Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-669899f699-8p65j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-28T13:11:25.813Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

13 - Candidate Impressions and Evaluations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
Kathleen M. McGraw
Edited by
James N. Druckman ,
Donald P. Greene ,
James H. Kuklinski  and
Arthur Lupia
Kathleen M. McGraw
Affiliation:
Ohio State University
James N. Druckman
Affiliation:
Northwestern University, Illinois
Donald P. Greene
Affiliation:
Yale University, Connecticut
James H. Kuklinski
Affiliation:
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Arthur Lupia
Affiliation:
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Get access

Summary

For citizens to responsibly exercise one of their primary democratic duties, namely, voting, two preliminary psychological processes must occur. First, citizens must learn something about the candidates, that is, come to some understanding, even if amorphous, about the candidates' characteristics and priorities. Second, citizens must reach a summary judgment about the candidates. There is a long and distinguished history of scholarly studies of the linked processes of voting, perceptions of candidates, and evaluations of them. In his recent review of the voting behavior literature, Bartels (2010) notes, “The apparent failure of causal modeling [of observational data] to answer fundamental questions about voting behavior produced a variety of disparate reactions” (240), including scholars turning to experimentation to better understand these basic processes. My goal in this chapter is to outline experimental work that has contributed to our understanding of citizens' impressions and evaluations of political candidates, as well as to identify questions that future experiments might answer.

Clarification of Basic Concepts

Two sets of conceptual distinctions should be made clear at the outset. First, the chapter title distinguishes between candidate impressions and evaluations. By “impressions,” I mean an individual's mental representation – the cognitive structure stored in memory – consisting of knowledge and beliefs about another person. “Evaluation,” in contrast, refers to a summary global judgment ranging from very negative to very positive.

Type
Chapter
Information
Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science , pp. 187 - 200
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

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.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Andersen, Susan M.,Moskowitz, Gordon B., Blair, Irene V., and Nosek, Brian A.. 2007. “Automatic Thought.” In Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles, eds. Kruglanski, Arie W. and Higgins, E. Tory. New York: Guilford Press, 138–75.Google Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen S., and Iyengar, Shanto. 1994. “Riding the Wave and Issue Ownership: The Importance of Issues in Political Advertising and News.” Public Opinion Quarterly 58: 335–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen S., and Iyengar, Shanto. 1995. Going Negative: How Political Advertising Divides and Shrinks the American Electorate. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Bailenson, Jeremy N., Iyengar, Shanto, Yee, Nick, and Collins, Nathan A.. 2008. “Facial Similarity between Voters and Candidates Causes Influence.” Public Opinion Quarterly 72: 935–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 2010. “The Study of Electoral Behavior.” In The Oxford Handbook of American Elections and Political Behavior, ed. Leighley, Jan E.. New York: Oxford University Press, 239–61.Google Scholar
Berinsky, Adam J., and Mendelberg, Tali. 2005. “The Indirect Effects of Discredited Stereotypes.” American Journal of Political Science 49: 846–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, Daniel M., and Broockman, David E.. 2009. “Who Helps DeShawn Register to Vote? A Field Experiment on State Legislators.” Unpublished manuscript, Yale University.
Campbell, James E. 1983. “The Electoral Consequences of Issue Ambiguity: An Examination of the Presidential Candidates' Issue Positions from 1968 to 1980.” Political Behavior 5: 277–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip, Miller, Warren, and Stokes, Donald. 1960. The American Voter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Colleau, Sophie M., Glynn, Kevin, Lybrand, Steven, Merelman, Richard M., Mohan, Paula, and Wall, James E.. 1990. “Symbolic Racism in Candidate Evaluation: An Experiment.” Political Behavior 12: 385–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cover, Albert D., and Brumberg, Bruce S.. 1982. “Baby Books and Ballots: The Impact of Congressional Mail on Constituent Opinion.” American Political Science Review 76: 347–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delli Carpini, Michael X., and Keeter, Scott. 1996. What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Feldman, Stanley, and Conover, Pamela Johnston. 1983. “Candidates, Issues, and Voters: The Role of Inference in Political Perception.” Journal of Politics 45: 810–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenno, Richard E. 1978. Home Style: House Members in Their Districts. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Fiske, Susan T., and Neuberg, Steven L.. 1990. “A Continuum Model of Impression Formation: From Category-Based to Individuating Processes as a Function of Information, Motivation, and Attention.” In Advances in Experimental Psychology. vol. 23, ed. Zanna, Mark P.. San Diego: Academic Press, 1–74.Google Scholar
Funk, Carolyn L. 1996. “Understanding Trait Inferences in Candidate Images.” In Research in Micropolitics. vol. 5, eds. Delli Carpini, Michael X., Huddy, Leonie, and Shapiro, Robert Y.. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 97–123.Google Scholar
Gilbert, Daniel T. 1989. “Thinking Lightly about Others: Automatic Components of the Social Inference Process.” In Unintended Thought, eds. Uleman, John S. and Bargh, John A.. New York: Guilford Press, 189–211.Google Scholar
Graber, Doris A. 1984. Processing the News: How People Tame the Information Tide. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Hacker, Kenneth L. 2004. Presidential Candidate Images. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Hajnal, Zoltan L. 2006. Changing White Attitudes toward Black Political Leadership. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Crystal C., Goren, Amir, Chaiken, Shelly, and Todorov, Alexander. 2009. “Shallow Cues with Deep Effects: Trait Judgments from Faces and Voting Decisions.” In The Political Psychology of Democratic Leadership, eds. Borgida, Eugene, Federico, Christopher M., and Sullivan, John L.. New York: Oxford University Press, 73–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Danny. 2005. “Candidate Qualities through a Partisan Lens: A Theory of Trait Ownership.” American Journal of Political Science 49: 908–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hastie, Reid, and Park, Bernadette B.. 1986. “The Relationship between Memory and Judgment Depends on Whether the Task Is Memory-Based or On-Line.” Psychological Review 93: 258–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hastie, Reid, and Pennington, Nancy. 1989. “Notes on the Distinction between Memory-Based Versus On-Line Judgments.” In On-Line Cognition in Person Perception, ed. Bassili, John M.. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1–17.Google Scholar
