Model of behavioural strategies for coping with party ambivalence

References

• Alvarez, R. M., and J. Brehm. 1995. “American Ambivalence Towards Abortion Policy: Development of a Heteroskedastic Probit Model of Competing Values.” American Journal of Political Science 39: 1055–1082. doi:10.2307/2111669.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basinger, S. J., and H. Lavine. 2005. “Ambivalence, Information, and Electoral Choice.” American Political Science Review 99 (2): 169–184. doi:10.1017/S0003055405051580.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cacioppo, J. T., W. L. Gardner, and G. G. Berntson. 1997. “Beyond Bipolar Conceptualizations and Measures: The Case of Attitudes and Evaluative Space.” Personality and Social Psychology Review 1 (1): 3–25. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0101_2.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Campbell A., P. E. Converse, W. E. Miller and D. E. Stokes. 1960. The American Voter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chang, C. 2017. “Party Ambivalence: Antecedents, Decision Strategies, Media Uses, and Coping Strategies before Elections.” Chinese Journal of Communication Research 32: 167–202.
   Google Scholar
• Chang, C., R. Wei, and V. H. Lo. 2014. “Ambivalent versus Univalent Voters: Perceived Media Influences and Third-Person Perceptions.” Media Psychology 17: 420–450. doi:10.1080/15213269.2014.924420.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis, N. T. 2015. “The Role of Indifference in Split-Ticket Voting.” Political Behavior 37 (1): 67–86. doi:10.1007/s11109-013-9266-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eagly, A. H., and S. Chaiken. 1993. The Psychology of Attitudes. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Gilovich, T., and V. H. Medvec. 1994. “The Temporal Pattern to the Experience of Regret.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67 (3): 357–365. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.3.357.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilovich, T., and V. H. Medvec. 1995. “The Experience of Regret: What, When, and Why.” Psychological Review 102 (2): 379–395. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.102.2.379.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greene, S. 2005. “The Structure of Partisan Attitudes: Reexamining Partisan Dimensionality and Ambivalence.” Political Psychology 26 (5): 809–822. doi:10.1111/pops.2005.26.issue-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Has RG, I. Katz, N. Rizzo, J. Bailey and L. Moore. 1992. “When Racial Ambivalence Evokes Negative Affect, Using a Disguised Measure of Mood.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 18 (6): 786–797. DOI:10.1177/0146167292186015.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, A. A. 2014. “Ambivalence, Political Engagement and Context.” Political Studies 62 (3): 502–521. doi:10.1111/1467-9248.12063.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaplan, K. J. 1972. “On the Ambivalence-Indifference Problem in Attitude Theory and Measurement: A Suggested Modification of the Semantic Differential Technique.” Psychological Bulletin 77 (5): 361–372. doi:10.1037/h0032590.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keele, L., and J. Wolak. 2006. “Value Conflict and Volatility in Party Identification.” British Journal of Political Science 36 (4): 671–690. doi:10.1017/S0007123406000354.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keele, L., and J. Wolak. 2008. “Contextual Sources of Ambivalence.” Political Psychology 29 (5): 653–673. doi:10.1111/pops.2008.29.issue-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keng, S., C. W. Liu, and L. H. Chen. 2009. “Between Principle and Pragmatism: The Unification-Independence Choice of the Taiwanese People.” Taiwanese Political Science Review 13 (2): 3–56.
   Google Scholar
• Ladd, E. C. 1990. “Public Opinion and the Congress Problem.” The Public Interest 100 (Summer): 57–67.
   Google Scholar
• Landman, J. 1987. “Regret and Elation following Action and Inaction: Affective Responses to Positive versus Negative Outcomes.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 13: 524–536. doi:10.1177/0146167287134009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lavine, H. 2001. “The Electoral Consequences of Ambivalence toward Presidential Candidates.” American Journal of Political Science 45 (4): 915–929. doi:10.2307/2669332.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lavine, H., C. D. Johnston, and M. R. Steenbergen. 2012. The Ambivalent Partisan: How Critical Loyalty Promotes Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lavine H., C. J. Thomsen, M. P. Zanna and E. Borgida. 1998. “On the Primacy of Affect in the Determination of Attitudes and Behavior: The Moderating Role of Affective-Cognitive Ambivalence.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 34 (4): 398–421. DOI:10.1006/jesp.1998.1357.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis-Beck, M. S., and R. Nadeau. 2004. “Split‐Ticket Voting: The Effects of Cognitive Madisonianism.” Journal of Politics 66 (1): 97–112. doi:10.1046/j.1468-2508.2004.00143.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, K. B. 2013. “Political Ambivalence and Ticket Splitting: A Study of the 2012 Presidential and Legislative Election in Taiwan.” Unpublished master‘s dissertation, National Chengchi University, Taiwan.
