The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
An Impression-Driven Model of Candidate Evaluation
Abstract
We describe and test two process models of candidate evaluation. The memory-based model holds that evaluations are dependent on the mix of pro and con information retrieved from memory. The impression-driven model holds that evaluations are formed and updated “on-line” as information is encountered. The results provide evidence for the existence of stereotyping and projection biases that render the mix of evidence available in memory a nonveridical representation of the information to which subjects were exposed. People do not rely on the specific candidate information available in memory. Rather, consistent with the logic of the impression-driven processing model, an “on-line” judgment formed when the information was encountered best predicts candidate evaluation. The results raise both methodological and substantive challenges to how political scientists measure and model the candidate evaluation 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
Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411 · Cited by 41,941
Axten, N., Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1973) · Contemporary Sociology · doi:10.2307/2063712 · Cited by 6,834
Newell, A. (1972) · Cited by 6,222
Eulau, H. (1960) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s000305540012235x · Cited by 4,722
The People's Choice: How the Voter Makes Up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign
Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1968) · Cited by 2,410
The people's choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign.
Britt, S. H. (1945) · Journal of Consulting Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0051801 · Cited by 1,827
Social Cognition: From Brains to Culture
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (2013) · SAGE Publications Ltd eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781529681451 · Cited by 1,741
Cognitive Processes in Stereotyping and Intergroup Behavior
(2015) · Psychology Press eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315668758 · Cited by 1,476
Human Nature in Politics: The Dialogue of Psychology with Political Science
Simon, H. A. (1985) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.2307/1956650 · Cited by 1,359
Hastie, R., & Park, B. (1986) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.93.3.258 · Cited by 1,108
Cited by
Are Political Orientations Genetically Transmitted?
ALFORD, J. R., FUNK, C. L., & HIBBING, J. R. (2005) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055405051579 · Cited by 987
The Role of Partisan Stereotypes in Information Processing about Political Candidates
Rahn, W. M. (1993) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.2307/2111381 · Cited by 891
Out of Step, Out of Office: Electoral Accountability and House Members' Voting
CANES-WRONE, B., BRADY, D. W., & COGAN, J. F. (2002) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055402004276 · Cited by 831
Measuring Political Knowledge: Putting First Things First
Carpini, M. X. D., & Keeter, S. (1993) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.2307/2111549 · Cited by 770
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
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Lodge, M., McGraw, K. M., & Stroh, P.
- Venue
- American Political Science Review
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 1989-06
- Volume
- 83
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 399-419
- ISSN
- 0003-0554 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5943
- OpenAlex
- W2132829884
- Cited by
- 649
- References
- 32
- FWCI
- 87.88
- 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: An Impression-Driven Model of Candidate Evaluation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/1962397
- The paper
- Lodge, M., McGraw, K. M., & Stroh, P. (1989). An Impression-Driven Model of Candidate Evaluation. American Political Science Review. https://doi.org/10.2307/1962397
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.
