The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Role of Partisan Stereotypes in Information Processing about Political Candidates
Abstract
Research in social cognition suggests that individuals employ a variety of cognitive strategies when processing information. Some of these strategies may function as cognitive heuristics, or simplifying rules of thumb, under certain information-processing conditions. In this article, I suggest that political party stereotypes can function heuristically for voters when they are confronted with political information-processing tasks. Two different cognitive strategies are outlined, a theory-driven and data-driven mode, and hypotheses about the use of these two strategies in political candidate evaluation, inference, and perception are developed. These are tested with an experimental design that uses videotapes of political candidates as stimulus material. I find that partisan stereotypes have considerable influence in political information processing, suggesting that the political parties continue to play an important role in voters' decision-making processes.
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
Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
Cohen, P., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2014) · Psychology Press eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781410606266 · Cited by 20,737
An Economic Theory of Democracy.
Banfield, E. C., & Downs, A. (1958) · Midwest Journal of Political Science · doi:10.2307/2109186 · Cited by 18,594
Eulau, H. (1960) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s000305540012235x · Cited by 4,722
Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098 · Cited by 4,583
Fiske, S. T., & Neuberg, S. L. (1990) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60317-2 · Cited by 3,323
Miller, G. A., & Cantor, N. (1982) · Social Cognition · doi:10.1521/soco.1982.1.1.83 · Cited by 2,816
Katz, R. S. (1982) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.2307/1961197 · Cited by 2,468
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991) · Cited by 2,339
A dual process model of impression formation.
Brewer, M. B. (1988) · Cited by 1,499
Maheswaran, D., & Chaiken, S. (1991) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.61.1.13 · Cited by 831
Cited by
Political Ideology: Its Structure, Functions, and Elective Affinities
Jost, J. T., Federico, C. M., & Napier, J. L. (2009) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163600 · Cited by 2,125
Beyond the Running Tally: Partisan Bias in Political Perceptions
Bartels, L. M. (2002) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1023/a:1021226224601 · Cited by 1,468
Ferraz, C., & Finan, F. (2008) · Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1162/qjec.2008.123.2.703 · Cited by 1,319
The Elusive Backfire Effect: Mass Attitudes’ Steadfast Factual Adherence
Wood, T., & Porter, E. (2019) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-018-9443-y · Cited by 904
Elite Influence on Public Opinion in an Informed Electorate
BULLOCK, J. G. (2011) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055411000165 · Cited by 777
Metadata
- Authors
- Rahn, W. M.
- Venue
- American Journal of Political Science
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1993-05
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 472
- ISSN
- 0092-5853 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2322912595
- Cited by
- 891
- References
- 43
- FWCI
- 43.07
- 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: The Role of Partisan Stereotypes in Information Processing about Political Candidates. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/2111381
- The paper
- Rahn, W. M. (1993). The Role of Partisan Stereotypes in Information Processing about Political Candidates. American Journal of Political Science. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111381
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.