   Google Scholar
• Lodge, M., K. M. McGraw, and P. Stroh. 1989. “An Impression-Driven Model of Candidate Evaluation.” American Political Science Review 83 (2): 399–419. doi:10.2307/1962397.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGraw, K. M., E. Hasecke, and K. Conger. 2003. “Ambivalence, Uncertainty, and Processes of Candidate Evaluation.” Political Psychology 24 (3): 421–448. doi:10.1111/pops.2003.24.issue-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meffert, M. F., M. Guge, and M. Lodge. 2004. “Good, Bad, and Ambivalent: The Consequences of Multidimensional Political Attitudes.” In Studies in Public Opinion: Attitudes, Nonattitudes, Measurement Error, and Change, edited by W. E. Saris and P. M. Sniderman, pp. 63–92. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mulligan, K. 2011. “Partisan Ambivalence, Split‐Ticket Voting, and Divided Government.” Political Psychology 32 (3): 505–530. doi:10.1111/pops.2011.32.issue-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mutz, D. C. 2002. “The Consequences of Cross-Cutting Networks for Political Participation.” American Journal of Political Science 46: 838–855. doi:10.2307/3088437.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nadeau, R., and M. S. Lewis‐Beck. 2001. “National Economic Voting in US Presidential Elections.” Journal of Politics 63 (1): 159–181. doi:10.1111/0022-3816.00063.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nir, L. 2005. “Ambivalent Social Networks and Their Consequences for Participation.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research 17 (4): 422–442. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edh069.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nir, L., and J. N. Druckman. 2008. “Campaign Mixed-Message Flows and Timing of Vote Decision.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research 20 (3): 326–346. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edn035.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rigger, S. 1999. Politics in Taiwan: Voting for Democracy. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Roy, D. 2003. Taiwan: A Political History. New York: Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rudolph, T. J. 2011. “The Dynamics of Ambivalence.” American Journal of Political Science 55 (3): 561–573. doi:10.1111/ajps.2011.55.issue-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rudolph, T. J., and E. Popp. 2007. “An Information Processing Theory of Ambivalence.” Political Psychology 28 (5): 563–585. doi:10.1111/pops.2007.28.issue-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott, W. A. 1968. “Attitude Measurement.” In Handbook of Social Psychology, edited by G. Lindzey and E. Aronson, 204–273. Vol. 2. MA: Addison Wesley.
   Google Scholar
• Sigelman, L., P. J. Wahlbeck, and E. H. Buell Jr. 1997. “Vote Choice and the Preference for Divided Government: Lessons of 1992.” American Journal of Political Science 41 (3): 879–894. doi:10.2307/2111678.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taiwan’s Election and Democratization Study. 2016. “The Survey of Presidential and Legislative Elections, 2016 [Data File and Code Book].” http://teds.nccu.edu.tw/intro2/super_pages.php?ID=intro11&Sn=121
   Google Scholar
• Thornton, J. R. 2014. “Getting Lost on the Way to the Party: Ambivalence, Indifference, and Defection with Evidence from Two Presidential Elections.” Social Science Quarterly 95 (1): 184–201. doi:10.1111/ssqu.2014.95.issue-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tien, H. M. 1996. “Elections and Taiwan’s Democratic Development.” In Taiwan’s Electoral Politics and Democratic Transition: Riding the Third Wave, edited by H. M. Tien, pp. 3–25. New York: M. E. Sharpe.
   Google Scholar
• Trope, Y., and N. Liberman. 2003. “Temporal construal.” Psychological Review 110 (3): 403–421. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.110.3.403.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Harreveld F, BT. Rutjens, M. Rotteveel, L F. Nordgren, J. van der Pligt. 2009a. “Ambivalence and Decisional Conflict as a Cause of Psychological Discomfort: Feeling Tense before Jumping off the Fence.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 45 (1): 167–173. DOI:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.08.015.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Harreveld, F., J. Van der Pligt, and Y. N. De Liver. 2009b. “The Agony of Ambivalence and Ways to Resolve It: Introducing the MAID Model.” Personality and Social Psychology Review 13 (1): 45–61. doi:10.1177/1088868308324518.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu, N. D. 1999. “Family Socialization and Identity: Voters’ National Identity and Generation Gap.” Taiwanese Sociological Review 3: 53–85.
   Google Scholar
• Yoo, S. J. 2010. “Two Types of Neutrality: Ambivalence versus Indifference and Political Participation.” Journal of Politics 72 (1): 163–177. doi:10.1017/S0022381609990545.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar