Abstract
Reexamining the relationship between the on-line and memory-based information processing models, this study presents a theoretical basis for the co-occurrence of on-line and memory-based processes and proposes a hybrid model. The study empirically tests the hybrid model by employing real-time tracking of participants’ reactions to two candidates in a US presidential primary election debate. The findings confirm an independent, but complementary relationship between on-line and memory-based information processing in an individual’s candidate evaluation and vote choice. The co-occurrence of the two modes applies to an individual’s comparison of candidates as well. The implications of the hybrid model for the functioning of democracy are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
From the normative perspective, the implications of each model for citizen competence and democracy are quite different. According to the memory-based model, political knowledge is the assumed standard for opinion quality. American’s consistently low levels of political knowledge (e.g., Delli Carpini and Keeter 1996) therefore implies that citizens fail to live up to this democratic standard. In contrast, the on-line information processing model suggests that political knowledge is not necessarily an appropriate measure on which to judge the soundness of democracy. What really matters for competent political decision making is not recollection of detailed political information per se, but individuals’ evaluative responses to information. By updating an affective integrator at the time of exposure and retrieve their updated global attitudes, citizens can still be “responsive voters” (Lodge et al. 1989) despite limited recall for political facts.
Factors that have been shown to moderate these effects include information processing goals (e.g., Hastie and Park 1986; Lodge et al. 1989), political sophistication (e.g., McGraw et al. 1990), situational complexity (e.g., Rahn, Aldrich et al. 1994), the type of media in which information is presented (Redlawsk 2001; Kim and Vishak 2008), and individual differences (e.g., McConnell and Leibold 2001; Tormala and Petty 2002).
In this sense, our hybrid model assumes the simultaneous (but independent) influences of the two modes, rather than sequential influences. This view diverges from other dual-process models, such as Gilbert (1989)’s correspondent/attributional inferences model or Lodge et al. (2006)’s dual process model of public opinion. For instance, Lodge et al. (2006) argue that affective, effortless responses enter into the decision stream earlier than cognitive association, thus, affective components cascade across subsequent high-order processes. Similarly, some co-occurrence dual process models suggest that effortless and effortful processes co-operate initially but because the effortless process finishes faster, only the more effortful process exerts influences in the end (see Smith and Decoter 1999). However, recent evidence in social psychology (e.g., Chen and Chaiken 1999; Epstein and Pacini 1999; Hamilton et al. 1999) lend more weight to simultaneous co-occurrence than to sequential occurrence. The on-line and memory-based models cannot occur contemporaneously by definition, but we assume they co-operate in parallel exerting independent influences simultaneously. A judgment outcome (e.g., global evaluation) is therefore an outcome of both of the two modes.
Some co-occurrence dual process models in social psychology explain how the effect of an effortless, spontaneous, automatic process overpowers that of an effortful, deliberate, process when the evaluative implications of the two processes are consistent. Chaiken and colleagues (Chaiken and Maheswaran 1994; Chen et al. 1996) note that the judgment implications of an effortless process may establish expectancies and bias the implications of an effortful process (termed a bias effect). Such an effect is more likely to be observed when information is ambiguous but perceived consistent. Similarly Zajonc (1980, 2000) argues that the effect of an affective, automatic process cascades across that of systematic, deliberate process (termed primacy effect).
In contrast to our hybrid approach, prior scholarship has tended to assume that on-line and memory-based processes occur under unique, mutually exclusive circumstances. For instance, Lau and Redlawsk (2006) argue that the importance of the issue about which a decision is being made determines how much influence memory-based rationality has. They also suggest that memory-based processes are engaged when information about the evaluative targets being compared is delivered over extended periods of time. For instance, in order for voters to compare information about two candidates that was learned at different times, they must rely on memory. Lavine’s hybrid model (2002) suggests that piecemeal (or memory-based) processing only occurs when individuals are exposed to new information. McGraw (2003) argues that uncertainty and ambiguity are the keys to the utilization of memory-based processing. These assertions that individuals alternate between on-line and memory-based processes according to situational or motivational factors are fundamentally distinct from our claim that the two modes of processing occur simultaneously and exert independent influences, but produce complementary effects.
