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

REFERENCES

• Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2000). Attitudinal ambivalence: A test of three test hypotheses. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1421–1432.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Banning, S. A. (2006). Third-person effects on political participation. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 83, 785–800.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basinger, S. J., & Lavine, H. (2005). Ambivalence, information, and electoral choice. American Political Science Review, 99, 169–184.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bell, D. W., & Esses, V. M. (2002). Ambivalence and response amplification: A motivational perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1143–1152.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, J. K., Wegener, D. T., & Fabrigar, L. R. (2008). Attitudinal ambivalence and message-based persuasion: Motivated processing of proattitudinal information and avoidance of counterattitudinal information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 656–677.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, J., & Davis, R. G. (1991). Third-person effects and the differential impact in negative political advertising. Public Opinion Quarterly, 52, 161–173.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davison, W. P. (1983). The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47, 1–15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Department of Household Registration Affairs, M.O.I. (2014, February 14). Resident population by single year of age [Online database]. Retrieved from http://www.ris.gov.tw/zh_TW/346
   Google Scholar
• Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York, NY: Harper.
   Google Scholar
• Duck, J. M., Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (1995). Me, us and them: Political identification and the third-person effect in the 1993 Australian federal election. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 195–215.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitude. Orlando, FL: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
   Google Scholar
• Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Golan, G. J., Banning, S. A., & Lundy, L. (2008). Likelihood to vote, candidate choice, and the third-person effect: Behavioral implications of political advertising in the 2004 presidential election. American Behavioral Scientist, 52, 278–290.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gunther, A. C. (1995). Overrating the X-rating: The third-person perception and support for censorship of pornography. Journal of Communication, 45, 27–38.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gunther, A. C., & Thorson, E. (1992). Perceived persuasive effects of product commercials and public service announcements: Third-person effects in new domains. Communication Research, 19, 574–596.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoffner, C., & Rehkoff, R. A. (2011). Young voters' responses to the 2004 U.S. presidential election: Social identity, perceived media influence, and behavioral outcomes. Journal of Communication, 61, 732–757.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• International IDEA. (2012). Voter turnout data for Taiwan. Retrieved from http://www.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm?id=226
   Google Scholar
• Jensen, J. D., & Hurley, R. J. (2005). Third-person effects and the environment: Social distance, social desirability, and presumed behavior. Journal of Communication, 55, 242–256.
   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, 361–372.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keith, B. E., Magleby, D. B., Nelson, C. J., Orr, E., & Westlye, M. C. (1992). The myth of independent voters. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480–498.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lavine, H. (2001). The electoral consequences of ambivalence toward presidential candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 915–929.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lovejoy, J., Cheng, H., & Riffe, D. (2010). Voters' attention, perceived effects, and voting preferences: Negative political advertising in the 2006 Ohio governor's election. Mass Communication and Society, 13, 487–511.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayer, W. G. (2007). The swing voter in American presidential elections. American Politics Research, 35, 358–388.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCombs, M. (2005). A look at agenda-setting: Past, present and future. Journalism Studies, 6, 543–557.
   Google Scholar
• McGraw, K. M., Hasecke, E., & Conger, K. (2003). Ambivalence, uncertainty, and processes of candidate evaluation. Political Psychology, 24, 421–448.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McLeod, D. M., Detenber, B. H., & Eveland, W. P. (2001). Behind the third-person effect: Differentiating perceptual processes for self and other. Journal of Communication, 51, 678–695.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McLeod, D. M., Eveland, W. P., & Nathanson, A. I. (1997). Support for censorship of violent and misogynic rap lyrics an analysis of the third-person effect. Communication Research, 24, 153–174.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meffert, M. F., Guge, M., & Lodge, M. (2004). Good, bad, and ambivalent: The consequences of multidimensional political attitudes. In W. E. Saris & P. M. Sniderman (Eds.), Studies in public opinion: Attitudes, nonattitudes, measurement error, and change (pp. 63–92). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Education. (2014a, February 14). Number of college students by single year of age [Online database]. Retrieved from https://stats.moe.gov.tw/files/gender/106-8.xls
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Education. (2014b). Statistical summary of universities and colleges. Retrieved from https://stats.moe.gov.tw/files/ebook/higher/102/102higher.htm
   Google Scholar
• Monteith, M. J. (1996). Contemporary forms of prejudice-related conflict: In search of a nutshell. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 461–473.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nir, L. (2005). Ambivalent social networks and their consequences for participation. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17, 422–442.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perloff, R. M. (1993). Third-person effect research 1983–1992: A review and synthesis. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 5, 167–184.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Price, V., Huang, L., & Tewksbury, D. (1997). Third-person effects of news coverage: Orientations toward media. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 74, 525–540.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Price, V., & Stroud, N. J. (2005). Public attitudes toward polls: Evidence from the 2000 U.S. presidential election. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 18, 393–421.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rojas, H., Shah, D. V., & Faber, R. J. (1996). For the good of others: Censorship and the third-person effect. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 8, 163–186.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rucinski, D., & Salmon, C. T. (1990). The “other” as the vulnerable voter: A study of the third-person effect in the 1998 U.S. presidential campaign. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 2, 345–368.
   Google Scholar
• Rudolph, T. J. (2011). The dynamics of ambivalence. American Journal of Political Science, 55, 561–573.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rudolph, T. J., & Popp, E. (2007). An information processing theory of ambivalence. Political Psychology, 28, 563–585.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salwen, M. B. (1998). Perceptions of media influence and support for censorship: The third-person effect in the 1996 presidential election. Communication Research, 25, 259–285.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wei, R., Chia, S. C., & Lo, V. (2011). Third-person effect and hostile media perception influences on voter attitudes toward polls in the 2008 U.S. presidential election. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 23, 169–190.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wei, R., & Lo, V. (2007). The third-person effects of political attack ads in the 2004 U.S. presidential election. Media Psychology, 9, 367–388.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wei, R., Lo, V., & Lu, H. (2007). Reconsidering the relationship between the third-person perception and optimistic bias. Communication Research, 34, 665–684.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wei, R., Lo, V., & Lu, H. (2011). Examining the perceptual gap and behavioral intention in the perceived effects of polling news in the 2008 Taiwan presidential election. Communication Research, 38, 206–277.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zemborain, M. R., & Johar, G. V. (2007). Attitudinal ambivalence and openness to persuasion: A framework for interpersonal influence. Journal of Consumer Research, 33, 506–515.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar