谁会用非政策的竞选信息来评价总统候选人?

Marisa A. Abrajano
{"title":"谁会用非政策的竞选信息来评价总统候选人?","authors":"Marisa A. Abrajano","doi":"10.1177/106591290505800105","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article tests the hypothesis that low-education voters are more likely to evaluate a candidate using personalistic or non-policy campaign messages than are more educated voters. The Latino electorate in the U.S. presents an ideal case study, given that both Presidential candidates in the 2000 election directed personalistic campaign messages toward them. Latinos with low-levels of education should be the most likely to evaluate a candidate using personalistic campaign cues since processing and understanding these messages require little in stored political information. Analysis of self-reported responses from the Latino Voter Survey of 2000 indicates that low-education Latinos are more likely than are high-education Latinos to use non-policy cues when evaluating a candidate. This finding implies that vote choice is structured differently for Latinos with varying levels of education. To test this implication and to confirm the finding from the self-reported responses, I estimate a model of Latino vote choice for the 2000 Presidential election. Probit analysis shows that high-education Latinos are indeed more likely to use factors that are informationally demanding, such as candidates’ issue positions and ideology than are low-education Latinos.","PeriodicalId":394472,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Quarterly (formerly WPQ)","volume":"323 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"30","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Who Evaluates a Presidential Candidate by Using Non-Policy Campaign Messages?\",\"authors\":\"Marisa A. Abrajano\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/106591290505800105\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article tests the hypothesis that low-education voters are more likely to evaluate a candidate using personalistic or non-policy campaign messages than are more educated voters. The Latino electorate in the U.S. presents an ideal case study, given that both Presidential candidates in the 2000 election directed personalistic campaign messages toward them. Latinos with low-levels of education should be the most likely to evaluate a candidate using personalistic campaign cues since processing and understanding these messages require little in stored political information. Analysis of self-reported responses from the Latino Voter Survey of 2000 indicates that low-education Latinos are more likely than are high-education Latinos to use non-policy cues when evaluating a candidate. This finding implies that vote choice is structured differently for Latinos with varying levels of education. To test this implication and to confirm the finding from the self-reported responses, I estimate a model of Latino vote choice for the 2000 Presidential election. Probit analysis shows that high-education Latinos are indeed more likely to use factors that are informationally demanding, such as candidates’ issue positions and ideology than are low-education Latinos.\",\"PeriodicalId\":394472,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Political Research Quarterly (formerly WPQ)\",\"volume\":\"323 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2005-03-01\",\"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/10.1177/106591290505800105\",\"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/10.1177/106591290505800105","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

这篇文章测试了一个假设,即教育程度低的选民比教育程度高的选民更有可能用个人主义或非政策性的竞选信息来评价候选人。美国的拉丁裔选民是一个理想的研究案例,因为在2000年的选举中,两位总统候选人都向他们发出了个人主义的竞选信息。受教育程度低的拉美裔人最有可能用个人主义的竞选线索来评价候选人,因为处理和理解这些信息不需要储存多少政治信息。对2000年拉丁裔选民调查自我报告的分析表明,在评价候选人时,受教育程度低的拉丁裔人比受教育程度高的拉丁裔人更有可能使用非政策线索。这一发现表明,受教育程度不同的拉美裔人的投票选择结构不同。为了测试这一含义,并确认从自我报告的回答发现,我估计了2000年总统选举拉丁裔投票选择的模型。概率分析表明,受过高等教育的拉美裔人确实比受教育程度低的拉美裔人更有可能使用信息要求高的因素,比如候选人的议题立场和意识形态。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Who Evaluates a Presidential Candidate by Using Non-Policy Campaign Messages?
This article tests the hypothesis that low-education voters are more likely to evaluate a candidate using personalistic or non-policy campaign messages than are more educated voters. The Latino electorate in the U.S. presents an ideal case study, given that both Presidential candidates in the 2000 election directed personalistic campaign messages toward them. Latinos with low-levels of education should be the most likely to evaluate a candidate using personalistic campaign cues since processing and understanding these messages require little in stored political information. Analysis of self-reported responses from the Latino Voter Survey of 2000 indicates that low-education Latinos are more likely than are high-education Latinos to use non-policy cues when evaluating a candidate. This finding implies that vote choice is structured differently for Latinos with varying levels of education. To test this implication and to confirm the finding from the self-reported responses, I estimate a model of Latino vote choice for the 2000 Presidential election. Probit analysis shows that high-education Latinos are indeed more likely to use factors that are informationally demanding, such as candidates’ issue positions and ideology than are low-education Latinos.
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