Hostname: page-component-6b989bf9dc-vmcqm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-15T04:15:53.669Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ambivalence, Information, and Electoral Choice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 June 2005

SCOTT J. BASINGER  and
HOWARD LAVINE
SCOTT J. BASINGER
Affiliation:
Stony Brook University
HOWARD LAVINE
Affiliation:
Stony Brook University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Conventional wisdom views voter choice in House elections as preordained by party identification, incumbency, and perceptions of national conditions. In an analysis of voter behavior in House elections between 1990 and 2000, we find instead that voters are quite heterogeneous. Voters who hold ambivalent partisan attitudes, who typically constitute 30% of the electorate, reduce their reliance on party identification; this effect is entirely independent of the strength of identification. Individuals holding ambivalent partisan attitudes that both lack political knowledge and are presented with little campaign stimulus are more likely to engage in economic voting. Individuals holding ambivalent partisan attitudes that either are knowledgeable about politics or are presented with stimulating campaigns are more likely to engage in ideological voting. Thus, campaign competition and national partisan competition each play a role in assuring that ordinary voters may participate meaningfully in the political process.

Type
ARTICLES
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 99 , Issue 2 , May 2005 , pp. 169 - 184
Copyright
© 2005 by the American Political Science Association

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

Abramowitz Alan I. 1981. “Choices and Echoes in the 1978 U.S. Senate Elections: A Research Note.” American Journal of Political Science 25 (February): 112– 18.Google Scholar
Abramowitz Alan I. 1985. “Economic Conditions, Presidential Popularity, and Voting Behavior in Midterm Congressional Elections.” Journal of Politics 47 (February): 31– 43.Google Scholar
Alvarez R. Michael. 1998. Information and Elections. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Alvarez R. Michael, and John Brehm. 1995. “American Ambivalence towards Abortion Policy: Development of a Heteroskedastic Probit Model of Competing Values.” American Journal of Political Science 39 (4): 1055– 82.Google Scholar
Alvarez R. Michael, and John Brehm. 2002. Hard Choices, Easy Answers: Values, Information, and American Public Opinion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bargh John A., Shelly Chaiken, R. Govender, and Felicia Pratto. 1992. “The Generality of the Automatic Attitude Activation Effect.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 62 (June): 893– 912.Google Scholar
Campbell Angus, Philip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller, and Donald E. Stokes. 1960. The American Voter. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Canes-Wrone Brandice, David W. Brady, and John F. Cogan. 2001. “Out of Step, Out of Office: Electoral Accountability and House Members' Voting.” American Political Science Review 96 (March): 127– 40.Google Scholar
Carmines Edward G., and James A. Stimson. 1980. “The Two Faces of Issue Voting.” American Political Science Review 74 (March): 78– 91.Google Scholar
Cover Albert D. 1977. “One Good Term Deserves Another: The Advantage of Incumbency in Congressional Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 21 (August): 523– 41.Google Scholar
Davidson Roger, and Walter Oleszek. 2001. Congress and Its Members. 8th Ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Delli Carpini Michael X., and Scott Keeter. 1996. What Americans Know About Politics and Why It Matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Downs Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.
Eagly Alice H., and Shelly Chaiken. 1993. The Psychology of Attitudes. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Erikson Robert S., Michael B. MacKuen, and James A. Stimson. 2001. The Macro Polity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Feldman Stanley, and John Zaller. 1992. “The Political Culture of Ambivalence: Ideological Response to the Welfare State.” American Journal of Political Science 36 (February): 268– 91.Google Scholar
Fiorina Morris P. 1974. Representatives, Roll Calls, and Constituencies. Lexington, MA: DC Heath.
Fiorina Morris P. 1981. Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Fiske Susan T., and Shelly E. Taylor. 1984. Social Cognition. New York: McGraw–Hill.
Franklin Charles H. 1991. “Eschewing Obfuscation? Campaigns and the Perceptions of U.S. Senate Incumbents.” American Political Science Review 85 (December): 1193– 1214.Google Scholar
Gronke Paul. 2000. The Electorate, the Campaign, and the Office: A Unified Approach to House and Senate Elections. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Gronke Paul, Jeffrey Koch, and J. Matthew Wilson. 2003. “Follow the Leader? Presidential Approval, Presidential Support and Representatives' Electoral Fortunes.” Journal of Politics 65 (August): 785– 808.Google Scholar
Hass Glen, Irwin Katz, Nina Rizzo, Joan Bailey, and Donna Eisenstadt. 1991. “Cross-Racial Appraisal as Related to Attitude Ambivalence and Cognitive Complexity.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 17 (February): 83– 92.Google Scholar
Hinich Melvin J., and Michael C. Munger. 1994. Ideology and the Theory of Political Choice. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Huckfeldt Robert, and John Sprague. 2000. “Political Consequences of Inconsistency: The Accessibility and Stability of Abortion Attitudes.” Political Psychology 21 (February): 57– 79.Google Scholar
Jacobson Gary C. 1981. Money in Congressional Elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Jacobson Gary C. 1990. “The Effects of Campaign Spending in Congressional Elections: New Evidence for Old Arguments.” American Journal of Political Science 34 (May): 334– 62.Google Scholar
Jacobson Gary C. 2001. The Politics of Congressional Elections. 5th Ed. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley Longman.
Kahn Kim Fridkin, and Patrick J. Kenney. 1999. The Spectacle of U.S. Senate Campaigns. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Krasno Jonathan S. 1994. Challengers, Competition, and Reelection: Comparing Senate and House Elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Lau Richard R., and David P. Redlawsk. 2001. “Advantages and Disadvantages of Using Cognitive Heuristics in Political Decision Making.” American Journal of Political Science 45 (October): 951– 71.Google Scholar
Lavine Howard. 2001. “The Electoral Consequences of Ambivalence Toward Presidential Candidates.” American Journal of Political Science 45 (October): 915– 29.Google Scholar
Lupia Arthur. 1994. “Shortcuts Versus Encyclopedias: Information and Voting Behavior in California Insurance Reform Elections.” American Political Science Review 88 (March): 63– 76.Google Scholar
Lupia Arthur, and Mathew D. McCubbins. 1998. The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need to Know? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Luskin Robert C. 1987. “Measuring Political Sophistication.” American Journal of Political Science 31 (November): 856– 99.Google Scholar
McClelland Gary H., and Charles M. Judd. 1993. “Statistical Difficulties of Detecting Interactions and Moderator Effects.” Psychological Bulletin 114 (September): 376– 90.Google Scholar
McGraw Kathleen M., Edward Hasecke, and Kimberly Conger. 2003. “Ambivalence, Uncertainty, and Processes of Candidate Evaluation.” Political Psychology 24 (September): 421– 48.Google Scholar
Mann Thomas E. 1978. Unsafe at Any Margin: Interpreting Congressional Elections. Washington, DC: AEI.
Mann Thomas E., and Raymond E. Wolfinger. 1980. “Candidates and Parties in Congressional Elections.” American Political Science Review 74 (September): 617– 32.Google Scholar
Meffert Michael F., Michael Guge, and Milton Lodge. 2004. “Good, Bad, and Ambivalent: The Consequences of Multidimensional Political Attitudes.” In Studies in Public Opinion: Attitudes, Nonattitudes, Measurement Error, and Change, ed. Willem Saris and Paul Sniderman. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Miller Arthur H., Christopher Wlezien, and Anne Hildreth. 1991. “A Reference Group Theory of Partisan Coalitions.” Journal of Politics 53 (November): 1134– 49.Google Scholar
Miller Warren E., and Donald E. Stokes. 1963. “Constituency Influence in Congress.” American Political Science Review 57 (March): 45– 56.Google Scholar
Mowrer O.H. 1960. Learning Theory and Behavior. New York: Wiley.
Nie Norman H., Sidney Verba, and John R. Petrocik. 1976. The Changing American Voter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Page Benjamin I. 1978. Choices and Echoes in Presidential Elections. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Petty Richard E., and John T. Cacioppo. 1986. “The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 19: 123– 205.Google Scholar
Popkin Samuel L. 1991. The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Rahn Wendy M. 1993. “The Role of Partisan Stereotypes in Information Processing about Political Candidates.” American Journal of Political Science 37 (May): 472– 96.Google Scholar
Rivers Douglas. 1988. “Heterogeneity in Models of Electoral Choice.” American Journal of Political Science 32 (August): 737– 57.Google Scholar
Schattschneider E. E. 1960. The Semisovereign People: A Realist's View of Democracy in America. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Simon Herbert A. 1976. Administrative Behavior. 3rd Ed. New York: Free Press.
Smith Eric R. A. N. 1980. “The Levels of Conceptualization: False Measures of Ideological Sophistication.” American Political Science Review 74 (September): 685– 96.Google Scholar
Smith Eric R. A. N. 1989. The Unchanging American Voter. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Sniderman Paul M. 1993. “The New Look in Public Opinion Research.” In Political Science: The State of the Discipline II, ed. Ada Finifter. Washington DC: American Political Science Association.
Sniderman Paul M., Richard A. Brody, and Philip E. Tetlock. 1991. Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Steenbergen Marco, and Paul R. Brewer. 2004. “The Not-So-Ambivalent Public: Policy Attitudes in the Political Culture of Ambivalence.” In Studies in Public Opinion: Attitudes, Nonattitudes, Measurement Error, and Change, ed. Willem Saris and Paul Sniderman. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Stokes Donald E., and Warren E. Miller. 1962. “Party Government and the Saliency of Congress.” Public Opinion Quarterly 26 (Winter): 531– 46.Google Scholar
Thompson Megan M., Mark P. Zanna, and Dale W. Griffin. 1995. “Let's Not Be Indifferent about Attitudinal Ambivalence.” In Attitude Strength, ed. Richard E. Petty and Jon A. Krosnick. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers, 361– 86.
Wattenberg Martin P. 1981. “The Decline of Political Partisanship in the U.S.: Negativity or Neutrality?” American Political Science Review 75 (December): 941– 50.Google Scholar
Wattenberg Martin P. 1990. The Decline of American Political Parties, 1952–1988. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Westlye Mark C. 1991. Senate Elections and Campaign Intensity. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Zaller John R. 1992. The Nature and Origin of Mass Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zaller John R., and Stanley Feldman. 1992. “A Simple Theory of the Survey Response: Answering Questions Versus Revealing Preferences.” American Journal of Political Science 32 (May): 416– 550.Google Scholar