IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/amposc/v64y2020i2p240-255.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Online Tallies and the Context of Politics: How Online Tallies Make Dominant Candidates Appear Competent in Contexts of Conflict

Author

Listed:
  • Lasse Laustsen
  • Michael Bang Petersen

Abstract

In this article, we extend the classical notion of online tallies to shed light on the psychology underlying the rapid emergence of dominant political leaders. Predicated on two population‐based panel surveys with embedded experiments, we demonstrate that citizens (1) store extremely durable tallies of candidate personalities in their long‐term memory and (2) retrieve different tallies depending on the context. In particular, we predict and demonstrate that when contexts become more conflict‐ridden, candidate evaluations rapidly shift from being negatively to positively associated with online impressions of candidate dominance. Although the notion of online tallies was originally proposed as an explanation of why citizens are able to vote for candidates on the basis of policy agreement, we demonstrate how the existence of context‐sensitive online tallies can favor dominant candidates, even if the candidate is otherwise unappealing or does not share policy views with citizens on key issues.

Suggested Citation

  • Lasse Laustsen & Michael Bang Petersen, 2020. "Online Tallies and the Context of Politics: How Online Tallies Make Dominant Candidates Appear Competent in Contexts of Conflict," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 64(2), pages 240-255, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:amposc:v:64:y:2020:i:2:p:240-255
    DOI: 10.1111/ajps.12490
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12490
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ajps.12490?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Markus, Gregory B., 1982. "Political Attitudes during an Election Year: A Report on the 1980 NES Panel Study," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 76(3), pages 538-560, September.
    2. Lodge, Milton & Steenbergen, Marco R. & Brau, Shawn, 1995. "The Responsive Voter: Campaign Information and the Dynamics of Candidate Evaluation," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 89(2), pages 309-326, June.
    3. Danny Hayes, 2005. "Candidate Qualities through a Partisan Lens: A Theory of Trait Ownership," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 49(4), pages 908-923, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alrababah, Ala & Casalis, Marine & Masterson, Daniel & Hangartner, Dominik & Wehrli, & Weinstein, Jeremy, 2023. "Reducing Attrition in Phone-based Panel Surveys: A Web Application to Facilitate Best Practices and Semi-Automate Survey Workflow," OSF Preprints gyz3h, Center for Open Science.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. David A. M. Peterson, 2009. "Campaign Learning and Vote Determinants," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(2), pages 445-460, April.
    2. Duane Alwin, 1989. "Problems in the estimation and interpretation of the reliability of survey data," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 277-331, September.
    3. Katjana Gattermann & Claes H De Vreese, 2017. "The role of candidate evaluations in the 2014 European Parliament elections: Towards the personalization of voting behaviour?," European Union Politics, , vol. 18(3), pages 447-468, September.
    4. Markus Prior & Arthur Lupia, 2005. "What Citizens Know Depends on How You Ask Them: Experiments on Time, Money and Political Knowledge," Experimental 0510001, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Chang Wen-Chun, 2008. "Toward Independence or Unification?," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 13(2), pages 1-32, January.
    6. Filip Palda, 2001. "Election Finance Regulation in Emerging Democracies: Lessons from Canada and the U.S," Public Economics 0111010, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Lupia, Arthur & Prior, Markus, 2005. "What Citizens Know Depends on How You Ask Them: Political Knowledge and Political Learning Skills," MPRA Paper 103, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 25 Sep 2006.
    8. Lockwood, Ben & Le, Minh & Rockey, James, 2021. "Dynamic Electoral Competition with Voter Loss-Aversion and Imperfect Recall," QAPEC Discussion Papers 12, Quantitative and Analytical Political Economy Research Centre.
    9. Gabriel Miao Li & Josh Pasek & Jon A. Krosnick & Tobias H. Stark & Jennifer Agiesta & Gaurav Sood & Trevor Tompson & Wendy Gross, 2022. "Americans’ Attitudes toward the Affordable Care Act: What Role Do Beliefs Play?," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 700(1), pages 41-54, March.
    10. Li, Xiaolin & Rao, Raghunath Singh & Narasimhan, Om & Gao, Xing, 2022. "Stay positive or go negative? Memory imperfections and messaging strategy," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 1127-1149.
    11. Katjana Gattermann & Claes De Vreese & Wouter van der Brug, 2016. "Evaluations of the Spitzenkandidaten: The Role of Information and News Exposure in Citizens’ Preference Formation," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 4(1), pages 37-54.
    12. N/A, 1997. "Individual Perception and Models of Issue Voting," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 9(1), pages 13-21, January.
    13. Susumu Shikano & Dominic Nyhuis, 2019. "The effect of incumbency on ideological and valence perceptions of parties in multilevel polities," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 181(3), pages 331-349, December.
    14. Morelli, Massimo & Gennaro, Gloria & Lecce, Giampaolo, 2021. "Mobilization and the Strategy of Populism Theory and Evidence from the United States," CEPR Discussion Papers 15686, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    15. James Adams & Simon Weschle & Christopher Wlezien, 2021. "Elite Interactions and Voters’ Perceptions of Parties’ Policy Positions," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 65(1), pages 101-114, January.
    16. Pablo Gutiérrez-Rodríguez & Ricardo Villarreal & Pedro Cuesta-Valiño & Shelley A. Blozis, 2023. "Valuation of candidate brand equity dimensions and voting intention: alternative polling data in the Spanish presidential election," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-10, December.
    17. Stuart Elaine Macdonald & George Rabinowitz, 1997. "On `Correcting' for Rationalization," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 9(1), pages 49-55, January.
    18. Bianca Nayeli Chacon Montoya & Carlos Emmanuel Saldaña Villanueva, 2023. "Determinants of Mayors’ approval ratings in Mexico (Determinantes de la aprobacion de alcaldes en Mexico)," Sobre México. Revista de Economía, Sobre México. Temas en economía, vol. 1(8), pages 47-68.
    19. Sung-youn Kim, 2011. "A Model of Political Judgment: An Agent-Based Simulation of Candidate Evaluation," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 14(2), pages 1-3.
    20. ENDO Yuya & ONO Yoshikuni, 2021. "Gender Stereotypes among Japanese Voters," Discussion papers 21061, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:amposc:v:64:y:2020:i:2:p:240-255. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1540-5907 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.