Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-04T23:27:34.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Foreign Affairs and Issue Voting: Do Presidential Candidates “Waltz Before a Blind Audience?”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

John H. Aldrich ,
John L. Sullivan  and
Eugene Borgida
John H. Aldrich
Affiliation:
Duke University
John L. Sullivan
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
Eugene Borgida
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

While candidates regularly spend much time and effort campaigning on foreign and defense policies, the thrust of prevailing scholarly opinion is that voters possess little information and weak attitudes on these issues, which therefore have negligible impact on their voting behavior. We resolve this anomaly by arguing that public attitudes on foreign and defense policies are available and cognitively accessible, that the public has perceived clear differences between the candidates on these issues in recent elections, and that these issues have affected the public's vote choices. Data indicate that these conclusions are appropriate for foreign affairs issues and domestic issues.

Type
Articles
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 83 , Issue 1 , March 1989 , pp. 123 - 141
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

Abelson, Robert. 1972. “Are Attitudes Necessary?” In Attitudes, Conflict, and Social Change, ed. King, Bert T. and McGinnies, E.. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Abramson, Paul R., Aldrich, John H., and Rohde, David W.. 1983. Change and Continuity in the 1980 Elections. Rev. ed. Washington: Congressional Quarterly.Google Scholar
Abramson, Paul R., Aldrich, John H., and Rohde, David W.. 1987. Change and Continuity in the 1984 Elections. Rev. ed. Washington: Congressional Quarterly.Google Scholar
Aldrich, John H., and McKelvey, Richard D.. 1977. “A Method of Scaling with Applications to the 1968 and 1972 U.S. Presidential Elections.” American Political Science Review 71:111–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aldrich, John H., and Trump, Thomas M.. 1986. “Issue Opinions and Perceptions, 1972–1984: Citizen Competence, Campaign Context, and Candidate Behavior.” University of Minnesota. Typescript.Google Scholar
Almond, Gabriel A. 1950. The American People and Foreign Policy. New York: Harcourt, Brace.Google Scholar
Bargh, John A., Bond, Ronald N., Lombardi, Wendy J., and Tota, Mary E.. 1986. “The Additive Nature of Chronic and Temporary Sources of Construct Accessibility.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50:869–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berelson, Bernard R., Lazarsfeld, Paul F., and McPhee, William N.. 1954. Voting. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Boyd, Richard W. 1985. “Electoral Change and the Floating Voter: The Reagan Elections.” Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, New Orleans.Google Scholar
Brody, Richard A., and Page, Benjamin I.. 1972. “Comment: The Assessment of Policy Voting.” American Political Science Review 66:450–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnham, Walter Dean. 1985. “The 1984 Election and the Future of American Politics.” In Election 1984, ed. Sandoz, Ellis and Crabb, Cecil V. Jr., New York: New American Library.Google Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E.. 1960. The American Voter. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Chaiken, S. 1987. “The Heuristic Model of Persuasion.” In Social Influence, ed. Zanna, Mark P., Olson, James M., and Herman, C. P., The Ontario Symposium, vol. 5. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Fazio, Russell H. 1986. “How Do Attitudes Guide Behavior?” In The Handbook of Motivation and Cognition, ed. Sorrentino, R. M. and Higgins, E. T.. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Fazio, Russell H. 1987. “Self-Perception Theory: A Current Perspective.” In Social Influence, ed. Zanna, Mark P., Olson, James M., and Herman, C. P., The Ontario Symposium, vol. 5. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Fazio, Russell H., Chen, J., McDonel, E. C., Sherman, S. J.. 1982. “Attitude Accessibility, Attitude-Behavior Consistency, and the Strength of the Object-Evaluation Association.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 18:339–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fazio, Russell H., Herr, Paul M., and Olney, Timothy J.. 1984. “Attitude Accessibility Following a Self-Perception Process.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 47:277–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fazio, Russell H., and Williams, C. J.. 1986. “Attitude Accessibility As a Moderator of the Attitude-Perception and Attitude-Behavior Relations: An Investigation of the 1984 Presidential Election.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51:505–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fazio, Russell H., and Zanna, M. P.. 1981. “Direct Experience and Attitude-Behavior Consistency.” In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 14, ed. Berkowitz, L.. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 1981. Retrospective Voting in American National Politics. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Fiske, Susan T., Pratto, Felicia, and Pavelchak, Mark A.. 1983. “Citizens' Images of Nuclear War: Contents and Consequences.” Journal of Social Issues 39:41–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hess, Stephen, and Nelson, Michael. 1985. “Foreign Policy: Dominance and Decisiveness in Presidential Elections.” In The Elections of 1984, ed. Nelson, Michael. Washington: Congressional Quarterly.Google Scholar
Higgins, E. T., and King, G.. 1981. “Accessibility of Social Constructs: Information Processing Consequences of Individual and Contextual Variability.” In Personality, Cognition, and Social Interaction, ed. Cantor, N. and Kihlstrom, J.. Hillsdale: NJ: L. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hughes, Barry. 1978. The Domestic Content of American Foreign Policy. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Hurwitz, John, and Peffley, Mark. 1987. “The Means and Ends of Foreign Policy as Determinants of Presidential Support.” American Journal of Political Science 2:236–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kagay, Michael, and Caldeira, Greg. 1975. “I Like the Looks of His Face.” Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Kessel, John H. 1988. Presidential Campaign Politics: Coalition Strategies and Citizen Response. 3d ed. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.Google Scholar
Kramer, Bernard M., Kalick, S. Michael, and Milburn, M. A.. 1983. “Attitudes toward Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear War: 1945–1982.” Journal of Social Issues 39:7–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladd, Everett Carll. 1985. “On Mandates, Realignments, and the 1984 Presidential Election.” Political Studies Quarterly 100:1–25.Google Scholar
Light, Paul C., and Lake, Celinda. 1985. “The Election: Candidates, Strategies, and Decision.” In The Elections of 1984, ed. Nelson, Michael. Washington: Congressional Quarterly.Google Scholar
Margolis, Michael. 1977. “From Confusion to Confusion: Issues and the American Voter (1956–1972).” American Political Science Review 71:31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Arthur H., Miller, Warren E., Raine, Alden S., and Brown, Thad H.. 1976. “A Majority Party in Disarray: Policy Polarization in the 1972 Election.” American Political Science Review 70:753–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Arthur H., and Wattenberg, Martin P.. 1981. “Policy and Performance Voting in the 1980 Election.” Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, New York.Google Scholar
Miller, Warren E., and Shanks, J. Merrill. 1982. “Policy Directions and Presidential Leadership: Alternative Interpretations of the 1980 Presidential Elections.” British Journal of Political Science 12:266–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nie, Norman H., Verba, Sidney, and Petrocik, John R.. 1976. The Changing American Voter. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ostrom, Charles W., and Simon, Dennis M.. 1985. “Promise and Performance: A Dynamic Model of Presidential Popularity.” American Political Science Review 79:334–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, Benjamin I. 1978. Choices and Echoes in Presidential Elections. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Page, Benjamin I., and Brody, Richard A.. 1972. “Policy Voting and the Electoral Process: The Vietnam War Issue.” American Political Science Review 66:979–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, Benjamin I., and Shapiro, Robert Y.. 1983. “Effects of Public Opinion on Policy.” American Political Science Review 77:175–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomper, Gerald M. 1972. “From Confusion to Clarity: Issues and American Voters, 1956–1968.” American Political Science Review 66:415–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomper, Gerald M. 1975. Voters' Choice: Varieties of American Electoral Behavior. New York: Dodd, Mead.Google Scholar
Rahn, Wendy M., Aldrich, John H., Borgida, Eugene, and Sullivan, John L.. N.d. “A Social Cognitive Model of Candidate Appraisal.” In Information and Democratic Processes, ed. Ferejohn, John and Kuklinski, James. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois Press. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Rosenau, James N., ed. 1961. Public Opinion and Foreign Policy. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Schlegel, Ronald P., and DiTecco, Don. 1982. “Attitudinal Structures and the Attitude-Behavior Relation.” In Consistency in Social Behavior, ed. Zanna, Mark P., Higgins, Edward T., and Herman, C. P.. The Ontario Symposium, vol. 2. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Shanks, J. Merrill, and Miller, Warren E.. 1985. “Policy Direction and Performance Evaluation: Complementary Explanations of the Reagan Elections.” Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, New Orleans.Google Scholar
Smith, Tom W. 1985. “The Polls: America's Most Important Problems,” pt. 1. Public Opinion Quarterly 49:264–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, Mark. 1982. “When Believing Means Doing: Creating Links between Attitudes and Behavior.” In Consistency in Social Behavior, ed. Zanna, Mark, Higgins, E. Tory, and Herman, C. P.. The Ontario Symposium, vol. 2. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Stokes, Donald E. 1966. “Some Dynamic Elements of Contests for the Presidency.” American Political Science Review 60:19–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisberg, Herbert F. 1985. “The Electoral Kaleidoscope: Political Change in the Polarizing Election of 1984.” Ohio State University. Typescript.Google Scholar
Witcover, Jules. 1977. Marathon: The Pursuit of the Presidency 1972–1976. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
Wu, Cheng-huan and Shaffer, David R.. 1987. “Susceptibility to Persuasive Appeals as a Function of Source Credibility and Prior Experience with the Attitude Object.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52:677–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.