Associative Issue Ownership as a Determinant of Voters’ Campaign Attention

References

• Bélanger, Éric, and Bonnie M. Meguid (2008). ‘Issue salience, issue ownership, and issue-based vote choice’, Electoral Studies, 27:3, 477–491.10.1016/j.electstud.2008.01.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bélanger, É., and R. Nadeau (2015). ‘Issue Ownership of the Economy: Cross-time Effects on Vote Choice’, West European Politics, doi:10.1080/01402382.2015.1039373.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bennett, Lance W., and Shanto Iyengar (2008). ‘A New Era of Minimal Effects? The Changing Foundations of Political Communication’, Journal of Communication, 58, 707–731.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Billiet, Jaak, Bart Maddens, and André- Paul Frognier (2008). ‘Does Belgium (Still) Exist? Differences in Political Culture between Flemings and Walloons’, West European Politics, 29:5, 912–932.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blais, André, Elisabeth Gidengil, Patrick Fournier, and Neil Nevitte (2009). ‘Information, Visibility and Elections: Why Electoral Outcomes Differ when Voters are Better Informed’, European Journal of Political Research, 48:2, 256–280.10.1111/ejpr.2009.48.issue-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blumler, Jay G., and Dennis Kavanagh (1999). ‘The Third Age of Political Communication: Influences and Features’, Political Communication, 16:3, 209–230.10.1080/105846099198596
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bolsen, Toby, and Thomas J. Leeper (2013). ‘Self-Interest and Attention to News among Issue Publics’, Political Communication, 30:3, 329–348.10.1080/10584609.2012.737428
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Budge, Ian (2013). ‘Saliency in Theory and (Coding) Practice: A Review’, Paper presented at the Workshop Issues, Parties, and the Public. How the public links parties to issues and how it matters, Antwerp, Belgium.
   Google Scholar
• Budge, Ian, and Dennis J. Farlie (1983). Explaining and Predicting Elections: Issue Effects and Party Strategies in 23 Democracies. London: Allen and Unwin.
   Google Scholar
• Chen, Hsuan-Ting (2013). Capturing the Nature of Issue Publics: Selectivity, Deliberation, and Activeness in the New Media Environment. PhD Dissertation, available at http://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/21372 (accessed).
   Google Scholar
• Damore, David F. (2005). ‘Issue Convergence in Presidential Campaigns’, Political Behavior, 27:1, 71–97.10.1007/s11109-005-3077-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deschouwer, Kris (2009). The Politics of Belgium: Governing a Divided Society. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Deschouwer, Kris, Pascal Delwit, Marc Hooghe, and Stefaan Walgrave (2010). ‘De verkiezingen van 2009. Resultaten en algemene tendensen’, in Kris Deschouwer, Pascal Delwit, Marc Hooghe, and Stefaan Walgrave (eds.), De Stemmen van het Volk. Een analyse van het kiesgedrag in Vlaanderen en Wallonië op 7 juni 2009. Brussels, Belgium: VUB Press, 7–28.
   Google Scholar
• Donsbach, Wolfgang (2009). ‘Cognitive Dissonance Theory – A Roller Coaster Career. How Communication Research Adapted the Theory of Cognitive Dissonance’, in T. Hartmann (ed.), Media Choice: A Theoretical and Empirical Overview. London: Routledge, 128–149.
   Google Scholar
• Druckman, James N. (2004). ‘Priming the Vote: Campaign Effects in a U.S. Senate Election’, Political Psychology, 25:4, 577–594.10.1111/pops.2004.25.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Egan, Patrick J. (2013). Partisan Priorities: How Issue Ownership Drives and Distorts American Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781107337138
   Google Scholar
• Evans, Geoffrey, and Robert Andersen (2004). ‘Do issues Decide? Partisan Conditioning and Perceptions of Party Issue Positions Across the Electoral Cycle’, Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 14, 18–39.
   Google Scholar
• Festinger, Leon (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Evanston: Row Peterson.
   Google Scholar
• Garrett, R. Kelly (2009). ‘Politically Motivated Reinforcement Seeking: Reframing the Selective Exposure Debate’, Journal of Communication, 59:4, 676–699.10.1111/jcom.2009.59.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garrett, R. Kelly, Dustin Carnahan, and Emily K. Lynch (2013). ‘A Turn Toward Avoidance? Selective Exposure to Online Political Information, 2004–2008’, Political Behavior, 35:1, 113–134.10.1007/s11109-011-9185-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayes, Danny (2008). ‘Party Reputations, Journalistic Expectations: How Issue Ownership Influences Election News’, Political Communication, 25:4, 377–400.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holbert, Lance R., R. Kelly Garrett, and Laurel S. Gleason (2010). ‘A New Era of Minimal Effects? A Response to Bennett and Iyengar’, Journal of Communication, 60:1, 15–34.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holtz-Bacha, Christina, and Lynda Lee Kaid, L. (2006). ‘Political Advertising in International Comparison’, in Lynda Lee Kaid and Christina Holtz-Bacha (eds.), The Sage Handbook of Political Advertising. London: Sage, 3–14.10.4135/9781412973403
   Google Scholar
• Hopmann, David Nicolas, Christian Elmelund-Praestekaer, Rens Vliegenthart, Claes H. de Vreese, and Erik Albaek (2012). ‘Party Media Agenda-Setting: How Parties Influence Election News Coverage’, Party Politics, 18:2, 173–191.10.1177/1354068810380097
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hopmann, David Nicolas, Rens Vliegenthart, Claes H. De Vreese, and Erik Albæk (2010). ‘Effects of Election News Coverage: How Visibility and Tone Influence Party Choice’, Political Communication, 27:4, 389–405.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iyengar, Shanto, and Kyu S. Hahn (2009). ‘Red Media, Blue Media: Evidence of Ideological Selectivity in Media Use’, Journal of Communication, 59:1, 19–39.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iyengar, Shanto, and Adam F. Simon (2000). ‘New Perspectives and Evidence on Political Communication and Campaign Effects’, Annual Review of Psychology, 51:1, 149–169.10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.149
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iyengar, Shanto, Kyu S. Hahn, Jon A. Krosnick, and John Walker (2008). ‘Selective Exposure to Campaign Communication: The Role of Anticipated Agreement and Issue Public Membership’, Journal of Politics, 70:1, 186–200.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King, Gary, and Langche Zeng (2001). ‘Logistic Regression in Rare Events Data’, Political Analysis, 9, 137–163.10.1093/oxfordjournals.pan.a004868
   Google Scholar
• Kleinnijenhuis, Jan, and A. S. Walter (2014). ‘News, Discussion, and Associative Issue Ownership: Instability at the Micro Level versus Stability at the Macro Level’, International Journal of Press/Politics, 19:2, 226–245.10.1177/1940161213520043
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knobloch-Westerwick, Silvia, and Steven B. Kleinman (2012). ‘Preelection Selective Exposure: Confirmation Bias Versus Informational Utility’, Communication Research, 39:2, 170–193.10.1177/0093650211400597
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knobloch-Westerwick, Silvia, and Jingbo Meng (2009). ‘Looking the Other Way Selective Exposure to Attitude-Consistent and Counterattitudinal Political Information’, Communication Research, 36:3, 426–448.10.1177/0093650209333030
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krosnick, Jon A. (1990). ‘Government Policy and Citizen Passion: A Study of Issue Publics in Contemporary America’, Political Behavior, 12:1, 59–92.10.1007/BF00992332
   Google Scholar
• Lachat, Romain (2014). ‘Issue Ownership and the Vote: The Effects of Associative and Competence Ownership on Issue Voting’, Swiss Political Science Review, 20:4, 727–740.10.1111/spsr.2014.20.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lau, Richard R., and David P. Redlawsk (2001). Citizens and Politics: Perspectives from Political Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lau, Richard R., and David P. Redlawsk (2007). How Voters Decide: Information Processing During Election Campaigns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lefevere, Jonas (2011). Campaign Effects on Voter Decision Making. PhD Thesis, University of Antwerp.
   Google Scholar
• Maddens, Bart, Karolien Weekers, and Stefaan Fiers (2007). De uitgaven van de Vlaamse partijen voor de federale verkiezingen van 10 juni 2007. Leuven: Centrum voor Politicologie.
   Google Scholar
• Meffert, Michael F., Sungeun Chung, Amber J. Joiner, Leah Waks, and Jennifer Garst (2006). ‘The Effects of Negativity and Motivated Information Processing During a Political Campaign’, Journal of Communication, 56:1, 27–51.10.1111/jcom.2006.56.issue-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petrocik, John R. (1989). ‘The Theory of Issue Ownership: Issues, Agendas, and Electoral Coalitions in the 1988 Elections’, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Atlanta, GA.
   Google Scholar
• Petrocik, John R. (1996). ‘Issue Ownership in Presidential Elections, with a 1980 Case Study’, American Journal of Political Science, 40:3, 825–850.10.2307/2111797
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petty, Richard E., and John T. Cacioppo (1986). Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. New York, NY: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4612-4964-1
   Google Scholar
• Popkin, Samuel L. (1991). The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Prior, Markus (2003). ‘Any Good News in Soft News? The Impact of Soft News Preference on Political Knowledge’, Political Communication, 20:2, 149–171.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riker, William H. (1993). ‘Rhetorical Interaction in the Ratification Campaigns’, in William H. Riker (ed.), Agenda Formation. Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 81–120.
   Google Scholar
• Sides, John (2006). ‘The Origins of Campaign Agendas’, British Journal of Political Science, 36:3, 407–36.10.1017/S0007123406000226
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sigelman, Lee, and Emmett H. Buel (2004). ‘Avoidance or Engagement? Issue Convergence in U.S. Presidential Campaigns, 1960–2000’, American Journal of Political Science, 48, 650–661.10.1111/ajps.2004.48.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sinardet, Dave (2007). Wederzijdse mediarepresentaties van de nationale “andere” [Mutual Representations of the National “Other”]. Political Sciences: University of Antwerp.
   Google Scholar
• Spoon, Jae-Jae, Sara B Hobolt, and Catherine E. de Vries (2014). ‘Going Green: Explaining Issue Competition on the Environment’, European Journal of Political Research, 53:2, 363–80.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stroud, Natalie Jomini (2008). ‘Media Use and Political Predispositions: Revisiting the Concept of Selective Exposure’, Political Behavior, 30:3, 341–366.10.1007/s11109-007-9050-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stroud, Natalie Jomini (2010). ‘Polarization and Partisan Selective Exposure’, Journal of Communication, 60:3, 556–576.10.1111/jcom.2010.60.issue-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stubager, Rune, and Rune Slothuus (2013). ‘What are the Sources of Political Parties’ Issue Ownership? Testing Four Explanations at the Individual Level’, Political Behavior, 35:3, 567–588.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tomz, Michael, Gary King, and Langche Zeng (1999). ReLogit: Rare Events Logistic Regression, available at http://gking.harvard.edu/relogit (accessed 12 March 2014).
   Google Scholar
• Tresch, Anke (2009). ‘Politicians in the Media: Determinants of Legislators’ Presence and Prominence in Swiss Newspapers’, International Journal of Press/Politics, 14:1, 67–90.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tresch, Anke, Jonas Lefevere, and Stefaan Walgrave (2015). ‘“Steal me if you can!”: The Impact of Campaign Messages on Associative Issue Ownership’, Party Politics, 21:2, 198–208.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Aelst, Peter, Bart Maddens, and Jo Noppen (2006). ‘Van de studio naar de Kamer? Over de relatie tussen media en voorkeurstemmen tijdens de verkiezingen van 2003’ [‘From the Studio to Parliament? On the Relationship between Media and Preference Votes during the Elections of 2003’], in Bart Maddens and Jo Noppen (eds.), Wie zetelt? De gekozen politieke elite in Vlaanderen doorgelicht [Who Takes up a Seat? An Analysis of Elected Political Elites in Flanders]. Heverlee: Lannoo, 163–176.
   Google Scholar
• van Aelst, Peter, Bart Maddens, Jo Noppe, and Stefaan Fiers (2008). ‘Politicians in the News: Media or Party Logic? Media Attention and Electoral Success in the Belgian Election Campaign of 2003’, European Journal of Communication, 23, 193–210.10.1177/0267323108089222
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van der Brug, Wouter (2004). ‘Issue Ownership and Party Choice’, Electoral Studies, 23:2, 209–233.10.1016/S0261-3794(02)00061-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walgrave, Stefaan, Jonas Lefevere, and Anke Tresch (2012). ‘The Associative Dimension of Issue Ownership’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 76:4, 771–82.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walgrave, Stefaan, Jonas Lefevere, and Anke Tresch (2014). ‘The Limits of Issue Ownership Dynamics: The Constraining Effect of Party Preference’, Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 24:1, 1–19.10.1080/17457289.2013.811245
   Google Scholar
• Westerwick, A., S. B. Kleinman, and S. Knobloch-Westerwick (2013). ‘Turn a Blind Eye If You Care: Impacts of Attitude Consistency, Importance, and Credibility on Seeking of Political Information and Implications for Attitudes’, Journal of Communication, 63:3, 432–53.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zaller, John R. (1992). The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511818691
   Google Scholar
• Zaller, John R. (1996). ‘The Myth of Massive Media Impact Revived: New Support for a Discredited Idea’, in Diana C. Mutz, Paul M. Sniderman, and Richard A. Brody (eds.), Political Persuasion and Attitude change. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press, 17–78.
   Google Scholar