Huddy, Leonie, and Terkildsen, Nayda. 1993. “Gender Stereotypes and the Perception of Male and Female Candidates.” American Journal of Political Science 37: 119–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchings, Vincent L., and Valentino, Nicholas. 2004. “The Centrality of Race in American Politics.” Annual Review of Political Science 7: 383–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, and Kinder, Donald R.. 1987. News That Matters: Television and American Opinion. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Lawrence R., and Shapiro, Robert Y.. 2000. Politicians Don't Pander: Political Manipulation and the Loss of Democratic Responsiveness. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, Eric J., and Russo, J. Edward. 1984. “Product Familiarity and Learning New Information.” Journal of Consumer Research 11: 542–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Just, Marion R., Crigler, Ann N., Alger, Dean E., Cook, Timothy E., and Kern, Montague. 1996. Crosstalk: Citizens, Candidates, and the Media in a Presidential Campaign. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kam, Cindy D., Wilking, Jennifer R., and Zechmeister, Elizabeth J.. 2007. “Beyond the ‘Narrow Data Base’: Another Convenience Sample for Experimental Research.” Political Behavior 29: 415–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keating, Caroline F., Randall, David, and Kendrick, Timothy. 1999. “Presidential Physiognomies: Altered Images, Altered Perceptions.” Political Psychology 20: 593–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelley, Stanley, and Mirer, Thad. 1974. “The Simple Act of Voting.” American Political Science Review 61: 572–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Key, Vladimir O. 1958. Politics, Parties, and Pressure Groups. 4th ed. New York: Crowell.Google Scholar
Kinder, Donald R. 1986. “Presidential Character Revisited.” In Political Cognition: The 19th Annual Carnegie Symposium on Cognition, eds. Lau, Richard R. and Sears, David O.. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 233–56.Google Scholar
Kinder, Donald R. 1998. “Opinion and Action in the Realm of Politics.” In The Handbook of Social Psychology. vol. 2, 4th ed., eds. Gilbert, Daniel T., Fiske, Susan T., and Lindzey, Gardner. New York: McGraw-Hill, 778–867.Google Scholar
Kinder, Donald R., and Sanders, Lynn M.. 1996. Divided by Color: Racial Politics and Democratic Ideals. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Krosnick, Jon A. 1988. “The Role of Attitude Importance in Social Evaluation: A Study of Policy Preferences, Presidential Candidate Evaluations, and Voting Behavior.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 55: 196–210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krosnick, Jon A., and Kinder, Donald R.. 1990. “Altering the Foundations of Support for the President through Priming.” American Political Science Review 84: 497–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruglanski, Arie W., and Sleeth-Keppler, David. 2007. “The Principles of Social Judgment.” In Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles. 2nd ed., eds. Kruglanski, Arie W. and Higgins, E. Tory. New York: Guilford Press, 116–37.Google Scholar
Lau, Richard R., and Redlawsk, David P.. 2006. How Voters Decide: Information Processing during Election Campaigns. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavine, Howard. 2002. “On-line Versus Memory-Based Process Models of Candidate Evaluation.” In Political Psychology, ed. Monroe, Kristen R.. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 225–47.Google Scholar
Lodge, Milton, McGraw, Kathleen M., and Stroh, Patrick. 1989. “An Impression-Driven Model of Candidate Evaluation.” American Political Science Review 83: 399–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lodge, Milton, and Steenbergen, Marco. 1995. “The Responsive Voter: Campaign Information and the Dynamics of Candidate Evaluation.” American Political Science Review 89: 309–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markus, Gregory B. 1982. “Political Attitudes during an Election Year: A Report on the 1980 NES Panel Study.” American Political Science Review 76: 538–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayhew, David. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
McDermott, Monika L. 1998. “Race and Gender Cues in Low-Information Elections.” Political Research Quarterly 51: 895–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGraw, Kathleen M. 2003. “Political Impressions: Formation and Management.” In Handbook of Political Psychology, eds. David Sears, Leonie Huddy, and Jervis, Robert. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McGraw, Kathleen M., and Dolan, Thomas. 2007. “Personifying the State: Consequences for Attitude Formation.” Political Psychology 28: 299–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGraw, Kathleen M., Fischle, Mark, and Stenner, Karen. 2000. “What People ‘Know’ Depends on How They Are Asked.” Unpublished manuscript, Ohio State University.
McGraw, Kathleen M., Hasecke, Edward, and Conger, Kimberly. 2003. “Ambivalence, Uncertainty, and Processes of Candidate Evaluation.” Political Psychology 24: 421–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGraw, Kathleen M., and Hoekstra, Valerie. 1994. “Experimentation in Political Science: Historical Trends and Future Directions.” In Research in Micropolitics, eds. Delli Carpini, Michael X., Huddy, Leonie, and Shapiro, Robert Y.. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 3–29.Google Scholar
McGraw, Kathleen M., Lodge, Milton, and Jones, Jeffrey. 2002. “The Pandering Politicians of Suspicious Minds.” Journal of Politics 64: 362–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGraw, Kathleen M., Lodge, Milton, and Stroh, Patrick. 1990. “On-Line Processing in Candidate Evaluation: The Effects of Issue Order, Issue Salience and Sophistication.” Political Behavior 12: 41–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGraw, Kathleen M., and Pinney, Neil. 1990. “The Effects of General and Domain-Specific Expertise on Political Memory and Judgment Processes.” Social Cognition 8: 9–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Arthur H., Wattenberg, Martin P., and Malanchuk, Oksana. 1986. “Schematic Assessments of Presidential Candidates.” American Political Science Review 79: 359–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, Dona-Gene. 2008. “It's about Time: The Dynamics of Information Processing in Political Campaigns.” Unpublished dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Moskowitz, David, and Stroh, Patrick. 1994. “Psychological Sources of Electoral Racism.” Political Psychology 15: 307–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nimmo, Dan, and Savage, Robert L.. 1976. Candidates and Their Images: Concepts, Methods, and Findings. Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear.Google Scholar
Page, Benjamin I. 1976. “The Theory of Political Ambiguity.”American Political Science Review 70: 742–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, Benjamin I., and Brody, Richard. 1972. “Policy Voting and the Electoral Process: The Vietnam War Issue.” American Political Science Review 66: 979–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petrocik, John. 1996. “Issue Ownership in Presidential Elections, with a 1980 Case Study.” American Journal of Political Science 40: 825–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rahn, Wendy M. 1993. “The Role of Partisan Stereotypes in Information Processing about Political Candidates.” American Journal of Political Science 37: 472–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rahn, Wendy M., Aldrich, John H., and Borgida, Eugene. 1994. “Individual and Contextual Variations in Political Candidate Appraisal.” American Political Science Review 88: 193–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rahn, Wendy M., Krosnick, Jon A., and Breuning, Marike. 1994. “Rationalization and Derivation Processes in Survey Studies of Political Candidate Evaluation.” American Journal of Political Science 38: 582–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rapoport, Ronald B., Metcalf, Kelly L., and Hartman, Jon A.. 1989. “Candidate Traits and Voter Inferences: An Experimental Study.” Journal of Politics 51: 917–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redlawsk, David. 2001. “You Must Remember This: A Test of the On-Line Model of Voting.” Journal of Politics 63: 29–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riggle, Ellen D., Ottati, Victor C., Wyer, Robert S., Kuklinski, James H., and Schwarz, Norbert. 1992. “Bases of Political Judgments: The Role of Stereotypic and Nonstereotypic Judgment.” Political Behavior 14: 67–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rivers, Douglas, and Fiorina, Morris P.. 1991. “Constituency Service, Reputation, and the Incumbency Advantage.” In Home Style and Washington Work: Studies of Congressional Politics, eds. Fiorina, Morris P. and Rohde, David W.. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 17–45.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, Shawn, Bohan, Lisa, McCafferty, Patrick, and Harris, Kevin. 1986. “The Image and the Vote: The Effect of Candidate Presentation on Voter Preference.” American Journal of Political Science 30: 108–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Monica, and Bos, Angela. 2009. “It Don't Matter if You're Black or White? Exploring the Content of Stereotypes of Black Politicians.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.
Sigelman, Lee, Sigelman, Carol K., and Fowler, C.. 1987. “A Bird of a Different Feather? An Experimental Investigation of Physical Attractiveness and the Electability of Female Candidates.” Social Psychological Quarterly 50: 32–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigelman, Carol K., Sigelman, Lee, Walkosz, Barbara, and Nitz, Michael. 1995. “Black Candidates, White Voters: Understanding Racial Bias in Political Perceptions.” American Journal of Political Science 39: 243–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stimson, James A., MacKuen, Michael B., and Erikson, Robert S.. 1995. “Dynamic Representation.” American Political Science Review 89: 543–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stroud, Laura, Glaser, Jack, and Salovey, Peter. 2006. “The Effects of Partisanship and Candidate Emotionality on Voter Preference.” Imagination, Cognition, and Personality 25: 25–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomz, Michael, and Houweling, Robert P.. 2009. “The Electoral Implications of Candidate Ambiguity.” American Political Science Review 103: 83–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Linda F. 1990. “White/Black Perceptions of the Electability of Black Political Candidates.” National Political Science Review 2: 145–64.Google Scholar
Zaller, John R. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaller, John R., and Feldman, Stanley. 1992. “A Simple Theory of the Survey Response: Answering Questions versus Revealing Preferences.” American Journal of Political Science 36: 579–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zebrowitz, Leslie A. 1994. “Facial Maturity and Political Prospects: Persuasive, Culpable, and Powerful Faces.” In Beliefs, Reasoning, and Decision Making: Psych-Logic in Honor of Bob Abelson, eds. Schank, Roger C. and Langer, Ellen. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 315–45.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×