Ambivalent Versus Univalent Voters: Perceived Media Influences and Third-Person Perceptions

Abstract

By differentiating “ambivalent” from “univalent” voters, this study argues that ambivalent voters need information to reach a decision, which implies they are more open to persuasion through media coverage than are univalent voters. In turn, they may infer that election coverage exerts a greater influence on them, resulting in smaller self–other perceptual discrepancies in terms of their coverage susceptibility. Conversely, univalent voters have made their voting choices early during the campaign; for them, only when the intended influence seems desirable does the perceived influence of campaign news on them increase, leading to a smaller self–other perceptual gap. In other words, ambivalent voters engage in motivated inferences to reduce their ambivalence-aroused discomfort, whereas univalent voters engage in motivated inferences to avoid dissonance. The results of a survey conducted during the official campaign for the 2012 Taiwanese presidential election support these predictions, demonstrating the utility of categorizing voters as ambivalent or univalent when examining the perceived effects of election campaign news.

NOTES

Notes

1. This article does not use the term “swing voters” to refer to ambivalent voters, because, in prior literature, swing voters include both ambivalent and indifferent voters, and voters who swing across elections might not be torn between two choices in any particular election (Mayer, 2007).

2. The question was as follows: “During the presidential campaign period, there is positive coverage of candidates (e.g., Ma's new achievement in diplomatic relations, Tsai's leadership in DPP reform and Soong's accomplishment when he served as the mayor).… Please rate the degree to which positive coverage of Ma affects your election decision/Please rate the degree to which positive coverage of Ma affects others' election decision/Please rate the degree to which positive coverage of Tsai affects your election decision/Please rate the degree to which positive coverage of Tsai affects others' election decision.”

3. The question was: “During the presidential campaign period, there is negative coverage of candidates (e.g., Ma broke his promises made in past elections, Tsai's proposed policies are mere election rhetoric and low in feasibility and Soong's financial scandals).… Please rate the degree to which positive coverage of Ma affects your election decision/Please rate the degree to which positive coverage of Ma affects others' election decision/Please rate the degree to which positive coverage of Tsai affects your election decision/Please rate the degree to which positive coverage of Tsai affects others' election decision.”