The DOI matches its Crossref record; 35 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Foreign Affairs and Issue Voting: Do Presidential Candidates “Waltz Before a Blind Audience?”
Abstract
While candidates regularly spend much time and effort campaigning on foreign and defense policies, the thrust of prevailing scholarly opinion is that voters possess little information and weak attitudes on these issues, which therefore have negligible impact on their voting behavior. We resolve this anomaly by arguing that public attitudes on foreign and defense policies are available and cognitively accessible, that the public has perceived clear differences between the candidates on these issues in recent elections, and that these issues have affected the public's vote choices. Data indicate that these conclusions are appropriate for foreign affairs issues and domestic issues.
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
Advances In Experimental Social Psychology
(2022) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(22)x0002-6 · Cited by 22,259
Eulau, H. (1960) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s000305540012235x · Cited by 4,722
Effects of Public Opinion on Policy
Page, B. I., & Shapiro, R. Y. (1983) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.2307/1956018 · Cited by 1,778
The heuristic model of persuasion.
Chaiken, S. (1987) · Cited by 1,264
Direct Experience And Attitude-Behavior Consistency
Fazio, R. H., & Zanna, M. P. (1981) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60372-x · Cited by 1,214
Nie, N. H., Verba, S., & Petrocik, J. R. (1979) · Harvard University Press eBooks · doi:10.4159/harvard.9780674429147 · Cited by 1,119
How do attitudes guide behavior
Fázio, R. H. (1986) · Cited by 903
Personality, cognition, and social interaction
Davies, M. F. (1982) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/0191-8869(82)90019-8 · Cited by 888
Information and democratic processes
Ferejohn, J., & Kuklinski, J. H. (1990) · bepress Legal Repository · Cited by 783
Fazio, R. H., & Williams, C. J. (1986) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.51.3.505 · Cited by 754
Cited by
Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs
Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x · Cited by 4,344
Status threat, not economic hardship, explains the 2016 presidential vote
Mutz, D. C. (2018) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1718155115 · Cited by 1,236
PARTY POLARIZATION IN AMERICAN POLITICS: Characteristics, Causes, and Consequences
Layman, G. C., Carsey, T. M., & Horowitz, J. M. (2006) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.9.070204.105138 · Cited by 827
Elite Influence on Public Opinion in an Informed Electorate
BULLOCK, J. G. (2011) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055411000165 · Cited by 777
MOTIVATED SKEPTICISM IN THE EVALUATION OF POLITICAL BELIEFS (2006)
Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2012) · Critical Review · doi:10.1080/08913811.2012.711019 · Cited by 760
Metadata
- Authors
- Aldrich, J. H., Sullivan, J. L., & Borgida, E.
- Venue
- American Political Science Review
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 1989-03
- Volume
- 83
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 123-141
- ISSN
- 0003-0554 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5943
- OpenAlex
- W2085574420
- Cited by
- 601
- References
- 35
- FWCI
- 71.90
- 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: Foreign Affairs and Issue Voting: Do Presidential Candidates “Waltz Before a Blind Audience?”. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/1956437
- The paper
- Aldrich, J. H., Sullivan, J. L., & Borgida, E. (1989). Foreign Affairs and Issue Voting: Do Presidential Candidates “Waltz Before a Blind Audience?”. American Political Science Review. https://doi.org/10.2307/1956437
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.
