Engaged or Disengaged? Examining the Relationship Between Electoral Ambivalence and Indicators of Political Engagement in the 2012 U.S. Election

References

• Afifi, W. A., & Burgoon, J. K. (1998). “We never talk about that”: A comparison of cross-sex friendships and dating relationships on uncertainty and topic avoidance. Personal Relationships, 5(3), 255–272. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998.tb00171.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Afifi, W. A., & Weiner, J. L. (2004). Toward a theory of motivated information management. Communication Theory, 14(2), 167–190. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2004.tb00310.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Afifi, W. A., & Weiner, J. L. (2006). Seeking information about sexual health: Applying the theory of motivated information management. Human Communication Research, 32(1), 35–57. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2006.00002.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alvarez, R. M., & Brehm, J. (2002). Hard choices, easy answers: Values, information and American public opinion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• American Association for Public Opinion Research. (2013). Do response rates matter? Retrieved from http://www.aapor.org/Do_Response_Rates_Matter_1/4684.htm#.UnGXaxDjV3F
   Google Scholar
• Ansolabehere, S., & Schaffner, B. (2014). Does survey mode still matter? Findings from a 2010 multi-mode comparison. Political Analysis, 22(3), 285–303. doi:10.1093/pan/mpt025
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Austin, E. W., & Pinkleton, B. E. (1995). Positive and negative effects of political disaffection on the less experienced voter. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 39(2), 215–235. doi:10.1080/08838159509364300
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Austin, E. W., & Pinkleton, B. E. (1999). The relation between media content evaluations and political disaffection. Mass Communication and Society, 2, 105–122. doi:10.1080/15205436.1999.9677867
   Google Scholar
• Basinger, S. J., & Lavine, H. (2005). Ambivalence, information, and electoral choice. American Political Science Review, 99(2), 169–184. doi:10.1017/S0003055405051580
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baumgartner, J., & Morris, J. S. (2006). The daily show effect: Candidate evaluations, efficacy, and American youth. American Politics Research, 34(3), 341–367. doi:10.1177/1532673X05280074
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. (1975). Some explorations in initial interactions and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1(2), 99–112. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1975.tb00258.x
   Google Scholar
• Brashers, D. E. (2001). Communication and uncertainty management. Journal of Communication, 51(3), 477–497. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2001.tb02892.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brömer, P. (1998). Ambivalent attitudes and information processing. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 57(4), 225–234.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cacioppo, J. T., & Berntson, G. G. (1994). Relationship between attitudes and evaluative space: A critical review, with emphasis on separability of positive and negative substrates. Psychological Bulletin, 115(3), 401–423. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.115.3.401
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cappella, J. N., & Jamieson, K. H. (1997). Spiral of cynicism: The press and the public good. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Case, D. O. (2012). Looking for information: A survey of research on information seeking, needs and behavior. Bingley: Emerald.
   Google Scholar
• Case, D. O., Andrews, J. E., Johnson, J. D., & Allard, S. L. (2005). Avoiding versus seeking: The relationship of information seeking to avoidance, blunting, coping, dissonance, and related concepts. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 93(3), 353–362.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 212–252). New York, NY: Guilford.
   Google Scholar
• Charles, D. (2012, October 27). Up to 40 percent may vote in early election: Obama ahead. Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-campaign-voting-idUSBRE89P15920121027
   Google Scholar
• Craig, C. C., & Martinez, M. D. (Eds.). (2005). Ambivalence and the structure of political opinion. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Craig, S. C., Niemi, R. G., & Silver, G. E. (1990). Political efficacy and trust: A report on the NES pilot study items. Political Behavior, 12(3), 289–314. doi:10.1007/BF00992337
   Google Scholar
• Crotty, W. J., & Jacobson, G. C. (1980). American parties in decline. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
   Google Scholar
• Cuillier, D., & Pinkleton, B. E. (2011). Suspicion and secrecy: Political attitudes and their relationship to support for freedom of information. Communication Law and Policy, 16, 227–254. doi:10.1080/10811680.2011.586302
   Google Scholar
• Delli Carpini, M. X. (2004). Mediating democratic engagement: The impact of communications on citizens’ involvement in political and civic Life. In M. Sotirovic & J. M. McLeod (Eds.), Handbook of Political Communication Research (pp. 395–434). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   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
• Fournier, P. (2005). Ambivalence and attitude change in vote choice: Do campaign switchers experience internal conflict? In C. C. Craig & M. D. Martinez (Eds.), Ambivalence, politics, and public policy (pp. 83–102). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Gastil, J. (2000). By popular demand: Revitalizing representative democracy through deliberative elections. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Greene, S. (2005). The structure of partisan attitudes: Reexamining partisan dimensionality and ambivalence. Political Psychology, 26(5), 809–822. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2005.00445.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hoffman, L. H., & Thomson, T. L. (2009). The effect of television viewing on adolescents’ civic participation: Political efficacy as a mediating mechanism. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 53(1), 3–21. doi:10.1080/08838150802643415
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holbrook, A. L., & Krosnick, J. A. (2005). Meta-psychological versus operative measures of ambivalence: Differentiating the consequences of perceived intra-psychic conflict real intra psychic conflict. In S. D. Craig & M. D. Martinez (Eds.), Ambivalence and the structure of public opinion (pp. 73–104). New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.
   Google Scholar
• Hutchens, M. J., Hmielowski, J. D., & Beam, M. A. (2015). Rush, Rachel, and Rx: Modeling partisan media’s influence on structural knowledge of healthcare policy. Mass Communication and Society, 18(2), 123–143. doi:10.1080/15205436.2014.902968
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hutchens, M. J., Hmielowski, J. D., Pinkleton, B. E., & Beam, M. A. (2016). A spiral of skepticism? The relationship between citizens’ involvement with campaign information to their skepticism and political knowledge. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 93(4), 1073–1090. doi:10.1177/1077699016654439
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaplan, K. J. (1972). On the ambivalence-indifference 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
• Kenski, K., & Stroud, N. J. (2006). Connections between Internet use and political efficacy, knowledge, and participation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 50(2), 173–192. doi:10.1207/s15506878jobem5002_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klar, S., & Krupnikov, Y. (2016). Independent politics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lavine, H., Johnston, C., & Steenbergen, M. (2012). The ambivalent partisan: How critical loyalty promotes democracy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Maio, G. R., Bell, D. W., & Esses, V. M. (1996). Ambivalence and persuasion: The processing of messages about immigrant groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 513–536. doi:10.1006/jesp.1996.0023
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGraw, K. M., & Bartels, B. (2005). Ambivalence toward American political institutions. In S. C. Craig & M. D. Martinez (Eds.), Ambivalence and the structure of political opinion (pp. 105–126). New York, NY: Macmillan.
   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. E. Sniderman (Eds.), Studies in public opinion: Attitudes, nonattitudes, measurement error, and change (pp. 63–92). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Patterson, T. E. (2002). The vanishing voter: Public involvement in an age of uncertainty. New York, NY: Vintage.
   Google Scholar
• Pinkleton, B. E., & Austin, E. W. (1998). Media and participation: Breaking the spiral of disaffection. In T. J. Johnson, C. E. Hays, & S. P. Hays (Eds.), Engaging the public: How government and the media can reinvigorate American democracy (pp. 75–86). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
   Google Scholar
• Pinkleton, B. E., & Austin, E. W. (2002). Exploring relationships among media use frequency, perceived media importance, and media satisfaction in political disaffection and efficacy. Mass Communication & Society, 5(2), 141–163. doi:10.1207/S15327825MCS0502_3
   Google Scholar
• Pinkleton, B. E., & Austin, E. W. (2004). Media perceptions and public affairs apathy in the politically inexperienced. Mass Communication & Society, 7(3), 319–337. doi:10.1207/s15327825mcs0703_4
   Google Scholar
• Pinkleton, B. E., Austin, E. W., Zhou, Y., Willoughby, J. F., & Reiser, M. (2012). Perceptions of news media, external efficacy, and public affairs apathy in political decision making and disaffection. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 89, 23–30. doi:10.1177/1077699011428586
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schaffner, B. F. (2011). Polling: Innovations in survey research. In S. K. Medvic (Ed.), New direction in campaigns and elections (pp. 39–58). New York, NY: Routeledge.
   Google Scholar
• Stroud, N. J., & Lee, J. K. (2013). Perceptions of cable news credibility. Mass Communication and Society, 16(1), 67–88. doi:10.1080/15205436.2011.646449
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson, M. M., Zanna, M. P., & Griffin, D. W. (1995). Let’s not be indifferent about (attitudinal) ambivalence. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 361–386). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Tsfati, Y., & Cappella, J. N. (2003). Do people watch what they do not trust? Exploring the association between news media skepticism and exposure. Communication Research, 30(5), 504–529. doi:10.1177/0093650203253371
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vecchione, M., & Caprara, G. V. (2009). Personality determinants of political participation: The contribution of traits and self-efficacy beliefs. Personality and Individual Differences, 46(4), 487–492. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.11.021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson, T. D. (1999). Models in information behavior research. Journal of Documentation, 55(3), 249–270. doi:10.1108/EUM000000007145
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yeager, D. S., Krosnick, J. A., Chang, L., Javitz, H. S., Levendusky, M. S., Simpser, A., & Wang, R. (2011). Comparing the accuracy of RDD telephone surveys and Internet surveys conducted with probability and nonprobability samples. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75, 709–747. doi:10.1093/poq/nfq075
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao, X., & Cai, X. (2008). The role of ambivalence in college nonsmokers’ information seeking and information processing. Communication Research, 35(3), 298–318. doi:10.1177/0093650208315959
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar