Abelson, R.P. (1995). Attitude extremity. In R.E. Petty & J.A. Krosnick (Eds.) Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 25-41). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Akaike, H. (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE transactions on automatic control, 19, 716-723.
Alvarez M.R. & Brehm, J. (1997). Are Americans ambivalent towards racial policies?
American Journal of Political Science, 40, 345-374
Alvarez, M.R. & Brehm, J. (2002). Hard choices, easy answers. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Armitage, C.J. and Conner, M. (2000). Attitudinal ambivalence: A test of three key hypotheses. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1421-1432.
Bassili, J.N. (1996). Meta-judgmental versus operative indexes of psychological attributes: The case of measures of attitude strength. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 637-653.
Berelson, B, Lazarsfeld, P., & Gaudet, H. (1954) Voting. New York: Columbia University Press.
Blais, A, E. Gidengil, Nadeau, R. & Nevitte, N. (2002). Anatomy of a Liberal victory: Making sense of the 2000 Canadian election. Peterborough: Broadview Press. Blais, A. (2005). Accounting for the electoral success of the Liberal Party in Canada:
Presidential address to the Canadian Political Science Association. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 38, 821-840.
Bowen, L. (1994). Time of voting decision and use of political advertising: the Slade Gorton-Brock Adams senatorial Campaign. Journalism Quarterly, 71, 665-675. Bradburn, N.H., & Sudman, S. (1979). Improving interview method and questionnaire
design – response effects to threatening questions in survey research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cacioppo, J. T., Gardner, W. L., & Berntson, G. G. (1997). Beyond bipolar conceptualizations and measures: The case of attitudes and evaluative Space.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 3–25.
Campbell, A, Converse, P., Miller, W. & Stokes, D. (1960). The American voter: Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
59
Chaffee, S.H. & Rimal, R.N.. (1996). Time of vote decision and openness to persuasion in Mutz, D.C., Sniderman, P.M., & Brody, R.A (Eds.) Political persuasion and attitude change (pp. 267-291). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Chaffee, S.H., & Choe, S.Y. (1980). Time of decision and media use in the Ford- Carter Campaign. Public Opinion Quarterly, 44, 53-69.
Clausen, A. R. (1968). Response validity in surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 32, 588-606.
Converse, P.E. (1962) Information flow and the stability of partisan attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 26, 578-599.
Conner, M. & Sparks, P. (2002). Ambivalence and attitudes. European Review of Social Psychology, 12, 27-70.
Craig, S.C., M.D. Martinez & J.G. Kane. (2005). Ambivalence and response instability: A panel study, in S.C. Craig and M.D. Martinez(Eds.), Ambivalence and the structure of political opinion (Pp. 55-72). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Festinger, L.A. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance, Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Fournier, P., Nadeau, R., Blais, A., Gidengil, E. & Nevitte, N. (2001). Validation of time-of-voting-decision recall. Public Opinion Quarterly, 65: 95-107.
Fournier, P., Nadeau, R., Blais, A., Gidengil, E. & Nevitte, N. (2004). Time-of-voting- decision and susceptibility to campaigns. Electoral Studies, 23, 661-681.
Fournier, P. (2005). Ambivalence and attitude change in vote choice: Do campaign switchers experience internal conflict? In S.C. Craig and M.D. Martinez (Eds.),
Ambivalence, politics, and public policy (Pp. 27-46). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gidengil, E., Fournier, P., Everitt, J., Nevitte, N. & Blais, A. (2009). Anatomy of a Liberal defeat. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, Ottawa.
Heider, F. (1946). Attitudes and cognitive organization. The Journal of Psychology,
21, 107-112.
Herzon, F.D. (1975). Intensity of opinion and the organization of political attitudes.
60
Kaplan, K.J. (1972). On the ambivalence-indifference problem in attitude theory and Measurement: A Suggested Modification of the Semantic Differential Technique. Psychology Bulletin, 77, 361-372.
Katz, D. (1944). The measurement of intensity. In Hadley Cantril (Ed.), Gauging Public Opinion (Pp. 51-65). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Katz, I., and Hass, R.G. (1988). Racial ambivalence and American value Conflict: Correlational and priming studies of dual cognitive structures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 893-905.
Kenski, K.M. (2007). Gender and time of voting decision: Decision certainty during the 2000 presidential campaign. Journal of Political Marketing,6, 1-22.
Kirkpatrick, S.A. (1972). Political attitudes and behavior: Some consequences of attitudinal ordering. In D.D. Nimmo & C.M. Bonjean (Eds.), Political Attitudes and Public Opinion, (Pp. 386-404). New York: David McKay.
Lavine, H. (2001). The electoral consequences of ambivalence towards presidential candidates. American Journal of Political Science 45: 915-929.
Lazarsfeld, P.F., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1944). The people’s choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign. New York: Duell, Sloan, and Pearce.
Lazarsfeld, P.F., Berelson, & B. Gaudet, H. (1948). The people’s choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign (second edition). New York: Columbia University Press.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Selected theoretical papers. New York: Harper & Row.
Lewis-Beck, M., W.G. Jacoby, H. Norpoth & H.F. Weisberg. (2008). The American voter revisited. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Lucas, W. & Adams, W.C. (1978). Talking, television and voter indecision. Journal of Communication, 28, 120-131.
MacDonald, T. K., & Zanna, M. P. (1998). Cross-dimension ambivalence toward social groups: Can ambivalence affect intentions to hire feminists? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 427-441.
Martinez, M.D., S.C. Craig & J.G. Kant. (2005). Pros and cons: Ambivalence and public opinion. In Craig, S.C. & M.D. Martinez (Eds.), Ambivalence and the structure of political opinion, (Pp. 1-14). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
61
McGregor, R.M., (working paper). Voter sincerity and the time-of-voting-decision. McGregor, R.M., (working paper) Validation of time of vote decision recall:
Rethinking exclusion criteria and data format.
Meffert, M.F., M. Guge, & M. Lodge. (2004). Good, bad, and ambivalent: The consequences of multidimensional political attitudes. In W. E. Saris & P. Sniderman (Eds.), Studies in public opinion: Attitudes, nonattitudes, measurement error, and change (Pp. 63-92). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Miller, W.E., & J. M. Shanks. (1996). The new American voter. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Mutz, D. (2002). The consequences of cross-cutting networks for political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 46, 838-855.
Nir, L. (2005). Ambivalent social networks and their consequences for participation.
International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17, 422-442.
Petty, R. E., & Krosnick, J.A. (1995). Attitude strength: Antecedents and
consequences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Plumb, E. (1986). Validation of voter recall: Time of electoral decision making.
Political Behavior, 8, 302-312.
Priester, J. R., & Petty, R.E.. (1996). The gradual threshold model of ambivalence: Relating the positive and negative bases of attitudes to subjective ambivalence.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,71, 431-449.
Raden, D. (1985). Strength-related attitude dimensions. Social Psychology Quarterly,
48, 312-330.
Riedel, J.A., & Dunne, J.R. (1969-70). When the voter decides. Public Opinion Quarterly, 33, 619-621.
Scott, W.A. (1968). Attitude measurement, in Gardner, L, E. Aronson (Eds.). The handbook of social psychology (2nd edition). Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.
Tesser, A. & Martin, L. (1996). The psychology of evaluation. In Higgins, E.T. & Kruglanski, A.W. (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (Pp. 400-432). New York: Guilford.
62
Thompson, M. M., Zanna, M. P., & Griffin, D. W. (1995). Let’s not be indifferent about (attitudinal) ambivalence. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: antecedents and consequences (Pp. 361-386). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Tourangeau, R., Rasnki, K.A., Bradburn, N., & D’Àndrade, R. (1989). Carryover effects in attitude surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly,53, 495-524.
UCLA Academic Technology Services, Statistical Consulting Group. FAQ: What are Pseudo R-squareds? From http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/mult_pkg/faq/general/ psuedo_rsquareds.htm (accessed January 11, 2012).
Whitney, D. C., & Goldman, S.B. (1985). Media use and time of vote decisions: A study of the 1980 Presidential election. Communication Research, 12, 511-529. Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Zaller, J. & Feldman, S. (1992). A simple theory of the survey response. American Journal of Political Science, 36, 579-616.
63
3
-C
OGNITIVE
D
ISSONANCE AND
P
OLITICAL
A
TTITUDES
:
T
HE
C
ASE OF
C
ANADA
A substantial share of the literature in the field of voting behaviour is devoted to exploring the impact of political attitudes upon behaviour (see Gidengil, 1992; Blais et al., 2002; Gidengil et al., 2009). That is, in attempting to explain vote choice, political attitudes generally are seen as explanatory variables. While psychologists have suggested that causation may run in the opposite direction, or that behaviour can shape attitudes (Bandura, 1989), with few exceptions (see Anderson et al., 2004 for one example) political scientists have made relatively little effort to explore this possibility. If variables such as party evaluations are to be considered when attempting to explain vote choice, it seems appropriate that we should strive to develop an understanding of factors that influence these attitudes. If the act of voting, one’s vote choice, election outcomes, or other relevant political factors can influence evaluations of parties, the exact nature of the relationships among these variables is worth examining. Such knowledge has implications that are relevant for research based upon existing data, as well as for survey design. In other words, I argue that vote choice should not be seen only as a dependent variable, and that the effects of the act of voting upon political attitudes should be recognized and studied. If, for example, party evaluations are influenced by one’s behaviour, researchers should be aware of this when using such variables to explain behaviour.
Informed by the lessons of cognitive dissonance theory, this article explores the impact of cognitive, affective and behavioural factors upon changes in attitudes towards parties. The fundamental premise of dissonance theory is that individuals are motivated
64
to seek consistency among their cognitions40 (Worchel et al., 2000). First proposed by Festinger (1957), the theory suggests that when pertinent cognitions are inconsistent (or dissonant) with one another, a sense of psychological discomfort can arise. One way of reducing this discomfort is to alter cognitions (only some of which are malleable) so that they become consistent (or consonant) with one another.41 Employing pre- and post-election Canadian Election Study (CES) data from 1988, 2004 and 2006, this article explores the circumstances under which dissonance motivates individuals to change their attitudes towards parties. In doing so, this study provides insight into the complex relationship between behaviour, knowledge and beliefs, as well as the dynamic nature of political attitudes.