The routine use of a dimension-centered structure in news is due in part to objectivity norms and journalistic professionalism, which strongly promote two-sided reporting of controversies (Gans 1979; Schudson 1978, 1998). Conflict-oriented, two-sided, dimension-centered stories also tend to have a higher news value as they are expected to draw more attention from the audiences (Bennett 1996; Hallin 1992). Election campaigns have also recently adopted a more dimension-centered format, as evidenced by increases in contrast advertising and advocacy group campaigns (An et al. 2006).
In these studies, the experimenters first measured participants’ attitudes toward a variety of social issues and political groups, and then compared those attitudes to the positions attributed to the candidates and the endorsements that the candidates’ received over the course of the experiment. If the participant was exposed to candidate positions that were consistent with their own, the researchers made the reasonable assumption that the participant would adjust the on-line tally for the candidate upward. If the candidate’s positions were inconsistent with the participant’s, then the on-line tally is assumed to move downward.
For instance, two in three participants (66%) watched the debate in the company of at least one other person, such as a roommate (18%), a friend (23%), or a family member (30%). These categories are not mutually exclusive. For instance, a participant could watch the debate with a roommate and a friend.
There were 162 students, 92 faculty/staff, and 26 unaffiliated with the university.
The four items were: “Who determines constitutionality of law?”; “Which party controls the house?”; “What majority is required to override a Presidential veto?” (This was an open-ended item); and “What office is now held by Dick Cheney?”.
Note that Obama’s online tally is lower than Clinton’s because Obama’s pre-debate thermometer scores were higher on average, not because the real-time impressions of him were lower.
Control variables, including party affiliations, were found to be non-significant throughout the models. This may indicate that the effects of those control variables were subsumed by either (or both) of the on-line and memory tallies. In support of this possibility, Lau and Redlawsk (2006) also argue that most control variables work as heuristics that are often subsumed by amalgam of impressions, i.e., on-line processing. Likewise, political knowledge, for instance, can be subsumed by the memory-based process.
References
An, S., Jin, H. S., & Pfau, M. (2006). The effects of issue advocacy advertising on voters’ candidate issue knowledge and turnout. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 83(1), 7–24.
Bennett, W. L. (1996). News: The politics of illusion (7th ed.). New York: Longman.
Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 212–252). New York: Guilford Press.
Chaiken, S., & Maheswaran, D. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: The effect of source credibility, argument ambiguity and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 460–473.
Chaiken, S., & Trope, Y. (Eds.). (1999). Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York: Guilford Press.
Chen, S., & Chaiken, S. (1999). The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 73–96). New York: Guilford Press.
Chen, S., Shechter, D., & Chaiken, S. (1996). Getting at the truth or getting along: Accuracy- versus impression-motivated heuristic and systematic processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 262–275.
Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Epstein, S., & Pacini, R. (1999). Some basic issues regarding dual-process theories from the perspective of cognitive-experiential self-theory. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual process theories in social psychology (pp. 462–482). New York: Guilford Publishers.
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1984). Social cognition. Reading Mass: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.
Gans, H. (1979). Decidin what’s news: A study of CBSEvening news, NBC Nightly news, newsweek and time. New York: Vintage.
Hallin, D. C. (1992). Sound bite news: Television coverage of elections, 1968–1988. Journal of Communication, 42(2), 5–24.
Hamilton, D. L., Sherman, S. J., & Maddox, K. B. (1999). Dualities and continua: Implications for understanding perceptions of persons and groups. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual process theories in social psychology. New York: Guilford Press.
Hastie, R., & Park, B. (1986). The relationship between memory and judgment depends on whether the judgment task is memory-based or on-line. Psychological Review, 93(3), 258–268.
Hastie, R., & Pennington, N. (1989). Notes on the distinction between memory-based versus on-line judgments. In J. N. Bassili (Ed.), On-line cognition in person perception (pp. 1–17). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Just, M. R., Crigler, A. N., Alger, D. E., & Cook, T. E. (1996). Crosstalk: Citizens, candidates, and the media in a presidential campaign. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Kelley, S., Jr., & Mirer, T. W. (1974). The simple act of voting. American Political Science Review, 68(2), 572–591.
Kelly, H. H. (1972). Attribution in social interaction. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, H. H. Kelly, R. E. Nisbet, S. Valins, & B. Weiner (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
Kim, S.-Y., Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2010). A computational model of citizens as motivated reasoner: Model of the dynamics of the 2000 Presidential election. Political Behavior, 32, 1–28.
Kim, Y. M., & Vishak, J. (2008). Just Laugh! You don’t need to remember: The Effects of entertainment media on political information acquisition and information processing in political judgment. Journal of Communication, 58, 338–360.
Lau, R. R. (1995). Information search during an election campaign: Introducing a processing-tracing methodology for political scientists. In M. Lodge & K. M. McGraw (Eds.), Political judgment: structure and process (pp. 179–206). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. (2001). An experimental study of information search, memory, and decision making during a presidential campaign. In J. H. Kuklinski (Ed.), Citizens and politics: perspectives from political psychology (pp. 136–159). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2006). How voters decide: Information processing during election campaigns. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lavine, H. (2002). On-line vs. memory-based process models of political evaluation. In K. R. Monroe (Ed.), Political psychology (pp. 225–247). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lodge, M., McGraw, K. M., & Stroh, P. (1989). An impression-driven model of candidate evaluation. American Political Science Review, 83(2), 399–419.
Lodge, M., Steenbergen, M., & Brau, S. (1995). The Responsive Voter: Campaign information and the dynamics of candidate evaluation. American Political Science Review, 89(2), 309–326.
Lodge, M., Taber, C., & Weber, C. (2006). First steps towards a dual-process accessibility model of political beliefs, attitudes, and behavior. In D. Redlawsk (Ed.), Feeling politics:Emotion in political information processing (Ch.2). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
McConnell, A. R., & Leibold, J. M. (2001). Relations among the implicit association test, discriminatory behavior, and explicit measures of racial attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37(5), 435–442.
McGraw, K. M. (2003). Political impressions: formation and management. In D. O. Sears, L. Huddy, & R. Jervis (Eds.), Oxford handbook of political psychology (pp. 394–432). New York: Oxford University Press.
McGraw, K. M., Hasecke, E., & Conger, K. (2003). Ambivalence, uncertainty, and processes of candidate evaluation. Political Psychology, 24(3), 421–448.
McGraw, K. M., Lodge, M., & Stroh, P. (1990). On-line processing in candidate evaluation: The effects of issue order, issue importance, and sophistication. Political Behavior, 12(1), 41–58.
Rahn, W. M., Aldrich, J. H., & Borgida, E. (1994a). Individual and contextual variations in political candidate appraisal. American Political Science Review, 88(1), 193–199.
Rahn, W. M., Krosnick, J. A., & Breuning, M. (1994b). Rationalization and derivation processes in survey studies of political candidate evaluation. American Journal of Political Science, 38(3), 582–600.
Redlawsk, D. (2001). You must remember this: A test of the on-line model of voting. Journal of Politics, 63(1), 29–58.
Schudson, M. (1978). Discovering the news: A social history of American newspapers. New York: Basic.
Schudson, M. (1998). The good citizen: A history of American public life. New York: Free Press.
Sloman, S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 3–22.
Smith, E. R., & DeCoster, J. (1999). Associative and rule-based processing: A connectionist interpretation of dual-process models. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. xiii, 657 p). New York: Guilford Press.
Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755–769.
Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. (2002). What doesn’t kill me makes me stronger. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1298–1313.
Uleman, J. S., Newman, L. S., & Moskowitz, G. B. (1996). People as flexible interpreters: Evidence and issues from spontaneous trait inference. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 28, pp. 179–211). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35, 151–175.
Zajonc, R. B. (2000). Feeling and thinking: Closing the debate over the independence of affect. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.), Feeling and thinking: The role of affect in social cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Zaller, J. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Zaller, J. R., & Feldman, S. (1992). A simple theory of the survey response: Answering questions versus revealing preferences. American Journal of Political Science, 36(3), 579–616.
Acknowledgment
We would like to thank Prabu David for his support for data collection.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kim, Y.M., Garrett, K. On-line and Memory-based: Revisiting the Relationship Between Candidate Evaluation Processing Models. Polit Behav 34, 345–368 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-011-9158-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-011-9158-9