Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T00:13:38.640Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Aww, Shucky Ducky: Voter Response to Accusations of Herman Cain’s “Inappropriate Behavior”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2014

David A. M. Peterson  and
Beth Miller Vonnahme
David A. M. Peterson
Affiliation:
Iowa State University
Beth Miller Vonnahme
Affiliation:
University of Missouri, Kansas City
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Symposium: Political Scandal in American Politics
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 47 , Issue 2 , April 2014 , pp. 372 - 378
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2014 

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

REFERENCES

Brown, Lara M. 2006. “Revisiting the Character of Congress: Scandals in the U.S. House of Representatives, 1966–2002.” The Journal of Political Marketing 5: 149–72.Google Scholar
Carlson, James, Ganiel, Gladys, and Hyde, Mark S.. 2000. “Scandal and Political Candidate Image.” Southeastern Political Review 28: 747–7.Google Scholar
Cobb, Michael D., and Taylor, Andrew J.. 2014. “Paging Congressional Democrats: It Was the Immorality, Stupid.” PS: Political Science and Politics 47(2): this issue.Google Scholar
Dimock, Michael A., and Jacobson, Gary C.. 1995. “Checks and Choices: The House Bank Scandal’s Impact on Voters in 1992.” The Journal of Politics 57: 1143–59.Google Scholar
Doherty, David, Dowling, Conor M., and Miller, Michael G.. 2011. “Are Financial or Moral Scandals Worse? It Depends.” PS: Political Science and Politics 44(4): 749–57.Google Scholar
Doherty, David, Dowling, Conor M., and Miller, Michael G.. 2014. “Does Time Heal All Wounds? Sex Scandals, Tax Evasion, and the Passage of Time.” PS: Political Science and Politics 47(2): this issue.Google Scholar
Fischle, Mark. 2000. “Mass Response to the Lewinsky Scandal: Motivated Reasoning or Bayesian Updating.” Political Psychology 21: 135–59.Google Scholar
Funk, Carolyn. 1996. “The Impact of Scandal on Candidate Evaluations: An Experimental Test of the Role of Candidate Traits.” Political Behavior 18: 1–24.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Lewis R. (1982). “From Ace to Zombie: Some Explorations in the Language of Personality.” In Advances in Personality (Vol. 1), eds. Spielberger, Charles D. and Butcher, James N.203–34. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Goren, Paul. 2002. “Character Weakness, Partisan Bias, and Presidential Evaluation.” American Journal of Political Science 46: 627–41.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C., and Dimock, Michael A.. 1994. “Checking Out: The Effects of Bank Overdrafts on the 1992 House Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 38: 601–24.Google Scholar
Klein, William M., and Kunda, Ziva. 1992. “Motivated Person Perception: Constructing Justifications for Desired Beliefs.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 28: 145–68.Google Scholar
Kruglanski, Arie W., and Freund, Tallie. 1983. “The Freezing and Unfreezing of Lay-Inferences: Effects on Impressional Primacy, Ethnic Stereotyping, and Numerical Anchoring.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 19: 448–68.Google Scholar
McGraw, Kathleen, Mark Fischle, M., Stenner, Karen, and Lodge, Milton. 1996. “What’s in a Word? Bias in Trait Descriptions of Political Leaders.” Political Behavior 18: 263–87.Google Scholar
Miller, Beth. 2010. “The Effects of Scandalous Information on Recall of Policy-Related Information.” Political Psychology 31: 887–914.Google Scholar
Mutz, Diane C., and Martin, Paul S.. 2001. “Facilitating Communication across Lines of Political Difference: The Role of Mass Media.” American Political Science Review 95: 97–114.Google Scholar
Newman, Brian. 2002. “Bill Clinton’s Approval Ratings: The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same.” Political Research Quarterly 55: 781–804.Google Scholar
Pyszczynski, Tom, and Greenberg, Jeff. 1987. “Toward an Integration of Cognitive and Motivational Perspectives on Social Inference: A Biased Hypothesis Testing Model.” In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, ed. Berkowitz Leonard,. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rottinghaus, Brandon. 2014. “Monkey Business: The Effect of Scandals on Presidential Primary Nominations.” PS: Political Science and Politics 47(2): this issue.Google Scholar
Sorrentino, Richard M., and Higgins, Tory E.. 1986. “Motivation and Cognition: Warming up to Synergism.” In Handbook of Motivation and Cognition, eds. Sorrentino, Richard M. and Higgins, E. Tory. 3–19. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Stoker, Laura. 1993. “Judging Presidential Character: The Demise of Gary Hart.” Political Behavior 15: 193–223.Google Scholar
Stroud, Natalie J. 2008. “Media Use and Political Predispositions: Revisiting the Concept of Selective Exposure.” Political Behavior 30: 341–66.Google Scholar