Subjective agreement between voters and the party they voted for can be produced by three separate processes: rational selection of parties, persuasion by parties, and distortion of perceptions. Rational choice theory, balance theory and social judgment theory make different predictions about the strength of each of these processes. In this article the strength of the three processes are estimated by modeling continuous longitudinal change in attitudes and perceptions of positions on nuclear energy in a period in 1986 during which the accident at Chernobyl occurred. The study uses a short-term panel study of Dutch respondents covering this period. The analyses demonstrate that changes in attitudes and perceptions conform largely to the Downsian model of democracy. Evidence is found for a weak persuasion effect, but hardly any distortion of perceptions occurred. These findings challenge the applicability of concepts from balance theory to the field of electoral research. It is argued that voters have little psychological motivation to distort their perceptions of party positions because they are normally not strongly involved with politics or political parties.
Alvarez, R.M.
(1997) Information & Elections. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
2.
Alvarez, R.M.
and J. Nagler (1995) `Economics, Issues and the Perot Candidacy: Voter Choice in the 1992 Presidential Elections', American Journal of Political Science39: 714-744.
3.
Asher, H.B.
(1983) `Voting Behavior Research in the 1980s: An Examination of Some Old and New Problem Areas', in: A. Finifter (ed.) Political Science. The State of the Discipline. New York: American Political Science Association.
4.
Bollen, K.A.
(1989) Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
5.
Brody, R.A.
and B.I. Page (1972) `Comment: The Assessment of Policy Voting', American Political Science Review66: 450-458.
6.
Brown, C.
(1991) Ballots of Tumult. A Portrait of Volatility in American Voting. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
7.
Brown, C.
(1993) `Nonlinear Transformations in a Landslide: Johnson and Goldwater in 1964', American Journal of Political Science37(2): 582-609.
8.
Brown, C.
(1995a) Chaos and Catastrophe Theories. Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9.
Brown, C.
(1995b) Serpents in the Sand. Essays on the Nonlinear Nature of Politics and Human Destiny. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
10.
Burden, B.C.
(1997) `Deterministic and Probabilistic Voting Models', American Journal of Political Science41: 1150-1169.
11.
Campbell, A.
, P.E. Converse, W.E. Miller and D.E. Stokes (1960) The American Voter. New York: Wiley.
12.
Coleman, J.S.
(1964) Introduction to Mathematical Sociology. New York: Free Press.
13.
Conover, P.J.
and S. Feldman (1982) `Projection and Perceptions of Candidates' Issue Positions', Western Political Quarterly35: 228-244.
14.
Conover, P.J.
and S. Feldman (1984) `How People Organize the Political World: A Schematic Model', American Journal of Political Science28: 95-126.
15.
Converse, P.E.
(1964) `The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Public.', in: D.E. Apter (ed.) Ideology and Discontent. New York: Free Press.
16.
Downs, A.
(1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
17.
Eiser, J.R.
(1992) `Attitudinal Judgement: The To and Fro of Assimilation-Contrast', in: D. Granberg and G. Sarup (eds) Social Judgement and Intergroup Relations. Essays in Honor of Muzafer Sherif. New York: Springer.
18.
Enelow, J.M.
and M.J. Hinich (1984) The Spatial Theory of Voting. An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19.
Fabrigar, L.R.
and J.A. Krosnick (1995) `Attitude Importance and the False Consensus Effect', Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin21: 468-479.
20.
Feldman, S.
and P.J. Conover (1983) `Candidates, Issues, and Voters: The Role of Inference in Political Perception', Journal of Politics45: 812-839.
21.
Festinger, L.
(1957) A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. London: Tavistock.
22.
Fiorina, M.
(1981) Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
23.
Franklin, M.
, T. Mackie and H. Valen (1992) Electoral Change. Reponses to Evolving Social and Attitudinal Structures in Western Countries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24.
Franklin, M.N.
and C. Wlezien (1997) `The Responsive Public. Issue Salience, Policy Change, and Preferences for European Unification', Journal of Theoretical Politics9: 347-363.
25.
Gilljam, M.
(1997) `The Directional Theory Under the Magnifying Glass: A Reappraisal', Journal of Theoretical Politics9: 5-12.
26.
Granberg, D.
(1983) `Preference, Expectations, and Placement Judgments: Some Evidence from Sweden', Social Psychology Quarterly46(4): 363-368.
27.
Granberg, D.
(1985) `An Anomaly in Political Perception', Public Opinion Quarterly49: 504-516.
28.
Granberg, D.
and S. Holmberg (1988) The Political System Matters. Social Psychology and Voting Behavior in Sweden and the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29.
Granberg, D.
and E.E. Brent, jr. (1974) `Dove-Hawk Placement in the 1968 Election: Application of Social Judgement and Balance Theories', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology29: 687-695.
30.
Heider, F.
(1958) The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: Wiley.
31.
Judd, C.M.
, D.A. Kenny and J.A. Krosnick (1983) `Judging the Positions of Political Candidates: Models of Assimilation and Contrast', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology44: 952-963.
32.
Kinder, D.R.
and D.O. Sears (1985) `Public Opinion and Political Action', in: G. Lindzey and E. Aronson (eds) Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 2. New York: Random House.
33.
King, M.
(1978) `Assimilation and Contrast of Presidential Candidates' Issue Positions, 1972', Public Opinion Quarterly41: 515-522.
34.
Koçak, H.
(1989) Differential and Difference Equations through Computer Experiments (including the accessory computer program PHASER). New York: Springer.
35.
Krosnick, J.A.
(1990a) `Government Policy and Citizen Passion: A Study of Issue Publics in Contemporary America', Political Behavior12: 59-92.
36.
Krosnick, J.A.
(1990b) `Americans' Perceptions of Presidential Candidates: A Test of the Projection Hypothesis', Journal of Social Issues46: 159-82.
37.
Macdonald, S.E.
, G. Rabinowitz and O. Listhaug (1997) `Comment on Gilljam. Individual Perception and Models of Issue Voting', Journal of Theoretical Politics9: 13-21.
38.
Markus, G.B.
and P.E. Converse (1979) `A Dynamic Simultaneous Equation Model of Electoral Choice', American Political Science Review73: 1055-1070.
39.
Merrill, S., III
and B. Grofman (1997) `Directional and Proximity Models of Voter Utility and Choice: A New Synthesis and an Illustrative Test of Competing Models', Journal of Theoretical Politics9: 25-48.
40.
Niemi, R.G.
and L.M. Bartels (1985) `New Measures of Issue Salience: An Evaluation', The Journal of Politics47: 1212-1220.
41.
Oppenhuis, E.
(1995) Voting Behavior in Europe. A Comparative Analysis of Electoral Participation and Party Choice. Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis.
42.
Page, B.I.
(1978) Choices and Echoes in Presidential Elections. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
43.
Page, B.I.
and R.A. Brody (1972) `Policy Voting and the Electoral Process: The Vietnam War Issue', American Political Science Review66: 979-995.
44.
Page, B.I.
and C.C. Jones (1979) `Reciprocal Effects of Policy Preferences, Party Loyalties and the Vote', American Political Science Review73: 1071-1089.
45.
Petty, R.T.
and J.E. Cacioppo (1986) Communication and Persuasion. New York: Springer.
46.
Price, V.
(1989) `Social Identification and Public Opinion', Public Opinion Quarterly53: 197-224.
47.
Przeworski, A.
and J. Sprague (1986) Paper Stones: A History of Electoral Socialism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
48.
Sherif, M.
and C.I. Hovland (1961) Social Judgement: Assimilation and Contrast effects in Communication and attitude Change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
49.
Sniderman, P.M.
(1993) `The New Look in Public Opinion Research', in: A.W. Finifter (ed.) Political Science: The State of the Discipline II. Washington, D.C.: The American Political Science Association.
50.
Sprague, J.
(1976) `Estimating a Boudon Type Contextual Model: Some Practical and Theoretical Problems of Measurement', Political Methodology3: 333-353.
51.
Stimson, J.A.
(1985) `Regression in Space and Time: A Statistical Essay', American Journal of Political Science29: 914-947.
52.
Tillie, J.
(1995) Party Utility and Voting Behavior. Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis.
53.
Van der Brug, W.
(1997) Where's the Party? Voters' Perceptions of Party Positions. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
54.
Van der Brug, W.
(1998a) `The Informed Electorate: Political Perceptions and Party Behaviour', Acta Politica33: 20-55.
55.
Van der Brug, W.
(1998b) `Distorted Perceptions and Electoral Processes', Acta Politica33: 339-361.
56.
Van der Brug, W.
and C. van der Eijk (1999) `The Cognitive Basis of Voting', in H. Schmitt and J. Thomassen (eds) Political Representation and Legitimacy in the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
57.
Van der Eijk, C.
and M. Franklin (1996) Choosing Europe? The European Electorate and National Politics in the Face of Union. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
58.
Van der Eijk, C.
and B. Niemöller (1983) Electoral Change in the Netherlands. Empirical Research and Methods of Measurement. Amsterdam: CT Press.
59.
Visser, M.
(1994) `Policy Voting, Projection, and Persuasion: An Application of Balance Theory to Electoral Behavior', Political Psychology15: 699-711.
60.
Westholm, A.
(1997) `Distance Versus Direction: The Illusory Defeat of the Proximity Theory of Electoral Choice', American Political Science Review91: 865-883.
61.
Wright, G.C. Jr
and M.B. Berkman (1986) `Candidates and Policy in United States Senate Elections', American Political Science Review80: 567-588.
