Author's Keywords: motivated information processing, candidate evaluation, on-line model, memory, impression formation, learning, processing goal, processing mode, election campaign	Convention Submission, Review, and Scheduling! All Academic Convention can help with all of your abstract management needs and many more. Contact us today for a quote! Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! Click here for more information.
Association: Name: International Communication Association URL: http://www.icahdq.org
Citation: URL: http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p111595_index.html Direct Link: HTML Code:

Meffert, Michael., Chung, Sungeun., Joiner, Amber., Garst, Jennifer. and Waks, Leah. "Motivated Information Search and Candidate Evaluations: On-Line Versus Memory-Based Process Models" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Marriott Hotel, San Diego, CA, May 27, 2003 <Not Available>. 2009-05-26 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p111595_index.html>

Meffert, M. F., Chung, S. , Joiner, A. J., Garst, J. and Waks, L. , 2003-05-27 "Motivated Information Search and Candidate Evaluations: On-Line Versus Memory-Based Process Models" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Marriott Hotel, San Diego, CA Online <.PDF>. 2009-05-26 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p111595_index.html

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript Review Method: Peer Reviewed Abstract: The paper will report the results of a study that analyzes how (potential) voters form candidate evaluations in a dynamic campaign environment. We analyze the process by which initial candidate preference guides a subsequent search and selection of campaign information; how recipients of this information integrate it in an on-line affective tally; and/or how they store and retrieve the information from memory to form a final candidate preference and candidate evaluations. The study draws on several theories and addresses issues that have received considerable attention in recent years. The cognitive information processing framework (Lang, 2000) has paid increasing attention to motivated information processing. The central idea is that recipients of information are not just passive receivers of information but are actively engaged in processing information. Preexisting attitudes and preferences, as well as processing goals, affect the selection, perception and acceptance of messages (Baumeister & Newman, 1994; Biek, Wood, & Chaiken, 1996; Ditto & Lopez, 1992; Kunda, 1990; Lodge & Taber, 2000). The research cited above stresses the important role of affect in information processing, exemplified in concepts such as “hot cognition” and on-line information processing (the sequential updating of evaluative tallies). Two types of process models are used to explain the formation of candidate evaluations (Lavine, 2002). The on-line process assumes that voters, once they have formed an initial impression of the candidates, incrementally update a running, affective tally for each candidate whenever they encounter information about the candidate (anchoring-and-adjustment heuristic). While the running affective tally is stored and is highly accessible in memory, the memory for the content of the information usually decays quickly. The memory-based process, on the other hand, assumes that voters only form a candidate evaluation when asked for it. Only then they start searching their memory for relevant information and integrate their thoughts into an overall evaluation. Our first research question (RQ1) is to determine which of the two processes postulated above is a better predictor of final candidate evaluations. Furthermore, information processing is goal-oriented, and the type of processing goal has been found to influence the processing mode (Huang & Price, 2001; Redlawsk, 2001). More specifically, the goal of “forming an impression” about candidates should induce an on-line formation of candidate evaluations and lead to a lower recall of information. The goal to “learn and remember as much as possible” about candidates should attenuate an on-line formation of candidate evaluations and facilitate a memory-based process. Our first hypothesis (H1) predicts that the information processing goal (task manipulation: impression formation vs. learning condition) will influence how candidate evaluations are formed (processing mode: on-line vs. memory-based, respectively). Processing goal and processing mode can influence how voters search and recall information about candidates (Lau, 1995). More specifically, voters who merely form an impression of candidates can be expected to focus on one candidate at a time (candidate-centered information search) and update their affective tally without encoding most content of the information in memory. Those who want to learn and remember as much as possible about the candidates can be expected to both look for and recall more information across candidates (comparative information search). Thus, our second hypothesis (H2) predicts that processing goal and processing mode influence the type of the information search (candidate-centered vs. comparative). Our third hypothesis (H3) predicts that processing goal and processing mode influence the amount of recall (low vs. high recall). Methodologically, the paper proposes and uses a computer-based study design that introduces enhanced realism in the study. Instead of exposing participants to a fixed set of specific messages in a static environment and merely measuring their reactions, our study used a dynamic information board that created a fictional campaign environment that is over-saturated with quickly changing information. Out of necessity, participants were forced to be selective and could choose only a limited number of messages. The computer-based study used custom-developed software (in Visual Basic 6) to dynamically present the information in form of headlines (and associated articles) and to track the information selection and processing behavior of the study participants. After completing the search, participants were asked about their perceptions and ratings of the information. Data & Methods The data collection for the experiment was completed in Summer 2002. Participants: The participants were 229 undergraduate students who were offered extra credit for study participation. Design, Procedure, and Stimuli: After participants completed an initial questionnaire about political issues, they were randomly assigned to either an accuracy condition (“to learn and remember as much as possible about the candidates”) or an impression formation condition (“to form an impression of the candidates”). The former condition was expected to induce a more systematic and objective information search, the latter condition was expected to facilitate development of an affective on-line tally as well as a more directional, biased information search that will strengthen the initial candidate preference. The subsequent procedures were identical for both conditions. All participants were asked to play the role of a voter during a fictitious election campaign for an open congressional seat in Illinois. They were told they should be prepared to vote for a candidate in the upcoming election. The experiment required that they choose headlines and articles from the last ten weeks of the campaign. During the task, participants were presented with a random sequence of 40 headlines that, when clicked on, opened newspaper-style stories associated with the candidates in a window. On the “front-page” of the newspaper, participants always encountered four headlines that changed every 25 seconds to the next set of four headlines. On each screen, each candidate was mentioned in two of the headlines (one positive and one negative, respectively). The valence of the headlines was manipulated by using negative or positive words in the headline. A list of positive words (e.g., praise, hail, support) and negative words (e.g., accuse, oppose, criticize) was developed and used to create the headlines. The headline order across the ten screens and on each screen was randomized. The computer kept track of the selection and processing behavior (headlines, reading time) of the participants. After their “vote,” participants were asked to complete several additional scales and tasks that measured information processing and effect variables. These included detailed candidate ratings, demographics, political predispositions, and a free recall/thought listing task. Participants were also asked to rate their recall items in terms of valence and importance for their candidate evaluations. They were also shown the articles they had read during the information search and asked to rate each of them in terms of valence and whether they perceived candidate bias. Implications By focusing on how voters process campaign information, the proposed study makes an important contribution to the research on how voters pay attention to campaign information and form candidate evaluations. The dynamic study design presented the participants with a fast-moving, information-saturated campaign environment that forced them to be selective. Giving participants the ability to select messages introduced increased realism in the experimental design and should facilitate the observation of motivated information processing. Because citizens in the “real” world have the ability to be selective, denying participants in previous experiments this opportunity limits the ability of these studies to understand how recipients process political campaign information. The study design allows us to track and analyze participants’ information search behavior. This makes it possible to better determine with more appropriate measures which processing mode participants use to form candidate evaluations. The actual encounter of messages during the information search helps to measure on-line processing, and the recalled information helps to measure for memory-based processing. By focusing on the process between stimulus (campaign information) and response (candidate evaluations), we are able to shed some light on the information processing that happens in the “black box” of the human mind. Our paper will discuss in detail the implications of our findings for the specific theories involved and for political information processing in general. References Baumeister, R. F., & Newman, L. S. (1994). Self-regulation of cognitive inference and decision processes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 3-19. Biek, M., Wood, W., & Chaiken, S. (1996). Working knowledge, cognitive processing, and attitudes: On the determinants of bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 547-556. Ditto, P. H., & Lopez, D. F. (1992). Motivated skepticism: Use of differential decision criteria for preferred and nonpreferred conclusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 568-584. Huang, L. N., & Price, V. (2001). Motivations, goals, information search, and memory about political candidates. Political Psychology, 22, 665-692. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480-498. Lang, A. (2000). The limited capacity model of mediated message processing. Journal of Communication, 50, 46-70. 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. 179-205). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Lavine, H. (2002). On-line versus memory-based process models of political evaluation. In K. R. Monroe (Ed.), Political Psychology (pp. 225-247). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Lodge, M., & Taber C. S. (2000). Three steps toward a theory of motivated political reasoning. In A. Lupia, M. McCubbins, & S. Popkin (Eds.), Elements of political reason: Understanding and expanding the limits of rationality (pp. 183-213). London: Cambridge University Press. Redlawsk, D. P. (2001). You must remember this: A test of the on-line model of voting. Journal of Politics, 63, 29-58.

Campaigns, Candidates, and the Internet: The Impact of Political Advertisements on On-Line Participation & Political Judgments

Motivated Information Processing and Negative Campaigns: The Dynamic Formation of Candidate Evaluations

Voters’ Motivation and Information Processing: A Model of Motivated Information Processing in a Political Campaign