Response latencies to all questions in a computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) survey of the 1990 Ontario election were recorded. Prior to the election, a random sample of respondents were asked about their voting intention, their leader preference, their party preference, and their customary party identification. After the election, respondents were called back to determine if they had voted and, if so, for what party. Models of vote choice demonstrated that the voting behavior of respondents who expressed their voting intention quickly in the preelection interview was much more predictable than the voting behavior of respondents who expressed their voting intention slowly. The accessibility of voting intentions was, in turn, related to conflict among determinants of vote choice. Moreover the accessibility of voting intentions was related to the accessibility of party identification, but only for respondents who did not experience a conflict in the election.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ajzen, I. , & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
2.
Bassili, J. N. (1993a, May). Measuring response latency in CATI: A high-accuracy apparatus compatible with all software. Paper presented at the 48th annual conference of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, St. Charles, IL.
3.
Bassili, J. N. (1993b, May). Mushy measures of mushiness: Distinguishing between operative and meta-attitudinal indexes of attitude strength. Paper presented at the 48th annual conference of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, St. Charles, IL.
4.
Bassili, J. N. (1993c). Response latency versus certainty as indexes of the strength of voting intentions in a CATI survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 57, 54-61.
5.
Bassili, J. N. , & Fletcher, J. F. (1991). Response-time measurement in survey research: A method for CATI and a new look at non-attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 55, 331-346.
6.
Campbell, A. , Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. New York: Wiley.
7.
Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. E. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and discontent (pp. 206-261). New York: Free Press.
8.
Converse, P. E. (1966). The concept of a normal vote. In A. Campbell, P. E. Converse, W. E. Miller, & D. E. Stokes (Eds.), Elections and the political order. New York: Wiley.
9.
Fazio, R. H. (1986). How do attitudes guide behavior? In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), The handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (pp. 204-243). New York: Guilford.
10.
Fazio, R. H. (1990). Multiple processes bywhich attitudes guide behavior: The MODE model as an integrative framework. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental socialpsychology (Vol. 23, pp. 75-109). New York: Academic Press.
11.
Fazio, R. H. (in press). Attitudes as object-evaluation associations: Determinants, consequences, and correlates of attitude accessibility. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
12.
Fazio, R. H. , Chen, J., McDonel, E. C., & Sherman, S. J. (1982). Attitude accessibility, attitude-behavior consistency, and the strength of the object-evaluation association. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18, 339-357.
13.
Fazio, R. H. , Herr, P. M., & Olney, T. J. (1984). Attitude accessibility following a self-perception process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 277-286.
14.
Fazio, R. H. , Powell, M. C., & Herr, P. M. (1983). Toward a process model of the attitude-behavior relation: Accessing one's attitude upon mere observation of the attitude object. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 723-735.
15.
Fazio, R. H. , & Williams, C. J. (1986). Attitude accessibility as a moderator of the attitude-perception and attitude-behavior relations: An investigation of the 1984 presidential election. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 505-514.
16.
Fazio, R. H. , & Zanna, M. P. (1978). Attitudinal qualities relating to the strength of the attitude-behavior relationship. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 398-408.
17.
Gallup poll accuracy record. (1985, October). The Gallup Report, p. 33.
18.
Goldberg, A. S. (1966). Discerning a causal pattern among data on voting behavior. American Political Science Review, 60, 913-922.
19.
Kelley, S. , & Mirer, T. W. (1974). The simple act of voting. American Political Science Review, 68, 572-591.
20.
Kenney, P. J. , & Rice, T. W. (1988). Presidential prenomination preferences and candidate evaluations. American Political Science Review, 82, 1309-1319.
21.
Kinder, D. R. , & Sears, D. O. (1985). Public opinion and political action. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., vol. 2, pp. 659-741). New York: Random House.
22.
Krosnick, J. A. , & Abelson, R. P. (1991). The casefor measuring attitude strength in surveys. In J. Tanur (Ed.), Questions about survey questions. New York: Russell Sage.
23.
Krosnick, J. A. , Boninger, D. S., Chuang, Y. C., & Carnot, C. (1991). Attitude strength: One construct ormany related constructs?Unpublished manuscript.
24.
Lazarfeld, P. F. , Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1948). The people's choice (2nd ed.). New York: Columbia University Press.
25.
Marcus, G. E. (1988). The structure of emotional response: 1984 presidential candidates. American Political Science Review, 82, 737-761.
26.
Markus, G. B. (1982). Political attitudes during an election year: A report on the 1980 NES panel study. American Political Science Review, 76, 538-560.
27.
Markus, G. B. , & Converse, P. E. (1979). A dynamic simultaneous equation model of electoral choice. American Political Science Review, 73, 1055-1070.
28.
Page, B. I. , & Jones, C. C. (1979). Reciprocal effects of policy preference, party loyalties, and the vote. American Political Science Review, 73, 1071-1089.
29.
Powell, M. C. , & Fazio, R. H. (1984). Attitude accessibility as a function of repeated attitudinal expression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10, 139-148.
30.
Regan, D. T. , & Fazio, R. H. (1977). On the consistency between attitudes and behavior: Look to the method of attitude formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 2845.
31.
Schuman, H. , & Johnson, M. P. (1976). Attitudes and behavior. Annual review of Sociology, 2, 161-207.
32.
Sivacek, J. , & Crano, W. D. (1982). Vested interest as a moderator of attitude-behavior consistencyJournal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 210-221.
