Question wording and mass policy preferences: The comparative impact of substantive information and peripheral cues

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Understanding the dynamics of mass political behavior requires attention to the mechanisms and processes citizens use in evaluating political affairs. At its structural core, a political appraisal has much in common with most of the other decisions individuals must make each day. Consequently, insight can be gained by examining political judgments from the perspective of those psychological theories concerned with information processing and decision making. More specifically, because the American citizen typically must maximize cognitive efficiency when evaluating political phenomena, those psychological mechanisms that facilitate expedience and simplicity in decision making are likely to operate on a great diversity of political judgments. Hence theoretical perspectives concerning the role of heuristic principles of judgment may be of considerable utility for the study of mass political behavior. One such perspective, the heuristic‐systematic model, is discussed. The tenets of the heuristic‐systematic model guide quasi‐experimental examination of the influence of variance in question wording on public support for the Reagan defense build‐up. Results indicate that source cues enable individuals to apply source evaluations when forming policy assessments but that the impact of source cues is overwhelmed when individuals are simultaneously exposed to relevant policy information.