The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Ambivalence, Information, and Electoral Choice
Abstract
Conventional wisdom views voter choice in House elections as preordained by party identification, incumbency, and perceptions of national conditions. In an analysis of voter behavior in House elections between 1990 and 2000, we find instead that voters are quite heterogeneous. Voters who hold ambivalent partisan attitudes, who typically constitute 30% of the electorate, reduce their reliance on party identification; this effect is entirely independent of the strength of identification. Individuals holding ambivalent partisan attitudes that both lack political knowledge and are presented with little campaign stimulus are more likely to engage in economic voting. Individuals holding ambivalent partisan attitudes that either are knowledgeable about politics or are presented with stimulating campaigns are more likely to engage in ideological voting. Thus, campaign competition and national partisan competition each play a role in assuring that ordinary voters may participate meaningfully in the political process.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60214-2 · Cited by 8,822
The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion
Zaller, J. R. (1992) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511818691 · Cited by 7,785
Lupia, A. (1994) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.2307/2944882 · Cited by 1,850
Mowrer, O. H. (1960) · doi:10.1037/10802-000 · Cited by 1,670
Cited by
Helpfulness of Online Consumer Reviews: Readers' Objectives and Review Cues
Baek, H., Ahn, J., & Choi, Y. (2012) · International Journal of Electronic Commerce · doi:10.2753/jec1086-4415170204 · Cited by 593
Elections and the Regression Discontinuity Design: Lessons from Close U.S. House Races, 1942–2008
Caughey, D., & Sekhon, J. S. (2011) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/pan/mpr032 · Cited by 331
Congress and the Politics of Problem Solving
Adler, E. S., & Wilkerson, J. D. (2013) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139150842 · Cited by 280
How Do Indifferent Voters Decide? The Political Importance of Implicit Attitudes
Ryan, T. J. (2017) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/ajps.12307 · Cited by 35
Metadata
- Authors
- BASINGER, S. J., & LAVINE, H.
- Venue
- American Political Science Review
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2005-05
- Volume
- 99
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 169-184
- ISSN
- 0003-0554 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5943
- OpenAlex
- W2096268027
- Cited by
- 213
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 37.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Ambivalence, Information, and Electoral Choice. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s0003055405051580
- The paper
- BASINGER, S. J., & LAVINE, H. (2005). Ambivalence, Information, and Electoral Choice. American Political Science Review. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055405051580
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.