1 / 34

Psych 586: Psychology of Persuasion Voting Behavior: Election Campaigns and their Effects

Textbook Model of Qualified Citizen . Interested in political affairsEngages in discussion of political issuesWell-informed about political affairs, knows the issues and alternatives, what the parties stand for, etc.Votes on the basis of principleExercises rational judgment in coming to a voting

bessie
Download Presentation

Psych 586: Psychology of Persuasion Voting Behavior: Election Campaigns and their Effects

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

    1. Psych 586: Psychology of Persuasion Voting Behavior: Election Campaigns and their Effects Professor: Icek Aizen Office: Tobin 625 Email: aizen@psych.umass.edu Tel: 545.0509

    2. Textbook Model of Qualified Citizen Interested in political affairs Engages in discussion of political issues Well-informed about political affairs, knows the issues and alternatives, what the parties stand for, etc. Votes on the basis of principle Exercises rational judgment in coming to a voting decision

    3. Voting Behavior: The Columbia School (Lazarsfeld, Berelson, & Gaudet, 1944) Social characteristics determine social preference. SES, religious affiliation, & residence accounted for most of the variance in voting choice. Political campaigns have little or no effect. 64% of the voters had made their decisions before the nominating conventions. Only 8% started supporting one candidate and ended up voting for the opponent.

    4. Voting Behavior: The Columbia School (Berelson, Lazarsfeld, & McPhee, 1954)

    5. Berelson et al. (1954) Conclusion: American voter fails qualifications of a citizen in a democratic society. “The ordinary voter, bewildered by the complexity of modern political problems, unable to determine clearly what the consequences are of alternative lines of action, remote from the arena, and incapable of bringing information to bear on principle, votes the way trusted people around him are voting”

    6. Voting Behavior: The Michigan School (Campbell, Converse, Miller, & Stokes, 1960) Political preferences are determined not by social characteristics but by psychological factors. Identification with a party explains most of the motivation to vote for a candidate. In any given election, the more variable factors of issues and candidates may take on unusual importance.

    7. Voting Behavior: The Michigan School (Campbell, Converse, Miller, & Stokes, 1960)

    8. Voting Behavior: The Michigan School (Campbell, Converse, Miller, & Stokes, 1960) Results for 1956 presidential election: Party ID – voting choice: r = .64 Six partisan attitudes – voting choice: R = .71

    9. Voting Behavior: The Michigan School (Campbell, Converse, Miller, & Stokes, 1960) Conclusions: Partisanship is the most important determinant of voting choice. Issues have little influence. “The widespread lack of familiarity with predominant issues of public policy … attests to the frailty of the political translation process.” “Independent” voters: “Far from being attentive, interested, and informed tend as a group to be less involved in politics.”

    10. Beliefs About Goldwater and Johnson One Week Prior to 1964 Presidential Election (Fishbein & Coombs, 1974)

    11. Participation in 1988 Presidential Election (Ajzen & Watters, 1989)

    12. Voting Choice (Bush / Dukakis) in 1988 Presidential Election (Ajzen & Watters, 1989)

    13. Means of Political Persuasion

    14. History of the Effects of the Mass Media (McQuail, 1979) PHASE 1: 1900-1930s The Great Propaganda Scare PHASE 2: 1940s-1960s Minimal Effects PHASE 3: Mid-1960s to Present Focus on Cognitive Effects

    15. Phase 1: 1900s-1930s The Great Propaganda Scare Assumption: Media ? Attitudes What was this assumption based upon? Casual observation, not empirical research

    16. Phase 2: 1940s – 1960s Minimal Effects (Klapper, 1960) Marked by growth of research Few studies, but very influential studies

    17. Why are there “Minimal Effects”?

    18. Reinforcement of Existing Attitudes (Lord, Ross, & Lepper, 1979) Participants in favor of and opposed to capital punishment were exposed to a research article on the topic. Article had mixed conclusions on the effectiveness of capital punishment How convincing did participants find the conclusions of the article?

    19. Rated Convincingness of Capital Punishment Studies (Lord, Ross, & Lepper, 1979) Ss read summaries of two studies, one pro-, one anti-capital punishment, arguing that it does/does not deter crime.Ss read summaries of two studies, one pro-, one anti-capital punishment, arguing that it does/does not deter crime.

    20. Perception of Debate Performance First Mondale-Reagan Debate (1984)

    21. Perception of Debate Performance Second Mondale-Reagan Debate (1984)

    22. Biased Perception in the Media (Vallone, Ross, & Lepper, 1985) Members of opposing groups exposed to identical news reports about a massacre of civilians in refugee camps in Lebanon. Interested in perceptions of media fairness / bias

    23. Perceived Bias in TV News Coverage of Palestinian Refugee Massacre (Vallone, Ross, & Lepper, 1985)

    24. Hostile-Media Effect (Vallone et al., 1985) Hostile-media effect ? when our positions are extreme, we perceive less extreme positions as favoring the opposing side

    25. Why are there “Minimal Effects”?

    26. Phase 3: Mid-1960s to Present Cognitive Effects The media has some impact, though it is minimal. Effect is slightly greater than assumed in Phase 2, but considerably less than assumed in Phase 1. Use of more precise measures and methods for measuring influence Shift to exploring subtle factors that contribute to the media’s effectiveness

    27. Agenda-Setting Function of the Mass Media Early Research: Mass media ? Attitudes But the effect of the media may not be directly on attitudes. Instead: Mass media ? Issue/Event Salience ? Attitudes What is agenda setting? The ability of the mass media to influence the importance of events in the public mind The priorities of the press become the priorities of the public

    28. First Study to Validate Agenda-Setting McCombs & Shaw (1972) Research conducted during the 1968 US Presidential Election Found substantial correlations between the political issues emphasized in the news and what voters identified as the key issues in the election.

    29. Agenda-Setting McCombs & Shaw (1972) “The mass media may not be successful in telling us what to think, but they are stunningly successful in telling us what to think about.” Theodore White in “The Making of the President, 1972” “The power of the press in America is a primordial one. It sets the agenda of public discussion; and this sweeping political power is unrestrained by any law. It determines what people will talk and think about – an authority that in other nations is reserved for tyrants, priests, parties, and mandarins.”

    30. Limitations of Early Agenda-Setting Research Can you think of an alternative explanation for the effects that McCombs and Shaw found?

    31. Experimental Work on Agenda-Setting Iyengar, Peters, & Kinder (1982) Measured importance of various national problems both before and after exposure to three or four days of manipulated news programs Participants received lots of coverage about one of three problems: Inadequacies in US defense preparedness Pollution of the environment Inflation

    32. Issue Importance Change Scores Iyengar et al., 1982 (Study 2) Condition Problem Pollution Inflation Defense Pollution 1.53** -.71 -.23 Inflation -.11 .11 -.06 Defense -.44 -.34 .76*

    33. Can the Media’s Agenda Alter the Basis for Citizens Attitudes Toward the President?

    34. Some General Conclusions Regarding Political Persuasion

More Related