986. ”The Relationship between Memory and Judgment Depends on Whether the Task Is Memory-based or On-Line.” Psychological Review 93:258–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herstein, John A. 1981. ”Keeping the Voter's Limits in Mind: A Cognitive Process Analysis of Decision-Making in Voting.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 40:843–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelley, Stanley. 1983. Interpreting Elections. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelley, Stanley, and Mirer, Thad. 1974. ”The Simple Act of Voting.” American Political Science Review 61:572–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinder, Donald R. 1986. “Presidential Character Revisited.” In Political Cognition: The Nineteenth Annual Carnegie Symposium on Cognition, ed. Lau, Richard R. and Sears, David O.. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kinder, Donald R., and Abelson, Robert P.. 1981. “Appraising Presidential Candidates: Personality and Affect in the 1980 Campaign.” Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, New York.Google Scholar
Krosnick, Jon A. 1988a. ”Psychological Perspectives on Political Candidate Perception: A Review of the Literature on the Projection Hypothesis.” Presented at the Midwest Political Science Association Meeting, Chicago.Google Scholar
Krosnick, Jon A. 1988b. ”The Role of Attitude Importance in Social Evaluations: A Study of Policy Preferences, Presidential Candidate Evaluations, and Voting Behavior.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 55:196–210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lau, Richard R. 1986. ”Political Schemata, Candidate Evaluations, and Voting Behavior.” In Political Cognition: The Nineteenth Annual Carnegie Symposium on Cognition, ed. Lau, Richard R. and Sears, David O.. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lazarsfeld, Paul F., Benelson, Bernard, and Gaudet, Hazel. 1944. The People's Choice: How the Voter Makes Up His Mind in A Presidential Campaign. New York: Duell, Sloan, and Pearce.Google Scholar
Lichtenstein, Meryl, and Srull, Thomas K.. 1987. “Processing Objectives As a Determinant of the Relationship between Recall and Judgment.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 23:93–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lippmann, Walter. 1922. Public Opinion. New York: Harcourt, Brace.Google Scholar
Lodge, Milton, and Hamill, Ruth. 1986. ”A Partisan Schema for Political Information Processing.” American Political Science Review 80:505–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGraw, Kathleen, Lodge, Milton, and Stroh, Patrick. 1988. ”On-Line Processing in Candidate Evaluation: The Effects of Issue Order, Issue Shambaugh Conference on Communication, Cognition, and Political Judgments and Action, University of Iowa.Google Scholar
Markus, Gregory B. 1982. ”Political Attitudes during an Election Year: A Report on the 1980 NES Panel Study.” American Political Science Review 76:538–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markus, Gregory B., and Converse, Phillip. 1979. ”A Dynamic Simultaneous Equation Model of Electoral Choice.” American Political Science Review 73:1055–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Arthur H., Wattenberg, Martin, and Malanchuk, Oksana. 1986. ”Schematic Assessment of Presidential Candidates.” American Political Science Review 80:521–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murdock, Bennet B. Jr., 1982. ”Recognition Memory.” In Handbook of Research Methods in Human Memory and Cognition, ed. Richard, C.. Puff, . New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Newell, Allen, and Simon, Herbert. 1972. Human Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Simon, Herbert. 1981. The Sciences of the Artificial, 2d ed. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Simon, Herbert. 1985. ”Human Nature and Politics: The Dialogue of Psychology with Political Science.” American Political Science Review 79:293–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokes, Donald E., and Miller, Warren E.. 1962. “Party Government and Saliency of Congress.” Public Opinion Quarterly 26:531–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Shelley E., and Crocker, Jennifer. 1981. “Schematic Bases of Social Informataion Processing.” In Social Cognition: The Ontario Symposium, ed. Higgins, Edward Tory, Herman, C. Peter, and Zanna, Mark P.. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Wyer, Robert S., and Srull, Thomas K.. 1986. “Human Cognition in Its Social Context.” Psychological Review 93:322–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.