Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T17:18:25.161Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Schematic Assessments of Presidential Candidates

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Arthur H. Miller ,
Martin P. Wattenberg  and
Oksana Malanchuk
Arthur H. Miller
Affiliation:
University of Iowa
Martin P. Wattenberg
Affiliation:
University of California, Irvine
Oksana Malanchuk
Affiliation:
Frank N. Magid Associates, Marion, Iowa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article applies theories of social cognition in an investigation of the dimensions of the assessments of candidates employed by voters in the United States. An empirical description of the public's cognitive representations of presidential candidates, derived from responses to open-ended questions in the American National Election Studies from 1952 to 1984, reveals that perceptions of candidates are generally focused on “personality” characteristics rather than on issue concerns or partisan group connections. Contrary to the implications of past research, higher education is found to be correlated with a greater likelihood of using personality categories rather than with making issue statements. While previous models have interpreted voting on the basis of candidate personality as indicative of superficial and idiosyncratic assessments, the data examined here indicate that they predominately reflect performance-relevant criteria such as competence, integrity, and reliability. In addition, both panel and aggregate time series data suggest that the categories that voters have used in the past influence how they will perceive future candidates, implying the application of schematic judgments. The reinterpretation presented here argues that these judgments reflect a rich cognitive representation of the candidates from which instrumental inferences are made.

Type
Articles
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 80 , Issue 2 , June 1986 , pp. 521 - 540
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1986

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

Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E.. 1960. The American Voter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Gurin, Gerald, and Miller, Warren E.. 1954. The Voter Decides. Evanston, IL: Row and Peterson.Google Scholar
Cantor, Nancy, and Mischel, Walter. 1979. Prototypes in Person Perception. In Berkowitz, Leonard, ed., Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 12. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Conover, Pamela J. 1981. Political Cues and the Perception of Candidates. American Politics Quarterly, 9:427–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Converse, Philip E. 1964. The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics. In Apter, David, ed., Ideology and Discontent. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 1981. Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Fiske, Susan T. 1985. Schema-Based Versus Piecemeal Politics. In Political Cognition. See Lau and Sears, 1985.Google Scholar
Fiske, Susan T., and Linville, Patricia W.. 1980. What Does the Schema Concept Buy Us? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6: 543–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiske, Susan T., and Taylor, Shelley E.. 1984. Social Cognition. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Foti, Roseanne, Fraser, Scott, and Lord, Robert. 1982. Effects of Leadership Labels and Prototypes on Perceptions of Political Leaders. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67:326–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graber, Doris A. 1976. Press and T.V. as Opinion Resources in Presidential Campaigns. Public Opinion Quarterly, 40:285–303.Google Scholar
Graber, Doris A. 1980. Mass Media and American Politics. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google 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.Google Scholar
Kagay, Michael R., and Caldeira, Gregory A.. 1975. I Like the Looks of His Face: Elements of Electoral Choice, 1952–1972. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Kelley, Stanley, and Mirer, Thad. 1974. The Simple Act of Voting. American Political Science Review, 68:572–91.Google Scholar
Kiesler, Charles A., Collins, Barry E., and Miller, Norman. 1969. Attitude Change: A Critical Analysis of Theoretical Approaches. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Kinder, Donald R. 1985. Presidential Character Revisited. In Political Cognition. See Lau and Sears, 1985.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
Kinder, Donald R., Peters, Mark D., Abelson, Robert P., and Fiske, Susan T.. 1980. Presidential Prototypes. Political Behavior, 2:315–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lau, Richard R. 1985. Political Schemas, Candidate Evaluations and Voting Behavior. In Political Cognition. See Lau and Sears, 1985.Google Scholar
Lau, Richard R., and Sears, David O., eds. 1985. Political Cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Lippman, Walter. 1922. Public Opinion. New York: Harcourt and Brace.Google Scholar
Markus, Hazel. 1977. Self-Schemata and Processing Information About the Self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35:63–78.Google Scholar
Markus, Gregory B., and Converse, Philip E.. 1979. A Dynamic Simultaneous Equation Model of Electoral Choice. American Political Science Review, 73:1055–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Arthur H., and MacKuen, Michael. 1979. Informing the Electorate: A National Study. In Kraus, Sidney, ed., The Great Debates: Carter vs. Ford 1976. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Miller, Arthur H., and Miller, Warren E.. 1976. Ideology in the 1972 Election: Myth or Reality? American Political Science Review, 70:832–49.Google Scholar
Miller, Arthur H., and Wattenberg, Martin P.. 1981. Policy and Performance Voting in the 1980 Elections. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, New York.Google Scholar
Miller, Warren E., Miller, Arthur H., and Schneider, Edward J.. 1980. American National Election Studies Data Sourcebook, 1952–1978. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Nisbett, Richard E., and Ross, Lee. 1980. Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings in Social Judgments. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Page, Benjamin I. 1978. Choices and Echoes in Presidential Elections. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Popkin, Samuel, Gorman, John W., Phillips, Charles, and Smith, Jeffrey A.. 1976. What Have You Done for Me Lately? Toward an Investment Theory of Voting. American Political Science Review, 70:779–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabinowitz, George. 1978. On the Nature of Political Issues: Insights from a Spatial Analysis. American Journal of Political Science, 22: 793–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenstone, Steven J., Behr, Roy L., and Lazarus, Edward H.. 1984. Third Parties in America: Citizen Response to Major Party Failure. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Rusk, Jerrold G., and Weisberg, Herbert F.. 1972. Perceptions of Presidential Candidates: Implications for Electoral Change. Midwest Journal of Political Science, 16:388–410.Google Scholar
Sears, David O. 1969. Political Behavior. In Lindzey, Gardner and Aronson, Elliot, eds., The Handbook of Social Psychology, 2d ed., vol. 5. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Schonemann, Peter H., and Carroll, Robert M.. 1970. Fitting One Matrix to Another Under Choice of a Similarity Transformation and a Rigid Motion. Psychometrika, 35:245–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, David J., Hastorf, Albert H., and Ellsworth, Phoebe C.. 1979. Person Perception, 2d ed. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Shabad, Goldie, and Andersen, Kristi. 1979. Candidate Evaluations by Men and Women. Public Opinion Quarterly, 43:19–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokes, Donald E. 1966. Some Dynamic Elements of Contests for the Presidency. American Political Science Review, 60:19–28.Google Scholar
Taylor, Shelley E., and Crocker, Jennifer. 1981. Schematic Bases of Social Information Processing. In Higgins, E. Tory, Herman, Charles A., and Zanna, Mark P., eds., Social Cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Taylor, Shelley E., and Fiske, Susan T.. 1978. Salience Attention and Attribution: Top of the Head Phenomena. In Berkowitz, Leonard, ed., Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 11. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Tesser, Abraham. 1978. Self-Generated Attitude Change. In Berkowitz, Leonard, ed., Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 11. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wattenberg, Martin P. 1984. The Decline of American Political Parties, 1952–1980. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Weisberg, Herbert F., and Rusk, Jerrold G.. 1970. Dimensions of Candidate Evaluations. American Political Science Review, 64:1167–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zajonc, Robert B. 1980. Feeling and Thinking: Preferences Need No Inferences. American Psychologist, 39:151–75.Google Scholar