Advertisement

Political Behavior

, Volume 29, Issue 2, pp 249–278 | Cite as

Retrospective and Prospective Performance Assessments during the 2004 Election Campaign: Tests of Mediation and News Media Priming

  • Neil Malhotra
  • Jon A. Krosnick
Original paper

Abstract

According to many theoretical accounts of the vote choice, distal determinants (e.g., party identification) influence proximal determinants (e.g., perceptions of candidates), which in turn shape candidate preferences. Yet almost no research on voting has formally tested such mediational hypotheses. Using national survey data collected between February and September of 2004, this paper begins by illustrating how to conduct such investigations. We explored whether public approval of President Bush’s handling of a series of specific national problems (e.g., the Iraq war) influenced overall assessments of his job performance and evaluations of his likely future performance versus John Kerry’s, which in turn shaped vote choices. The results are consistent with the claim of mediation and shed additional light on the impact of various issues on the 2004 election outcome. We also tested what we term the “dosage hypothesis,” derived from news media priming theory, which posits that changes in the amount of media coverage of an issue during the course of a campaign should precipitate changes in the weight citizens place on that issue when evaluating the president’s overall job performance, particularly among citizens most exposed to the news. Surprisingly, this analysis did not yield consistent support for the venerable dosage hypothesis, suggesting that the conditions under which priming occurs should be specified much more precisely in future work.

Keywords

Retrospective voting Presidential approval 2004 election News media priming Mediation 

Notes

Acknowledgment

We thank Gary Langer, Dan Merkle, and Jon Cohen of ABC News for sharing these data with us and for their helpful comments on the manuscript. Jon Krosnick is University Fellow at Resources for the Future.

References

  1. Abramowitz, A. I., Lanoue, D. J., & Ramesh, S. (1988). Economic conditions, causal attributions, and political evaluations in the 1984 presidential election. Journal of Politics, 50, 848–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abramowitz, A. I., & Stone, W. J. (2006). The Bush effect: Polarization, turnout, and activism in the 2004 presidential election. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 36, 141–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  5. Conover, P. J. (1985). The impact of group economic interests on political evaluations. American Politics Quarterly, 13, 139–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Domke, D. (2001). Racial cues and political ideology: An examination of associative priming. Communication Research, 28, 772–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Domke, D, Shah, D. V., & Wackman, D. B. (1998). Media priming effects: Accessibility, association, and activation. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 10, 51–74.Google Scholar
  8. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Fiorina, M. P. (1981). Retrospective voting in American national elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Gerber, E. R., & Jackson, J. E. (1993). Endogenous preferences and the study of institutions. American Political Science Review, 87, 639–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gershkoff, A., & Kushner, S. (2005). Shaping public opinion: The 9/11-Iraq connection in the Bush administration’s rhetoric. Perspectives on Politics, 3, 525–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hester, J. B., & Gibson, R. (2003). The economy and second-level agenda setting: A time series analysis of economic news and public opinion about the economy. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 80, 73–90.Google Scholar
  13. Hetherington, M. J. (1996). The media’s role in forming voters’ national economic evaluations in 1992. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 372–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Holbrook, R. A., & Hill, T. G. (2005). Agenda-setting and priming in prime time television: Crime dramas as political cues. Political Communication, 22, 277–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Iyengar, S., & Kinder, D. R. (1987). News that matters. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  16. Iyengar, S., Kinder, D. R., Peters, M. D., & Krosnick, J. A. (1984). The evening news and presidential evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 778–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Iyengar, S., Peters, M. D., & Kinder, D. R. (1982). Experimental demonstrations of the ‘not-So-minimal’ consequences of television news programs. American Political Science Review, 76, 848–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jennings, M. K., & Markus, G. B. (1984). Partisan orientations over the long haul: Results from the three-wave political socialization panel study. American Political Science Review, 78, 1000–1018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Judge, G. G., Griffiths, W. E., Hill, R. C., Lutkepohl, H., & Lee, T. C. (1985). The theory and practice of econometrics (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  20. Kenney, P. J., & Rice, T. W. (1988). Presidential prenomination preferences and candidate evaluations. American Political Science Review, 82, 1309–1319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kinder, D. R., Adams, G. S., & Gronke, P. W. (1989). Economics and politics in the 1984 American presidential election. American Journal of Political Science, 33, 491–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kinder, D. R., & Kiewiet, D. R. (1979). Economic discontent and political behavior: The role of personal grievances and collective economic judgments in congressional voting. American Journal of Political Science, 23, 495–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kinder, D. R., & Kiewiet, D. R. (1981). Sociotropic politics: The American case. British Journal of Political Science, 11, 129–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kiousis, S. (2003). Job approval and favorability: The impact of media attention to the Monica Lewinsky scandal on public opinion of President Bill Clinton. Mass Communication & Society, 6, 435–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Krosnick, J. A., & Brannon, L. A. (1993). The impact of the gulf war on the ingredients of presidential evaluations: Multidimensional effects of political involvement. American Political Science Review, 87, 963–975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Krosnick, J. A., & Kinder, D. R. (1990). Altering the foundations of popular support for the president through priming: Reagan and the Iran-contra affair. American Political Science Review, 84, 495–512.Google Scholar
  27. Langer, G. E., & Merkle, D. M. (2006). ABC news’ polling methodology and standards. http://abcnews.go.com/US/PollVault/story?id=145373&page=1 (June 9, 2006).Google Scholar
  28. Lavrakas, P. J. (1993). Telephone survey methods: Sampling, selection, and supervision. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  29. Lodge, M., McGraw, K. M., & Stroh, P. (1989). An impression-driven model of candidate evaluation. American Political Science Review, 83, 399–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 99–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Markus, G. B., & Converse, P. E. (1979). A dynamic simultaneous equation model of electoral choice. American Political Science Review, 73, 1055–1070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Miller, J. M. (2004). Media agenda-setting: Does content matter? Presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  33. Miller, J. M., & Krosnick, J. A. (2000). News media impact on the ingredients of presidential evaluations: Politically knowledgeable citizens are guided by a trusted source. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 295–309.Google Scholar
  34. Murdoch, M., Van Ryn, M., Hodges, J., & Cowper, D. (2005). Mitigating effect of department of veterans affairs disability benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder on low income. Military Medicine, 170, 137–140.Google Scholar
  35. Needham, B. L., & Crosnoe, R. (2005). Overweight status and depressive symptoms during adolescence. Journal of Adolescent Health, 36, 48–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Page, B. I., & Jones, C. C. (1979). Reciprocal effects of policy preferences, party loyalties, and the vote. American Political Science Review, 73, 1071–1089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Patterson, T. E. (2005). Young voters and the 2004 election. Report, Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics, and Public Policy.Google Scholar
  38. Pew Research Center for People and the Press. (2004). Voters more engaged, but campaign gets lukewarm ratings. Survey report.Google Scholar
  39. Rogerson, W. P. (1989). Profit regulation of defense contractors and prizes for innovation. Journal of Political Economy, 97, 1284–1305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociological Methodology, 13, 290–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stoker, L. (1993). Judging presidential character: The demise of Gary Hart. Political Behavior, 15, 193–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Thorndike, E. L. (1920). A constant error on psychological rating. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4, 25–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Valentino, N. A., Hutchings, V. L., & White, I. K. (2002). Cues that matter: How political ads prime racial attitudes during campaigns. American Political Science Review, 96(1), 75–90.Google Scholar
  45. Wattenberg, M. P. (2005). Turnout in the 2004 presidential election. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 35, 138–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zamboanga, B. L., Bean, J. L., Pietras, A. C., & Pabon, L. C. (2005). Subjective evaluations of alcohol expectancies and their relevance to drinking game involvement in female college students. Journal of Adolescent Health, 37, 77–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceStanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  2. 2.Departments of Communication, Political Science, and PsychologyStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations