Party, policy – or both? Partisan-biased processing of policy arguments in direct democracy

References

• Anduiza, Eva, Aina Gallego, and Jordi Muñoz. 2013. “Turning a Blind Eye Experimental Evidence of Partisan Bias in Attitudes Toward Corruption.” Comparative Political Studies 46 (12): 1664–1692. doi: 10.1177/0010414013489081
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arceneaux, Kevin. 2008. “Can Partisan Cues Diminish Democratic Accountability?” Political Behavior 30 (2): 139–160. doi: 10.1007/s11109-007-9044-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barabas, Jason, Jennifer Jerit, William Pollock, and Carlisle Rainey. 2014. “The Question(s) of Political Knowledge: A Temporal-Topical Framework.” American Political Science Review 108 (4): 840–854. doi: 10.1017/S0003055414000392
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bartels, Larry M. 2002. “Beyond the Running Tally: Partisan Bias in Political Perceptions.” Political Behavior 24 (2): 117–150. doi: 10.1023/A:1021226224601
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bolsen, Toby, James N. Druckman, and Fay Lomax Cook. 2014. “The Influence of Partisan Motivated Reasoning on Public Opinion.” Political Behavior 36 (2): 235–262. doi: 10.1007/s11109-013-9238-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boudreau, Cheryl, and Scott A. MacKenzie. 2014. “Informing the Electorate? How Party Cues and Policy Information Affect Public Opinion About Initiatives.” American Journal of Political Science 58 (1): 48–62. doi: 10.1111/ajps.12054
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowler, Shaun, and Todd Donovan. 1998. Demanding Choices: Opinion, Voting, and Direct Democracy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bowler, Shaun, Todd Donovan, and Caroline J. Tolbert. 1998. Citizens as Legislators: Direct Democracy in the United States. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Budge, Ian. 1996. The New Challenge of Direct Democracy. Cambridge: Politiy.
   Google Scholar
• Bullock, John G. 2011. “Elite Influence on Public Opinion in an Informed Electorate.” American Political Science Review 105 (3): 496–515. doi: 10.1017/S0003055411000165
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cacioppo, John T., Richard E. Petty, Jeffrey A. Feinstein, and W. Blair G. Jarvis. 1996. “Dispositional Differences in Cognitive Motivation: The Life and Times of Individuals Varying in Need for Cognition.” Psychological Bulletin 119 (2): 197–253. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.197
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell, Angus, Phillip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller, and Donald E. Stokes. 1960. The American Voter. New York: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Chaiken, Shelly. 1980. “Heuristic Versus Systematic Information Processing and the Use of Source Versus Message Cues in Persuasion.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39 (5): 752–766. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.752
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chaiken, Shelly, and Durairaj Maheswaran. 1994. “Heuristic Processing Can Bias Systematic Processing: Effects of Source Credibility, Argument Ambiguity, and Task Importance on Attitude Judgment.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 66 (3): 460–473. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.66.3.460
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, Geoffrey L. 2003. “Party over Policy: The Dominating Impact of Group Influence on Political Beliefs.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85 (5): 808–822. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.808
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Converse, Phillip E. 1964. “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Politics.” In Ideology and Discontent, edited by David E. Apter, 206–261. New York: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Delli Carpini, Michael X., and Scott Keeter. 1996. What Americans Don’t Know About Politics and Why It Matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gaines, Brian J., James H. Kuklinski, Paul J. Quirk, Buddy Peyton, and Jay Verkuilen. 2007. “Same Facts, Different Interpretations: Partisan Motivation and Opinion on Iraq.” The Journal of Politics 69 (4): 957–974. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00601.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilens, Martin. 2001. “Political Ignorance and Collective Policy Preferences.” American Political Science Review 95 (June): 379–396.
   Google Scholar
• Kahneman, Daniel. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. London: Allen Lane.
   Google Scholar
• Kam, Cindy D. 2005. “Who Toes the Party Line? Cues, Values, and Individual Differences.” Political Behavior 27 (2): 163–182. doi: 10.1007/s11109-005-1764-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kriesi, Hanspeter. 2005. Direct Democratic Choice: The Swiss Experience. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
   Google Scholar
• Kunda, Ziva. 1990. “The Case for Motivated Reasoning.” Psychological Bulletin 108 (3): 480–498. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lanz, Simon, and Alessandro Nai. 2015. “Vote as You Think: Determinants of Consistent Decision Making in Direct Democracy.” Swiss Political Science Review 21 (1): 119–139. doi: 10.1111/spsr.12126
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lau, Richard R., and David P. Redlawsk. 2006. How Voters Decide: Information Processing in Election Campaigns. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Leeper, Thomas J., and Rune Slothuus. 2014. “Political Parties, Motivated Reasoning, and Public Opinion Formation.” Political Psychology 35 (S1): 129–156. doi: 10.1111/pops.12164
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lenz, Gabriel S. 2013. Follow the Leader?: How Voters Respond to Politicians’ Policies and Performance. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lodge, Milton, and Ruth Hamill. 1986. “A Partisan Schema for Political Information Processing.” American Political Science Review 80 (2): 505–519. doi: 10.2307/1958271
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lupia, Arthur, and John G. Matsusaka. 2004. “Direct Democracy: New Approaches to Old Questions.” Annual Review of Political Science 7 (1): 463–482. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.7.012003.104730.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lupia, Arthur, Mathew McCubbins, and Samuel Popkin, eds. 2000. Elements of Reason: Cognition, Choice, and the Bounds of Rationality. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Magleby, D. B. 1984. Direct Legislation: Voting on Ballot Propositions in the United States. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Matsusaka, John G. 2004. For the Many or the Few: The Initiative. Public Policy, and American Democracy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   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. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00003.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milic, Thomas. 2012. “Correct Voting in Direct Legislation.” Swiss Political Science Review 18 (4): 399–427. doi: 10.1111/spsr.12000
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mutz, Diana C. 2006. Hearing the Other Side. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nai, Alessandro. 2014. “The Cadillac, the Mother-in-Law, and the Ballot: Individual and Contextual Roots of Ambivalence in Swiss Direct Democracy.” Electoral Studies 33: 292–306. doi: 10.1016/j.electstud.2013.06.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nai, Alessandro. 2015. “The Maze and the Mirror: Voting Correctly in Direct Democracy.” Social Science Quarterly 96 (2): 465–486. doi: 10.1111/ssqu.12154
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neijens, Peter, and Claes de Vreese. 2009. “Helping Citizens Decide in Referendums: The Moderating Effect of Political Sophistication on the Use of the Information and Choice Questionnaire as a Decision Aid.” Public Opinion Quarterly 73 (3): 521–536. doi:10.1093/poq/nfp040.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petersen, Michael Bang, Martin Skov, Søren Serritzlew, and Thomas Ramsøy. 2013. “Motivated Reasoning and Political Parties: Evidence for Increased Processing in the Face of Party Cues.” Political Behavior 35 (4): 831–854. doi: 10.1007/s11109-012-9213-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petty, Richard E., and John T. Cacioppo. 1986. “The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 19 (1): 123–205. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60214-2
   Google Scholar
• Petty, Richard E., and Duane T. Wegener. 1999. “The Elaboration Likelihood Model: Current Status and Controversies.” In Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology, edited by Shelly Chaiken and Yaacov Trope, 37–72. New York: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Popkin, Samuel L. 1991. The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rahn, Wendy M. 1993. “The Role of Partisan Stereotypes in Information Processing About Political Candidates.” American Journal of Political Science 37 (2): 472–496. doi: 10.2307/2111381
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sciarini, Pascal, and Anke Tresch. 2011. “Campaign Effects in Direct-Democratic Votes in Switzerland.” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties 21 (3): 333–357. doi: 10.1080/17457289.2011.588334
   Google Scholar
• Shaker, Lee. 2012. “Local Political Knowledge and Assessments of Citizen Competence.” Public Opinion Quarterly. doi:10.1093/poq/nfs018.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slothuus, Rune, and Claes H. de Vreese. 2010. “Political Parties, Motivated Reasoning, and Issue Framing Effects.” The Journal of Politics 72 (3): 630–645. doi: 10.1017/S002238161000006X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taber, Charles S., Damon Cann, and Simona Kucsova. 2009. “The Motivated Processing of Political Arguments.” Political Behavior 31 (2): 137–155. doi: 10.1007/s11109-008-9075-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taber, Charles S., and Milton Lodge. 2006. “Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs.” American Journal of Political Science 50 (3): 755–769. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tversky, Amos, and Daniel Kahneman. 1974. “Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.” Science 187 (4157): 1124–1131. doi: 10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van der Eijk, Cees, Wouter Van der Brug, Martin Kroh, and Mark Franklin. 2006. “Rethinking the Dependent Variable in Voting Behavior: On the Measurement and Analysis of Electoral Utilities.” Electoral Studies 25 (3): 424–447. doi: 10.1016/j.electstud.2005.06.012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zaller, John. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar