The DOI matches its Crossref record; 103 of the 103 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Preference Formation
Abstract
This review concerns political preferences—what they are and where they come from. We begin by documenting the close relationship between processes of preference formation and change. Rather than suddenly appearing, most preferences emerge from interactions between individuals and their environment. This aspect of preference formation poses a concrete challenge: to uncover the mechanics of these interactions in important social contexts. We then describe political science research that meets this challenge. We find an expansive literature that clarifies how phenomena such as parties, campaigns, and the need to act strategically affect preferences. This work provides many widely applicable insights.
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
Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1914185 · Cited by 48,524
James, W. (1913) · Henry Holt and Company eBooks · doi:10.1037/11059-000 · Cited by 25,226
The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.7455683 · Cited by 18,497
The Handbook of Social Psychology
Gravatt, A. E., Lindzey, G., & Aronson, F. (1969) · The Family Coordinator · doi:10.2307/582242 · Cited by 12,517
Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things
Lakoff, G. (1987) · University of Chicago Press eBooks · doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 · Cited by 12,386
Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9 · Cited by 9,984
Philosophy in the flesh: the embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought
(1999) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.37-0239 · Cited by 9,866
The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion
Zaller, J. R. (1992) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511818691 · Cited by 7,785
Status quo bias in decision making
Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988) · Journal of Risk and Uncertainty · doi:10.1007/bf00055564 · Cited by 5,897
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-4964-1 · Cited by 5,219
Cited by
Estimating the Effect of Elite Communications on Public Opinion Using Instrumental Variables
Gabel, M., & Scheve, K. (2007) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00294.x · Cited by 320
Boomerangs versus javelins: how polarization constrains communication on climate change
Zhou, J. (2016) · Environmental Politics · doi:10.1080/09644016.2016.1166602 · Cited by 208
The Consequences of Broader Media Choice: Evidence from the Expansion of Fox News
Hopkins, D. J., & Ladd, J. M. (2014) · Quarterly Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1561/100.00012099 · Cited by 162
Does Private Regulation Preempt Public Regulation?
MALHOTRA, N., MONIN, B., & TOMZ, M. (2019) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055418000679 · Cited by 137
A Framework for the Study of Persuasion
Druckman, J. N. (2022) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-051120-110428 · Cited by 126
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Druckman, J. N., & Lupia, A.
- Venue
- Annual Review of Political Science
- Publisher
- Annual Reviews
- Published
- 2000-06
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-24
- ISSN
- 1094-2939 (ISSN-L)
- 1545-1577
- OpenAlex
- W4212825603
- Cited by
- 292
- References
- 103
- FWCI
- 8.80
- 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: Preference Formation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1146/annurev.polisci.3.1.1
- The paper
- Druckman, J. N., & Lupia, A. (2000). Preference Formation. Annual Review of Political Science. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.3.1.1
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.
