This article examines the extent to which a change in the information environment affected opinion of a recent gun safety ballot initiative in Washington. Through content analysis of newspaper stories and documentation of expenditures of competing interests, the authors are able to detect a discernable shift in the information environment during the final weeks of the campaign. Support for the initiative dropped appreciably concurrent with this shift. The authors are able to show that the altered information context (a) generated the greatest change among the most politically aware respondents and (b) sustained this effect within specific partisan classifications. Although previous research investigates analogous behavioral dynamics in a variety of political settings, this analysis differs in application to ballot initiative campaigns. The authors discuss the implications of their findings in terms of direct democracy campaigns and conclude that influence of competing interests are central to the nature and outcome of the election.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alvarez, M.
(1997). Information and elections. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
2.
Berelson, B.
, Lazarsfeld, P., & McPhee, W. (1954). Voting: A study of opinion formation in a presidential campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
3.
Booth, W.
(1998, November 5). Initiatives bypass traditional lawmaking. The Washington Post, p. A33.
4.
Bowler, S.
, Donovan, T., & Tolbert, C. J. (Eds.). (1998). Citizens as legislators: Direct democracy in the United States. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
5.
Carmines, E.
, & Kuklinski, J. (1990). Incentives, opportunities, and the logic of public opinion in American political representation. In J. A. Ferejohn & J. H. Kuklinski (Eds.), Information and democratic processes (pp. 240-268). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
6.
Carpini, D.
, & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
7.
Chavez, L.
(1998). The color bind: California's battle to end affirmative action. Berkeley: University of California Press.
8.
Dalton, R. J.
, & Wattenberg, M. P. (1993). The not so simple act of voting. In A. W. Finifter (Ed.), Political science: The state of the discipline II (pp. 193-218). Washington, DC: American Political Science Association.
9.
Donovan, T.
, & Snipp, J. R. (1994). Support for legislative term limitations in California: Group representation, partisanship, and campaign information. Journal of Politics, 56(2), 492-501.
10.
Faucheux, R.
(1998). Gun play: How the NRA defeated initiative 676 in Washington State. Campaigns and Elections.
11.
Finkel, S.
(1993). Reexamining the “minimal effects” model in recent presidential campaigns. Journal of Politics, 55(1), 1-21.
12.
Fiske, S. T.
, & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
13.
Gelman, A.
, & King, G. (1993). Why are American presidential election polls so variable when votes are so predictable?British Journal of Political Science, 23, 409-451.
14.
Gerber, E. R.
, & Lupia, A. (1995). Campaign competition and policy responsiveness in direct legislation elections. Political Behavior, 17(3), 287-304.
15.
Godden, J.
(1997, October 22). 676: minus 10, you get the devil. The Seattle Times, p. B1.
16.
Haider-Markel, D. P.
, & Meier, K. J. (in press). Legislative victory, electoral uncertainty: Explaining outcomes in the battles over lesbian and gay civil rights. Policy Studies Review.
17.
Hanushek, E.
, & Jackson, J. (1977). Statistical methods for social scientists. New York: Academic Press.
18.
Holbrook, T. M.
(1996). Do campaigns matter?Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19.
Iyengar, S.
, & Kinder, D. (1987). News that matters: Television and American opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
20.
Johnston, R.
(1996). The challenge of direct democracy: The 1992 Canadian referendum. Buffalo, NY: McGill-Queen's University Press.
21.
Joslyn, M. R.
(1997). The public nature of personal opinion: The impact of collective sentiment on individual appraisal. Political Behavior, 19(4), 337-364.
22.
Joslyn, M.
, & Ceccoli, S. (1996). Attentiveness to television news and opinion change in the Fall 1992 presidential campaign. Political Behavior, 18(2), 141-170.
23.
Kahneman, D.
, Slovic, D., & Tversky, A. (Eds.). (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
24.
Krosnick, J. A.
, & Kinder, D. R. (1990). Altering the foundations of support for the president through priming. American Political Science Review, 84, 497-512.
25.
Lupia, A.
(1994). Shortcuts versus encyclopedias: Information and voting behavior in California insurance reform elections. American Political Science Review, 88, 63-76.
26.
Magleby, D. B.
(1989). Opinion formulation and opinion change in ballot proposition campaigns. In M. Margolis & G. A. Mauser (Eds.), Manipulating public opinion (pp. 35-69). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
27.
Magleby, D. B.
(1995). Let the voters decide? An assessment of the initiative and the referendum process. University of Colorado Law Review, 66, 13-46.
28.
McGuire, W. J.
(1968). Personality and susceptibility to social influence. In E. F. Borgatta & W. W. Lambert (Eds.), Handbook of personality theory and research. Chicago: Rand-McNally.
29.
Miller, J.
, & Krosnick, J. (1996). News media impact on the ingredients of presidential evaluations: A program of research on the priming hypothesis. In D. C. Mutz, P. M. Sniderman, & R. A. Brody (Eds.), Political persuasion and attitude change (pp. 79-100). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
30.
Mutz, D. C.
, Sniderman, P. M., & Brody, R. A. (Eds.). (1996). Political persuasion and attitude change. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
31.
Popkin, S.
(1991). The reasoning voter: Communication and persuasion in presidential campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
32.
Postman, D.
(1997, November 3). Gun issue may boost county voter turnout. The Seattle Times, p. A1.
33.
Price, V.
, & Zaller, J. (1993). Who gets the news? Alternative measures of news reception and their implication for research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 57, 133-164.
34.
Rozell, M.
, & Wilcox, C. (1999). Interest groups in American campaigns. The new face of electioneering. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
35.
Serrano, B. A.
(1997, March 29). Pro-gun activist on firing line for backing safety bill. The Seattle Times, p. A1.
36.
Simon, H.
(1957). Models of man. New York: John Wiley.
37.
State ballot measures. (1997, October 22). The Seattle Times, p. B2.
38.
Zaller, J.
(1990). Political awareness, elite opinion leadership, and the mass survey response. Social Cognition, 8, 125-153.
39.
Zaller, J.
(1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.
40.
Zaller, J.
(1993). The Converse-McGuire model of attitude change and the Gulf War opinion rally. Political Communication, 10, 369-388.
41.
Zaller, J.
(1996). The myth of massive media impact revived: New support for a discredited idea. In D. C. Mutz, P. M. Sniderman, & R. Brody (Eds.), Political persuasion and attitude change (pp. 17-78). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
