Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Do People Contrast and Assimilate Candidate Ideology? An Experimental Test of the Projection Hypothesis

  • Karyn Amira (a1)
Abstract

In political psychology, positive projection happens when we perceive the positions of liked candidates as closer to our own positions while negative projection means we perceive the positions of disliked candidates as further from our own positions. To date, there is still confusion about whether affective feelings lead to perceptions of candidate positions or perceptions of candidate positions lead to affective feelings. This paper pins down one of these causal directions. I manipulate positive and negative feelings towards a fictitious candidate in a survey experiment to introduce them exogenously and examine whether they affect perceptions of candidate ideology. In line with some previous findings, the results indicate modest positive projection effects but no negative projection effects. Explanations for this asymmetry are discussed.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Do People Contrast and Assimilate Candidate Ideology? An Experimental Test of the Projection Hypothesis
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Do People Contrast and Assimilate Candidate Ideology? An Experimental Test of the Projection Hypothesis
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Do People Contrast and Assimilate Candidate Ideology? An Experimental Test of the Projection Hypothesis
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
Footnotes
Hide All

Replication materials: The data, code, and any additional materials required to replicate all analyses in this article are available at the Journal of Experimental Political Science Dataverse within the Harvard Dataverse Network, at: doi:10.7910/DVN/SIGNC8

Footnotes
References
Hide All
Abramowitz, A. I. 1978. “The impact of a presidential debate on voter rationality.” American Journal of Political Science 22: 680–90
Abramowitz, A. I. and Saunders, K. L. 2008. “Is polarization a myth?The Journal of Politics 70: 542–55
Amira, Karyn A. 2018. “Do people contrast and assimilate candidate ideology? An experimental test of the projection hypothesis.” Harvard Dataverse, doi: 10.7910/DVN/SIGNC8.
Brady, H. E. and Sniderman, P. M. 1985. “Attitude attribution: A group basis for political reasoning.” American Political Science Review 79: 1061–78.
Brent, E. E. and Granberg, D. 1982. “Subjective agreement with the presidential candidates of 1976 and 1980.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 42 (3): 393.
Broockman, D. and Butler, D. M. 2017. “The causal effects of elite position-taking on voter attitudes: Field experiment with elite communication.” American Journal of Political Science 68: 208–21.
Castelli, L., Arcuri, L. and Carraro, L. 2009. “Projection processes in the perception of political leaders.” Basic and Applied Social Psychology 31: 189–96.
Clifford, S., Jewell, R. M. and Waggoner, P. D. 2015. “Are samples drawn from Mechanical Turk valid for research on political ideology?Research & Politics 2: 19.
Conover, P. and Feldman, S. 1982. “Projection and perception of candidates’ issue positions.” The Western Political Quarterly 35: 228–44
Conover, P. and Feldman, S. 1989. “Candidate perception in an ambiguous world: Campaigns, cues and inference processes.” American Journal of Political Science 33: 912–40
Erisen, C., Lodge, M. and Taber, C. S. 2014. “Affective contagion in effortful political thinking.” Political Psychology 35: 187206.
Feldman, S. and Conover, P. 1983. “Candidate, issues and voters: The role of inference in political perception.” The Journal of Politics 45: 810–39.
Granberg, D. 1987. “A contextual effect in political perception and self-placement on an ideology scale: Comparative analyses of Sweden and the US.” Scandanavian Political Studies 10: 3960.
Granberg, D. and Brent, E. 1980. “Perceptions of issue positions of presidential candidates: Candidates are often perceived by their supporters as holding positions on the issues that are closer to the supporters' views than they really are.” American Scientist 68: 617–25.
Granberg, D., Harris, W. and King, M. 1981. “Assimilation but little contrast in the 1976 U.S. Presidential Election.” The Journal of Psychology 108: 241–7
Granberg, D. and Jenks, R. 1977. “Assimilation and contrast effects in the 1972 election.” Human Relations 30: 623–40.
Granberg, D. and King, M. 1980. “Cross-lagged panel analysis of the relation between attraction and perceived similarity.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 16: 573–81.
Insko, C. A., Songer, E. and McGarvey, W. 1974. “Balance, positivity, and agreement in the Jordan paradigm: A defense of balance theory.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 10: 5383.
Kinder, D. R. 1978. “Political person perception: The asymmetrical influence of sentiment and choice on perceptions of presidential candidates.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36: 859–71
Krosnick, J. 1990. “Americans perceptions of presidential candidates: A test of the projection hypothesis.” Journal of Social Issues 46: 159–82.
Lau, R. R. 1982. “Negativity in political perception.” Political Behavior 4: 353–77.
Lodge, M., McGraw, K. M. and Stroh, P. 1989. “An impression-driven model of candidate evaluation.” American Political Science Review 83: 399419.
Lodge, M. and Taber, C. S. 2005. “The automaticity of affect for political leaders, groups, and issues: An experimental test of the hot cognition hypothesis.” Political Psychology 26 (3): 455–82.
Lodge, M. and Taber, C. S. 2013. The Rationalizing Voter. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mandisodza, A. N., Jost, J. T. and Unzueta, M. M. 2006“Tall poppies” and “American Dreams” reactions to rich and poor in Australia and the United States.” Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology 37: 659–68.
Markus, G. B. 1982. “Political attitudes during an election year: A report on the 1980 NES panel study.” American Political Science Review 76: 538–60
Markus, G. B. and Converse, P. E. 1979. “A dynamic simultaneous equation model of electoral choice.” American Political Science Review 73: 1055–70.
McCarty, N., Poole, K. T. and Rosenthal, H. 2006. Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches. vol. 5. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Merrill, S., Grofman, B. and Adams, J. 2001. “Assimilation and contrast effects in voter projections of party locations: Evidence from Norway, France, and the USA.” European Journal of Political Research 40: 199221.
Newcomb, T. M. 1953. “An approach to the study of communicative acts.” Psychological Review 60 (6): 393.
Page, B. I. 1976. “The theory of political ambiguity.” American Political Science Review 70: 742–52.
Page, B. I. and Brody, R. A. 1972Comment: The assessment of policy voting.” American Political Science Review 66: 450–8.
Shepsle, K. A. 1972. “The strategy of ambiguity: Uncertainty and electoral competition.” American Political Science Review 66: 555–68.
Sherif, M. and Hovland, C. I. 1961. Social Judgment: Assimilation and Contrast Effects in Communication and Attitude Change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Sherrod, D. R. 1972. “Selective perception of political candidates.” Public Opinion Quarterly 35: 554–68.
Swindel, S. H. and Miller, M. M. 1986. “Mass media and political decision making: Application of the accumulated information model to the 1980 presidential election.” Annals of the International Communication Association 9: 642–57.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Journal of Experimental Political Science
  • ISSN: 2052-2630
  • EISSN: 2052-2649
  • URL: /core/journals/journal-of-experimental-political-science
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords

Type Description Title
WORD
Supplementary materials

Amira supplementary material
Online Appendices A and B

 Word (626 KB)
626 KB
UNKNOWN
Supplementary materials

Amira Dataset
Dataset

 Unknown

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed