Pathologies of Studying Public Opinion, Political Communication, and Democratic Responsiveness

References

• Aaroe, L. (2011). Investigating frame strength: The case of episodic and thematic frames. Political Communication, 28, 207–226.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Achen, C. (1975). Mass political attitudes and the survey response. American Political Science Review, 69, 1218–1231.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Althaus, S. (2006). False starts, dead ends, and new opportunities in public opinion research. Critical Review, 18, 75–104.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ansolabehere, S., Rodden, J., & Snyder, J. M. (2008). The strength of issues: Using multiple measures to gauge preference stability, ideological constraint, and issue voting. American Political Science Review, 102, 215–232.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arceneaux, K. (2012). Cognitive biases and the strength of political arguments. American Journal of Political Science, 56, 271–285.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bartels, L. M. (1996). Uninformed votes: Information effects in presidential elections. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 194–230.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bartels, L. M. (2002). Beyond the running tally: Partisan bias in political perceptions. Political Behavior, 24, 117–150.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bartels, L. M. (2003). Democracy with attitudes. In M. B. MacKuen & G. Rabinowitz ( Eds.), Electoral democracy ( pp. 48–82). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bartels, L. M. (2008). Unequal democracy: The political economy of the new gilded age. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (2011). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental motivation. In J. Plaks ( Ed.), The social psychology of motivation (pp. 2–28). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Benoit, W. L. (2001). The functional approach to presidential television spots: Acclaiming, attacking, defending 1952–2000. Communication Studies, 52, 109–126.
   Google Scholar
• Bentham, J. (1989). First principles preparatory for the constitutional code. Oxford, England: Clarendon.
   Google Scholar
• Berelson, B. R., Lazarsfeld, P. F., & McPhee, W. N. (1954). Voting: A study of opinion formation in a presidential campaign. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bolsen, T., Druckman, J. N., & Cook, F. L. (2014). The influence of partisan motivated reasoning on public opinion. Political Behavior, 36, 235–262.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boninger, D. S., Krosnick, J., & Berent, M. (1995). Origins of attitude importance: Self-interest, social identification, and value relevance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 61–80.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borah, P. (2011). Seeking more information and conversations: Influence of competitive frames and motivated processing. Communication Research, 38, 303–325.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowler, S., & Donovan, T. (2011). Electoral competition and the voter. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75, 151–164.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brewer, P. R. (2008). Value war: Public opinion and the politics of gay rights. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
   Google Scholar
• Bullock, J. G. (2011). Elite influence on public opinion in an informed electorate. American Political Science Review, 105, 496–515.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell, A. L. (2002). Self-interest, Social Security, and the distinctive participation patterns of senior citizens. American Political Science Review, 96, 565–574.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W., & Stokes, D. (1960). The American voter. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cappella, J. N, & Jamieson, K. H. (1997). Spirals of cynicism: The press and the public good. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chapp, C. (2012). Religious rhetoric in American politics: The endurance of civil religion in electoral campaigns. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chong, D. (2007). The value of information and endorsements. Unpublished manuscript, Northwestern University.
   Google Scholar
• Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing public opinion in competitive democracies. American Political Science Review, 101, 637.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2010). Dynamic public opinion: Communication effects over time. American Political Science Review, 104, 663–680.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2011). Dynamics in mass communication effects research. In H. Semetko & M. Scammell ( Eds.), The Sage handbook of political communication (pp. 238–267). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Converse, P. E. (1990). Popular representation and the distribution of information. In J. A. Ferejohn & J. H. Kuklinski ( Eds.), Information and democratic processes (pp. 369–388). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
   Google Scholar
• Converse, P. E. (2006a). The nature of beliefs systems in mass publics. Critical Review, 18, 1–74.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Converse, P. E. (2006b). Democratic theory and reality. Critical Review, 18, 297–329.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cutler, F. (1999). Jeremy Bentham and the Public Opinion Tribunal. Public Opinion Quarterly, 63, 321–346.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahl, R. A. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and opposition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• De Vreese, C. H. (2004). Primed by the Euro. Scandinavian Political Studies, 27, 45–65.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dewey, J. (2008). The public and its problems. In J. Boydston & B. Walsh ( Eds.), John Dewey: The later works, Volume 2: 1925–1927 ( pp. 235–372). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Disch, L. (2011). Toward a mobilization conception of democratic representation. American Political Science Review, 105, 100–114.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Disch, L. (2012). Democratic representation and the constituency paradox. Perspectives on Politics, 10, 599–616.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Disch, L. (2013, June). On the benefits of ‘strategic speech’ for deliberative democracy. Paper presented at the University of British Columbia Workshop on Strategic Uses of Language, Vancouver.
   Google Scholar
• Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
   Google Scholar
• Druckman, J. N. (2001. The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Political Behavior, 23, 225–256.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Druckman, J. N. (2003). The power of television images: The first Kennedy-Nixon debate revisited. Journal of Politics, 65, 559–571.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Druckman, J. N. (2004). Political preference formation: Competition, deliberation, and the (ir)relevance of framing effects. American Political Science Review, 98, 671–686.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Druckman, J. N. (2010). Competing frames in a political campaign. In B. F. Schaffner & P. J. Sellers ( Eds.), Winning with words ( pp. 101–120). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Druckman, J. N., Fein, J., &. Leeper, T. (2012). A source of bias in public opinion stability. American Political Science Review, 106, 430–454.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Druckman, J. N., Hennessy, C., St. Charles, K., & Webber, J. (2010). Competing rhetoric over time: Frames versus cues. Journal of Politics, 72, 136–148.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Druckman, J. N., & Jacobs, L. R. (2006). Lumpers and splitters: The public opinion information that politicians use. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70, 453–476.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Druckman, J. N., & Jacobs, L. R. (2009). Presidential responsiveness to public opinion. In G. C. Edwards II & W. G. Howell ( Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the American presidency ( pp. 160–181). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Druckman, J. N., Kuklinski, J. H., & Sigelman, L. (2009). The unmet potential of interdisciplinary research: Political psychological approaches to voting and public opinion. Political Behavior, 31, 485–510.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Druckman, J. N., & Leeper, T. J. (2012). Is public opinion stable? Resolving the micro-macro disconnect in studies of public opinion. Daedalus, 141, 50–68.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Druckman, J. N., & Miller, J. (2004). The political psychology of electoral campaigns: Introduction to the symposium. Political Psychology, 25, 501–506.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Druckman, J. N., & Nelson, K. (2003). Framing and deliberation: How citizens’ conversations limit elite influence. American Journal of Political Science, 47, 729–745.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Druckman, J. N., Peterson, E., & Slothuus, R. (2013). How elite partisan polarization affects public opinion formation. American Political Science Review, 107, 57–79.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eagly, A. H, & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
   Google Scholar
• Ecker, H., Ullrich K., Lewandowsky, S., Swire, B., & Chang, D. (2011). Correcting false information in memory: Manipulating the strength of misinformation encoding and its retraction. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 570–578.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Enns, P. K., & Wlezien, C. (2011). Group opinion and the study of representation. In P. K. Enns & C. Wlezien ( Eds.), Who gets represented? (pp. 1–26). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Erikson, R. S., Mackuen, M., & Stimson, J. A. (2002). The macro polity. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Eveland, W. P., Jr. (2004). The effect of political discussion in producing informed citizens: The roles of information, motivation, and elaboration. Political Communication, 21, 177–193.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fazio, R. H. (2007). Attitudes as object-evaluation associations of varying strength. Social Cognition, 25, 603–637.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feldman, S. (2003). Values, ideology, and structure of political attitudes. In D. O. Sears, L. Huddy, & R. Jervis ( Eds.), Oxford handbook of political psychology (pp. 477–510). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Feldman, S., & Johnston, C. (in press). Understanding the determinants of political ideology: Implications of structural complexity. Political Psychology.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.
   Google Scholar
• Fiorina, M. P. (1981). Retrospective voting in American national elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Friedman, J. (2006). Democratic competence in normative and positive theory: Neglected implications of “The nature of belief systems in mass publics.” Critical Review, 18, i–xliii.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gaines, B. J., Kuklinski, J. H., Quick, P., Peyton, B., & Verkuilen, J. (2007). Same facts, different interpretations: Partisan motivation and opinion on Iraq. Journal of Politics, 69, 957–974.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garsten, B. (2009). Representative government and popular sovereignty. In I. Shapiro, S. C. Stokes, E. J. Wood, & A. S. Kirshner ( Eds.), Political representation (pp. 90–110). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gastil, J., Braman, D., Kahan, D., & Slovic, P. (2011). The cultural orientation of mass political opinion. PS: Political Science & Politics, 44, 711–714.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geer, J. G. (2010). Fanning the flames: The news media’s role in the rise of negativity in presidential campaigns. Retrieved from http://www.hks.harvard.edu/presspol/publications/papers/discussion_papers/d55_geer.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Gentzkow, M., & Shapiro, J. (2006). Media bias and reputation. Journal of Political Economy, 114, 280–316.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerber, A. S., Gimpel, J. Green, D. P., & Shaw, D. (2011). How large and long-lasting are the persuasive effects of televised campaign ads? Results from a randomized field experiment. American Political Science Review, 105, 135–150.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerber, A. S., Green, D. P., & Larimer, C. (2008). Social pressure and voter turnout: Evidence from a larger scale field experiment. American Political Science Review, 102, 33–48.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerber, A. S., & Huber, G. A. (2009). Partisanship and economic behavior: Do partisan differences in economic forecasts predict real economic behavior? American Political Science Review, 103, 407–426.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerber, A. S., & Huber, G. A. (2010). Partisanship, political control, and economic assessments. American Journal of Political Science, 54, 153–173.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., & Washington, E. (2010). Party affiliation, partisanship, and political beliefs: A field experiment. American Political Science Review, 104, 720–744.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibson, J. L., & Caldeira, G. (2009). Knowing the Supreme Court? A reconsideration of public ignorance of the high court. Journal of Politics, 71, 429–441.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goren, P., Federico, C., & Kittilson, M. (2009). Source cues, partisan identities, and political value expression. American Journal of Political Science, 53, 805–820.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green, D. P, Palmquist, B., & Schickler, E. (2004). Partisan hearts and minds: Political parties and the social identities of voters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Grimmer, J. (2013). Appropriators not position takers: The distorting effects of electoral incentives on congressional representation. American Journal of Political Science, 57, 624.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Groenendyk, E. (2010, September). Being earnest about importance: The impact of partisan motivation on issue priorities. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. (1990). Moral consciousness and communicative action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. New York, NY: Vintage.
   Google Scholar
• Hansen, K. M. (2007). The sophisticated public. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30, 377–396.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holm, E. M. (2012). Emotions as mediators of framing effects. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Aarhus University.
   Google Scholar
• Houston, D. A., & Fazio, R. (1989). Biased processing as a function of attitude accessibility: Making objective judgments subjectively. Social Cognition, 7, 51–66.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iyengar, S. (1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Iyengar, S., Hahn, K. S., Krosnick, J. A., & Walker, J. (2008). Selective exposure to campaign communication: The role of anticipated agreement and issue public membership. Journal of Politics, 70, 186–200.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iyengar, S., & Kinder, D. R. (1987). News that matters: Television and American opinion. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Iyengar, S., Sood, S., & Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76, 405–431.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobs, L. R., & Page, B. I. (2005). Who influences U.S. foreign policy? American Political Science Review, 99, 107–123.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobs, L. R., & Shapiro, R. Y. (1994). Issues, candidate image and priming. American Political Science Review, 88, 527–540.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobs, L. R., & Shapiro, R. Y. (2000). Politicians don’t pander: Political manipulation and the loss of democratic responsiveness. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jerit, J. (2009). How predictive appeals affect policy opinions. American Journal of Political Science, 53, 411–426.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kam, C. D., & Utych, S. M. (2011). Close elections and cognitive engagement. Journal of Politics, 73, 1251–1266.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kinder, D. R. (1998). Communication and opinion. Annual Review of Political Science, 1, 167–197.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klar, S. (2013). Partisanship in a social context: The influence of diverse deliberation on strong and weak partisans. Unpublished manuscript.
   Google Scholar
• Krosnick, J. A. (1988). The role of attitude importance in social evaluation: A study of policy preferences, presidential candidate evaluations, and voting behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 196–210.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krosnick, J. A., & Smith, W. R. (1994. Attitude strength. In V. S. Ramachandran ( Eds.), Encyclopedia of human behavior ( pp. 279–289). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kuklinski, J. H., Quirk, P., Jerit, J., Schwieder, D., & Rich, R. (2000). Misinformation and the currency of democratic citizenship. Journal of Politics, 62, 790–816.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuklinski, J. H., Riggle, E., Ottati, V., Schwarz, N., & Wyer, R. (1991). The cognitive and affective bases of political tolerance judgment. American Journal of Political Science, 35, 1–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480–498.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kunda, Z. (2001). Social cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lavine, H. G., Johnston, C., & Steenbergen, M. (2012). The ambivalent partisan: How critical loyalty promotes democracy. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Levendusky, M. S. (2009). The partisan sort: How liberals became Democrats and conservatives became Republicans. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Levendusky, M. S. (2013). How partisan media polarize America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lenz, G. S. (2012). Follow the leader: How voters respond to politicians’ policies and performance. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lippmann, W. (1922). Public opinion. New York, NY: Pelican Books.
   Google Scholar
• Lippmann, W. (1925). The phantom public. New York, NY: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Lodge, M., & Taber, C. S. (2000). Three steps toward a theory of motivated political reasoning. In A. Lupia, M. D. McCubbins, & S. L. Popkin ( Eds.), Elements of reason: Cognition, choice, and the bounds of rationality ( pp. 183–213). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lodge, M., & Taber, C. S. (2008). The rationalizing voter. Unpublished manuscript, Stony Brook University.
   Google Scholar
• Lodge, M., & Taber, C. S. (2013). The rationalizing voter. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lord, C. G., Ross, L, & Lepper, M. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27, 2098–2109.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lupia, A. (1994). Shortcuts versus encyclopedias: Information and voting behavior in California insurance reform elections. American Political Science Review, 88, 63–76.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lupia, A. (2002). Deliberation disconnected: What it takes to improve civic competence. Law and Contemporary Problems, 65, 133–150.
   Google Scholar
• Lupia, A. (2006). How elitism undermines the study of voter competence. Critical Review, 18, 217–232.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lupia, A., & McCubbins, M. (1998). The democratic dilemma: Can citizens learn what they need to know? Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Maio, G. R., & Olson, J. (2000). What is a ‘value-expressive’ attitude? In G. R. Maio & J. M. Olson ( Eds.), Why we evaluate: Functions of attitudes ( pp. 249–270). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Mansbridge, J. J. (1983). Beyond adversary democracy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mansbridge, J. (2003). Rethinking representation. American Political Science Review, 97, 515–528.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mansbridge, J. J. (2011). Clarifying the concept of representation. American Political Science Review, 105, 621–630.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGraw, K. (2003). Political impressions: Formation and management. In Oxford handbook of political psychology ( pp. 394–433). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, J. M., & Peterson, D. (2004). Theoretical and empirical implications of attitude strength. Journal of Politics, 66, 847–867.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1963). Constituency influence in Congress. American Political Science Review, 57, 45–56.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moskowitz, R. L. (2013, April). Integration and segregation in 21st century schools: Voter conflicts over equality, local control, and community. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.
   Google Scholar
• Mullainathan, S., & Shleifer, A. (2005). The market for news. American Economic Review, 95, 1031–1053.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murayama, K., Pekrun, R., Lichtenfeld, S., & von Hofe, R. (2013). Predicting long-term growth in students’ mathematics achievement: The unique contributions of motivation and cognitive strategies. Child Development, 84, 1475–1490.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mutz, D. C. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mutz, D., & Reeves, B. (2005). The new videomalaise: Effects of televised incivility on political trust. American Political Science Review, 99, 1–15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mutz, D. C., Sniderman, P. M., & Brody, R. A. (1996). Political persuasion and attitude change. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nabi, R. L. (2003. Exploring the framing effects of emotion: Do discrete emotions differentially influence information accessibility, information seeking, and policy preference? Communication Research, 30, 224–247.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nelson, T. E., Clawson, R., & Oxley, Z. (1997). Media framing of a civil liberties conflict and its effect on tolerance. American Political Science Review, 91, 567–583.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicholson, S. P., & Segura, G. (2012). Who’s the party of the people? Economic populism and the U.S. public’s beliefs about political parties. Political Behavior, 34, 369–389.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nisbet, M. C., & Scheufele, D. A. (2009). What’s next for science communication?: Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany, 96, 1767–1778.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32, 303–330.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Keefe, D. J. (2002). Persuasion (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Page, B. I., & Shapiro, R. Y. (1983). Effects of public opinion on policy. American Political Science Review, 77, 175–190.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Page, B. I., & Shapiro, R. Y. (1992). The rational public: Fifty years of trends in Americans’ policy preferences. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Parks, L., & Guay, R. P. (2009). Personality, values, and motivation. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 675–684.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plaks, J. ( Ed.). (2011). The social psychology of motivation. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Plotke, D. (1997). Representation is democracy. Constellations, 4, 19–34.
   Google Scholar
• Price, V., & Tewksbury, D. (1997). News values and public opinion: A theoretical account of media priming and framing. In G. A. Barnett & F. J. Boster ( Eds.), Progress in communication sciences: Advances in persuasion ( pp. 173–212). Greenwich, CT: Ablex.
   Google Scholar
• Prior, M., & Lupia, A. (2008). Money, time, and political knowledge: Distinguishing quick recall and political learning skills. American Journal of Political Science, 52, 169–183.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rahn, W. M. (1993). The role of partisan stereotypes in information processing about political candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 472–496.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Redlawsk, D. (2002). Hot cognition or cool consideration? Journal of Politics, 64, 1021–1044.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rehfeld, A. (2006). Towards a general theory of political representation. Journal of Politics, 68, 1–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riker, W. H. (1986). The art of political manipulation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Robison, J. (2013, April). Who knows: Question format and political knowledge. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.
   Google Scholar
• Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York, NY: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rucker, D. D., & Petty, R. E. (2006). Increasing the effectiveness of communications to consumers: Recommendations based on elaboration likelihood and attitude certainty perspectives. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 25, 39–53.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schattschneider, E. E. (1960). The semisovereign people: A realist’s view of democracy in America. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
   Google Scholar
• Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and content of human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50, 19–45.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shapiro, R. Y. (2011). Public opinion and American democracy. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75, 982–1017.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sinclair, B. (2012). The social citizen: Peer networks in political behavior. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Slothuus, R., & de Vreese, C. (2010). Political parties, motivated reasoning, and issue framing effects. Journal of Politics, 72, 630–645.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sniderman, P. M., Brody, R. A., & Tetlock, P. E. (1991). Reasoning and choice: Explorations in political psychology. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sniderman, P. M., & Hagendoorn, L. (2007). When ways of life collide: Multiculturalism and its discontents in the Netherlands. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sniderman, P. M., & Highton, B. (2011). Introduction: Facing the challenge of democracy. In P. M. Sniderman & B. Highton ( Eds.), Facing the challenge of democracy: Explorations in the analysis of public opinion and political participation ( pp. 1–19). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sniderman, P. M., & Stiglitz, E. (2012). The reputational premium: A theory of party identification and policy reasoning. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sniderman, P. M., & Theriault, S. (2004). The structure of political argument and the logic of issue framing. In W. Saris & P. M. Sniderman ( Eds.), Studies in public opinion ( pp. 133–165). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Somin, I. (2006). Knowledge about ignorance: New directions in the study of political information. Critical Review, 18, 255–279.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soroka, S. N., & Wlezien, C. (2010). Degrees of democracy: Politics, public opinion, and policy. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Strolovitch, D. Z. (2007). Affirmative advocacy: Race, class, and gender in interest group politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stroud, N. J. (2008). Media use and political predispositions: Revisiting the concept of selective exposure. Political Behavior, 30, 341–366.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stroud, N. J. (2010). Polarization and partisan selective exposure. Journal of Communication, 60, 556–576.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 755–769.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tewksbury, D., Jones, J., Peske, M. Raymond, A., & Vig, W. (2000). The interaction of news and advocate frames. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 77, 804–829.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tomz, M., & Van Houweling, R. (2012). Political pledges as credible commitments. Unpublished manuscript.
   Google Scholar
• Visser, P. S., Bizer, G., & Krosnick, J. A. (2006). Exploring the latent structure of strength-related attitude attributes. In M. P. Zanna ( Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology ( pp. 1–67). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Walsh, K. (2004). Talking about politics: Informal groups and social identity in American life. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Weatherford, M. S. (1982). Interpersonal networks and political behavior. American Journal of Political Science, 26, 117–143.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weingast, B. R. (1997). The political foundations of democracy and the rule of law. American Political Science Review, 91, 245–263.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White, R. W. (2011). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. In J. Plaks ( Ed.), The social psychology of motivation (pp. 51–68). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wood, W. (2000). Attitude change: Persuasion and social influence. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 539–570.
   Google Scholar
• Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar