Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-dkgms Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-15T03:01:02.322Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Partisan Schema for Political Information Processing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Milton Lodge  and
Ruth Hamill
Milton Lodge
Affiliation:
State University of New York, Stony Brook
Ruth Hamill
Affiliation:
Frank N. Magid Associates, Marion, Iowa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Based on their interest in politics and knowledge of political leaders, individuals are classified into three levels of partisan sophistication: (1) those scoring high in interest and knowledge (partisan schematics), (2) a middle group, and (3) those scoring low (partisan aschematics). In this experimental study, and consistent with findings from cognitive and social psychology, partisan schematics prove better able than partisan aschematics to classify campaign statements as either Republican or Democratic and to recall the policy stands taken by a fictitious congressman. Aschematics, at the other extreme, perform at no better than chance levels in either the recognition or recall of the congressman's policy statements. There are, however, liabilities to sophistication as well: Schematics demonstrate a “consistency bias” in recalling significantly more policy statements that are consistent with the congressman's party identification than are inconsistent with it. This “restructuring” of memory is especially pronounced among sophisticates, and reflects a serious bias in the processing of political information.

Type
Articles
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 80 , Issue 2 , June 1986 , pp. 505 - 519
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1986

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.)

References

Abelson, Robert. 1979. Differences between Belief and Knowledge Systems. Cognitive Science, 3:355–66.Google Scholar
Alba, J. W., and Hasher, Lynn. 1983. Is Memory Schematic? Psychological Bulletin, 93:203–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Axelrod, Robert. 1973. Schema Theory: An Information Processing Model of Perception and Cognition. American Political Science Review, 67:1248–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartlett, Frederick. 1932. Remembering. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bastedo, Ralph, and Lodge, Milton. 1980. The Meaning of Party Labels. Political Behavior, 2:287–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, W. Lance. 1977. The Growth of Knowledge in Mass Belief Systems: An Epistemological Critique. American Journal of Political Science, 21:363–400.Google Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Phillip, Miller, Warren, and Stokes, Donald. 1960. The American Voter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Conover, Pamela, and Feldman, Stanley. 1981. The Origins and Meaning of Liberal/Conservative Self-Identification. American Journal of Political Science, 25:617–45.Google Scholar
Conover, Pamela, and Feldman, Stanley. 1984. How People Organize the Political World: A Schematic Model. American Journal of Political Science, 28:95–126.Google Scholar
Conover, Pamela, and Feldman, Stanley. 1985. The Role of Inference in the Perception of Political Candidates. In Political Cognition. See Lau and Sears, 1985.Google Scholar
Converse, Phillip E. 1964. The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics. In Apter, David, ed., Ideology and Discontent. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Converse, Phillip E. 1975. Public Opinion and Voting Behavior. In Greenstein, Frederick and Polsby, Nelson, eds., Handbook of Political Science, vol. 4. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S. 1979. The SRC Panel Data and Mass Political Attitudes. British Journal of Political Science, 9:89–114.Google Scholar
Fiske, Susan, and Kinder, Donald. 1981. Involvement, Expertise and Schema Use: Evidence from Political Cognition. In Cantor, Nancy and Kihlstrom, John, eds., Personality, Cognition and Social Interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Fiske, Susan, and Taylor, Shelley. 1984. Social Cognition. New York: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Fiske, Susan, Kinder, Donald, and Larter, W. Michael. 1983. The Novice and the Expert: Knowledge-Based Strategies in Political Cognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 19:381–400.Google Scholar
Gant, Michael, and Luttbeg, Norman. 1984. Mental Economy and Voter Rationality: The Informed Citizen Problem in Voting Research. Journal of Politics, 46:132–53.Google Scholar
Graber, Doris. 1984. Processing the News. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Hamill, Ruth, Lodge, Milton, and Blake, Frederick. 1985. The Breadth, Depth and Utility of Partisan, Class and Ideological Schemas. American Journal of Political Science, 29:850–70.Google Scholar
