2000年美国总统竞选中的认知风格与政治学习

Thomas M. Holbrook
{"title":"2000年美国总统竞选中的认知风格与政治学习","authors":"Thomas M. Holbrook","doi":"10.1177/106591290605900302","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article explores the impact of cognitive style, as measured by need to evaluate and need for cognition, on information acquisition during the 2000 U.S. presidential campaign. Using data from the 2000 National Election Study I show that both constructs are related to measures of candidate information, i.e., correct ideological placement, correct policy placement, and number of candidate articulations; but that need to evaluate has a much stronger and more consistent effect than does need for cognition. The implications of these findings are discussed.","PeriodicalId":394472,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Quarterly (formerly WPQ)","volume":"286 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"30","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cognitive Style and Political Learning in the 2000 U.S. Presidential Campaign\",\"authors\":\"Thomas M. Holbrook\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/106591290605900302\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article explores the impact of cognitive style, as measured by need to evaluate and need for cognition, on information acquisition during the 2000 U.S. presidential campaign. Using data from the 2000 National Election Study I show that both constructs are related to measures of candidate information, i.e., correct ideological placement, correct policy placement, and number of candidate articulations; but that need to evaluate has a much stronger and more consistent effect than does need for cognition. The implications of these findings are discussed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":394472,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Political Research Quarterly (formerly WPQ)\",\"volume\":\"286 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2006-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"30\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Political Research Quarterly (formerly WPQ)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290605900302\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Research Quarterly (formerly WPQ)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290605900302","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 30

摘要

本文探讨了认知风格对2000年美国总统竞选期间信息获取的影响,通过评估需求和认知需求来衡量。我使用2000年全国选举研究的数据表明,这两个构念都与候选人信息的测量有关,即正确的思想定位、正确的政策定位和候选人表达的数量;但是评估的需要比认知的需要有更强更一致的效果。讨论了这些发现的意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Cognitive Style and Political Learning in the 2000 U.S. Presidential Campaign
This article explores the impact of cognitive style, as measured by need to evaluate and need for cognition, on information acquisition during the 2000 U.S. presidential campaign. Using data from the 2000 National Election Study I show that both constructs are related to measures of candidate information, i.e., correct ideological placement, correct policy placement, and number of candidate articulations; but that need to evaluate has a much stronger and more consistent effect than does need for cognition. The implications of these findings are discussed.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信