Campaign Effects on the Accessibility of Party Identification

This study uses response latency, the time required for a survey respondent to formulate an answer upon hearing a question, to examine the accessibility of partisan self identifications over the course of a political campaign season. Although the aggregate distribution of partisanship remains fairly stable during the campaign, party identifications become more accessible to individuals with weaker party identifications as the election approaches. Consistent with theoretical expectations, the authors find that partisan orientations are more useful in forming political judgments when those orientations are more accessible to the voter. The effect of partisanship on vote choice is a third greater for voters with highly accessible party identifications than for those with less accessible party identifications.

[1]  Jeffrey Levine,et al.  Election Campaigns, Social Communication, and the Accessibility of Perceived Discussant Preference , 1998 .

[2]  Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier,et al.  Time is of the Essence: Event History Models in Political Science , 1997 .

[3]  D. Shaw.  A Study of Presidential Campaign Event Effects from 1952 to 1992 , 1999, The Journal of Politics.

[4]  Larry M. Bartels.  Messages Received: The Political Impact of Media Exposure , 1993, American Political Science Review.

[5]  Jon A. Krosnick,et al.  Some dynamic properties of attitude structures: Context-induced response facilitation and polarization. , 1991 .

[6]  D. Shaw.  The Effect of TV Ads and Candidate Appearances on Statewide Presidential Votes, 1988–96 , 1999, American Political Science Review.

[7]  Steven E. Finkel,et al.  Reexamining the "Minimal Effects" Model in Recent Presidential Campaigns , 1993, The Journal of Politics.

[8]  J. N. Bassili.  On the psychological reality of party identification: Evidence from the accessibility of voting intentions and of partisan feelings , 1995 .

[9]  Patrick J. Kenney,et al.  A Model of Candidate Evaluations in Senate Elections: The Impact of Campaign Intensity , 1997, The Journal of Politics.

[10]  Gary King,et al.  Why Are American Presidential Election Campaign Polls So Variable When Votes Are So Predictable? , 1993, British Journal of Political Science.

[11]  Jeffrey Levine,et al.  The Dynamics of Collective Deliberation in the 1996 Election: Campaign Effects on Accessibility, Certainty, and Accuracy , 2000, American Political Science Review.

[12]  Kenneth Mulligan,et al.  Response Latency Methodology for Survey Research: Measurement and Modeling Strategies , 2003, Political Analysis.

[13]  Jeffrey Levine,et al.  Accessibility and the Political Utility of Partisan and Ideological Orientations , 1999 .

[14]  D. Hillygus,et al.  Voter Decision Making in Election 2000: Campaign Effects, Partisan Activation, and the Clinton Legacy , 2003 .

[15]  Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier,et al.  Duration models and proportional hazards in political science , 2001 .

[16]  John H. Aldrich,et al.  Foreign Affairs and Issue Voting: Do Presidential Candidates “Waltz Before a Blind Audience?” , 1989, American Political Science Review.

[17]  P. Grambsch,et al.  Proportional hazards tests and diagnostics based on weighted residuals , 1994 .

[18]  J. Bibby,et al.  Assessing Party Organizational Strength , 1983 .

[19]  David M. Sanbonmatsu,et al.  On the automatic activation of attitudes. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[20]  J. Bibby,et al.  Whither the Local Parties?.7 A Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Analysis of the Strength of Party Organizations* , 1985 .

[21]  J. N. Bassili,et al.  RESPONSE LATENCY VERSUS CERTAINTY AS INDEXES OF THE STRENGTH OF VOTING INTENTIONS IN A CATI SURVEY , 1993 .