Hastie, Reid. 1980. Schematic Principles in Human Memory. In Cantor, Nancy and Kihlstrom, John, eds., Personality, Cognition, and Social Interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Hastie, Reid. 1985. A Primer of Information Theory for the Political Scientist. In Political Cognition. See Lau and Sears, 1985.Google Scholar
Kinder, Donald. 1983. Diversity and Complexity in American Politics. In Finifter, Ada, ed., The State of the Discipline. Washington, D.C.: American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Knight, Kathleen. 1983. Ideology in the 1980 Election: Sophistication Matter. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Lau, Richard. 1985. Political Schemas, Candidate Evaluations, and Voting Behavior. In Political Cognition. See Lau and Sears, 1985.Google Scholar
Lau, Richard, and Sears, David, eds. 1985. Political Cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Lau, Richard, Coulam, Robert, and Sears, David. 1983. Proposition 2½ in Massachusetts: Selfinterest, Anti-Government Attitudes and Political Schemas. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Levitan, Teresa, and Miller, Warren. 1979. Ideological Interpretations of Presidential Elections. American Political Science Review, 73:751–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lippmann, Walter. 1922. Public Opinion. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovitch.Google Scholar
Lodge, Milton, and Hamill, Ruth. 1983. Some Experimental Effects of Ideological Sophistication on the Processing of political Information. Report No. 19, Laboratory for Behavioral Research, Department of Political Science, SUNY at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY 11794.Google Scholar
Marcus, Greg, and Converse, Phillip. 1979. A Dynamic Simultaneous Equation Model of Electoral Choice. American Political Science Review, 73:1055–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markus, Helen. 1977. Self-Schemata and Processing Information about the Self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35:63–78.Google Scholar
Markus, Helen, and Smith, Joseph. 1981. The Influence of Self-Schemas on the Perception of Others. In Cantor, Nancy and Kihlstrom, John, eds., Personality, Cognition, and Social Interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Miller, Arthur. 1985. Information Processing and Political Candidates. In Political Cognition. See Lau and Sears, 1985.Google Scholar
Minsky, Marvin. 1975. A Framework for Representing Knowledge. In Winston, Patrick A., ed., The Psychology of Computer Vision. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Neisser, Ulric. 1976. Cognition and Reality: Principles and Implications of Cognitive Psychology. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
Nie, Norman, Verba, Sidney, and Petrocik, John. 1976. The Changing American Vote. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Norpoth, Helmut, and Lodge, Milton. 1985. The Difference between Attitudes and Nonattitudes in the Mass Public: Just Measurement? American Journal of Political Science, 29:291–307.Google Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor. 1975. Cognitive Representations of Semantic Categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104:192–233.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, David, and Ortony, Andrew. 1977. The Representation of Knowledge in Memory. In Anderson, John, Spiro, R. and Montague, W. E., eds., Schooling and the Acquisition of Knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Schank, Roger, and Abelson, Robert. 1977. Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding: An Inquiry into Human Knowledge Structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Sharp, Carol, and Lodge, Milton. 1985. Partisan and Ideological Belief Systems: Do They Differ? Political Behavior, 7:147–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, Herbert S. 1980. Behavioral and Social Sciences. Science, 209:72–78.Google Scholar
Stimson, James A. 1975. Belief Systems: Constraint, Complexity, and the 1972 Election. American Journal of Political Science, 19:393–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Shelley, and Crocker, Jennifer. 1981. Schematic Bases of Social Information Processing. In Higgins, E. T., Hermann, P., and Zanna, M. P., eds., The Ontario Symposium on Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 1. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Thorson, Stuart, and McKeever, Mary Kay. 1983. Thematic Memory for Politics in Children. Political Behavior, 5:421–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wyer, Robert, and Srull, Thomas, eds. 1984. Handbook of Social Cognition. 3 vols. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.