The Structure of Emotional Response: 1984 Presidential Candidates

Author(s): George E. Marcus

Source: The American Political Science Review, Vol. 82, No. 3 (Sep., 1988), pp. 737-761
Published by: American Political Science Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1962488 .
Accessed: 26/01/2015 19:39

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Political Science Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
The American Political Science Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 19:39:44 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE STRUCTUREOF
EMOTIONALRESPONSE:
1984 PRESIDENTIAL
CANDIDATES
GEORGE E. MARCUS
WilliamsCollege

Over the past two decadespsychologicalmodels of affect

have changedfrom valence (one-dimensional)models to multiple-dimensionalmodels.
The most recentmodels, circumplexmodels, are two-dimensional.Feelingthermometer
measures,which derivetheirtheoreticallogic from earlier(valence)modelsof emotional
appraisal,are shown to be confounded. Underlyingthe variationobtainedusingfeeling
thermometermeasuresare two dimensions of emotional response, mastery (positive
emotionality)and threat(negativeemotionality).Analysis of the 1984 NESsurvey sug-
gests that positive emotional response is twice as influential as negative emotional
responsein predictingpresidentialcandidatevote disposition to the presidentialcandi-
dates. Reliance on emotional response is shown to be uniformly influential across
various strata of the electorate.
Policy considerationshave little direct influenceon vote disposition, though policy
considerationsare indirectlyrelatedto vote disposition throughthe influenceof issues
on the degreeof feelings of threatevoked by the candidates.

It has been 15 that they add explanatorypower to our

years since it was first recognized that
asking people about their feelings toward
presidentialcandidateswas equivalentto
ascertainingtheirvote disposition(Brody
and Page 1973). Only recentlyhave feel-
ings-emotions-begun to be the subject
of serious study by political scientists.
The recent studies on emotions and poli-
tics have shown that feelings have strong
predictive effects on candidate appraisal
(Abelson et al. 1982), on issue appraisal
(Conoverand Feldman1986), on political
participation(Marcus1985) and on polit-
ical communication(Roseman, Abelson,
and Ewing1986). The primaryconcernof
the initial studies has been to establish
that emotions are worthy of study and
understandingof a variety of political
phenomena.'
While the studies cited above have
established the value of studying emo-
tions and in redressing the imbalance
resultingfrom the dominanceof the cog-
nitive approach to human behavior, it
must also be noted that thesestudieshave
failed to provide a sound theoretical
focus. The recent attention to affect has
been markedby contradictoryand anom-
alous findings;so that even when the cor-
rect structureof emotional response has
been identified, its significanceand rele-
vance have not been properlyunderstood
(e.g., Abelson et al. 1982). Contradictory
findings have been reported in different

AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW

VOL. 82 NO. 3 SEPTEMBER1988

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 19:39:44 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 American Political Science Review Vol. 82
studiesas to the numberof dimensionsof
emotionality.In a study of political com-
munications, Roseman, Abelson, and
Ewing(1986)reportfour dimensions.In a
study of economic issues, Conover and
Feldman(1986) report three dimensions.
In a study of candidateappraisal,Abelson
and his colleagues (1982) report two
dimensions. And a recent study of the
vote decision, Rahn and colleaguesn.d.,
relies on one dimension of affect eval-
uation.
The anomalousresultperplexinginves-
tigators has been the consistent finding
that when individualsregard a situation
or event (suchas a candidate,issue, or cir-
cumstance) they often simultaneously
reportgood and bad feelings (Dienerand
Emmons1984; Warr, Barter,and Brown-
bridge 1983). Abelson and his colleagues
(1982)find, afterexaminingthe emotional
responses to various candidates for na-
tional office, that "perhapsour most psy-
chologicallyprovocativeresultis the near
independenceof negative and positive af-
fect"(i.e., the frequentconcurrentreports
of both good and bad feelings).All of the
studies that use multiple dimensions of
emotionality report similar "anomalous"
findings.Until and unless the structureof
emotional responseis clarified,how feel-
ings interactwith thinking and influence
political behavior will remainobscured.
Threeclassesof models of the structure
of affect are generally used: valence
models, discrete models and circumplex
models. Valence models are the basis of
the familiar "thermometerscales" in the
National Election Studies surveys. Dis-
crete models are the basis of the feeling
measuresin the NES. Circumplexmodels
have been a recent developmentand will
be unfamiliarto most political scientists.
Circumplex models offer a theoretical
approach to variation in feelings that
resolves the conflicting and anomalous
findings.More importantly,the theory of
circumplexmodels of affect suggeststhat
feelings provide stable strategic inter-
738
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 19:39:44 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
pretations and that variations in these
strategicresponseshave importantpolit-
ical implications.
Beforeturningto circumplexmodels of
affect, it will be useful briefly to review
the theoretical rationale of valence and
discretemodels of affect.
Valence Models of Emotion
In this approachto the study of beliefs
and attitudesaffect is definedas the eval-
uative dimensionof an attitude,hencethe
term valence. Attitudes and beliefs are
held about some object (e.g., person or
issue). Attitudes are composed of three
dimensions: affect, behavioral disposi-
tion, and cognition.Affect and evaluation
are treatedas synonymous (Fishbeinand
Ajzen 1975). Eachattitudesubjectis eval-
uated positively or negatively or neutral-
ly. The assumptionunderlyingthis class
of models is that feelings are unidimen-
sional and effectively bipolar (i.e., posi-
tive feelings at one end, negativefeelings
at the other, and neutral feelings in the
middle). That some may evaluate an ob-
ject positively while others are neutralor
negativetowardsthe objectis to be under-
stood as a matterof individualdifferences
-an empiricalmatter to be studied. The
tripartiteconception of attitudesis grad-
ually being abandonedby psychologists,
because emotion and cognition are com-
ing to be recognizedas separate mental
processes. It retains appeal to some
(Breckler1984).
In political science, feeling thermome-
ters are the most frequentapplicationof
valencemodels of affect. The feelingther-
mometershave been a popularmeasureof
assessing feelings elicited by candidates
and by groups, parties, organizations,
and economic classes. The 1984 NES lists
50 feeling thermometers,includingthe 18
feeling thermometerson political figures.
The validity of findings that rely on feel-
ing thermometersis dependentupon the
 Emotional Response
assumptionthat affect has a bipolar one-
dimensionalstructure.As this study will
demonstrate,that assumptionis invalid.
DiscreteModels of Emotion
Discretemodels of emotions share cer-
tain presumptions. First, different emo-
tions are identified as "alternativeap-
praisals of events" (Roseman1984). The
number of fundamentalemotions differs
from one model to another.Davies (1980)
identifies seven principal affects: moral
indignation, anger or hatred, envy or
resentment,fear or suspicion, powerless-
ness or disillusion,sympathyor pity, and
loyalty or pride. Izard (1971, 1977) pro-
posed a 10-fundamental-emotions model.
Roseman has proposed 13 fundamental
emotionsthat characterizethe structureof
emotions (Roseman 1979). His most re-
cent list of the fundamental emotions
includes 14 fundamentalemotions: joy,
relief, hope, fear, frustration,liking, dis-
liking, anger, guilt, pride, and regret
(Roseman1984). Different combinations
of motivationalstates and situationalfac-
tors present different circumstances,
which then, in turn, elicit differentinter-
pretations (cognition) that produce an
appropriate emotion (cognitively trig-
gered affect). Perceptions trigger emo-
tional responsesdependingon the motiva-
tional circumstance(for example,whether
the event is perceived as rewarding or
punishing)and on the situationalcontext
(for example,whetherthe event is seen as
personally invested or personally neu-
tral). A situation sensed as punitive will
be experiencedas a negativeemotion:fear
or distress if control of the situation is
attributedto oneself, anger or hatred if
control is attributedto someone else.
Discretemodelshave made some useful
contributions,principallyin beginningto
pursueparsimonyin the structureof emo-
tional appraisal, particularly important
since the numberof distinguishableemo-
tional terms is measuredin the hundreds
739
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 19:39:44 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
(e.g., Storm and Storm 1987; Wiener,
Russell,and Lerman1978, vol. 2). In par-
ticular, discretemodels posit that evalua-
tion (emotionalappraisal)is to be under-
stood in more strategicterms by positing
a link between specific adaptive benefit
(Pluthik 1980). Further, by emphasiz-
ing the emotional content of the repre-
sentationof sensory stimuli and its influ-
ence on thought and action, discrete
models have begun the transition from
the orthodox position that cognitive
processes can provide a comprehensive
account of thinking, awareness, and
behavior.2
However, proponents of discrete
models disagreeat the theoreticallevel as
to the numberof discreteemotions (rang-
ing from 7 to 14); and at the empirical
level, studies of politics using discrete
models report varying dimensions of
emotionalappraisal(rangingfrom2 to 4).
And, of greatest importance, empirical
studies consistentlyreport that individu-
als reportboth positive and negativefeel-
ings so frequently that discrete models
must concludeeitherthat this is an anom-
alous findingor that most of the timepeo-
ple are in conflictedmotivationalstates.
Modelsof Emotion
Circumplex
More recent developmentshave iden-
tified the structure of affect as a two-
dimensional circumplex (Plutchik 1980;
Russell 1980; Zevon and Tellegen 1982).
The two dimensionsare generallyidenti-
fied as positive emotionalityand negative
emotionalityeffectivelyyunipolaraxes at
orthogonal locations). Each dimension
representsa specific arousalsystem. One
arousal system characterizes certain
motor-sensory signals as positive emo-
tionality, rangingfrom dull and depressed
when arousalis low and to elated enthu-
siastic when arousal is high. The second
arousal system characterizes certain
motor-sensory signals as negative emo-
tionality, ranging from calm and placid
 American Political Science Review Vol. 82

Figure1. EmotionalResponse to son and Tellegen 1985; see also Masters

Mondale on Seven Mood Terms and Sullivan 1986).
The circumplexmodel resolveswhy dif-
1.0
ferent studies have reported more than
0.8 two dimensions. Studies that include af-
0.6d /s usued afraid fect termsthat are heavily clusteredin dif-
0.4-
ferent regions of the circumplexand rely
on oblique solutions will indeed report
0.2
three or more dimensions(e.g., Conover
.0.01 sympathetico and Feldman 1986; Roseman, Abelson,
o .0.2 ~~~~~~~~~~~~hopmeful
and Ewing1986). However, reanalysisof
when proud
studies with multiple oblique factors
0~ -064 reports results that unambiguouslysup-
.0.2
0 port the two-dimensional circumplex
-0. model (Watson and Tellegen 1985). The
-1.0
Abelson and colleagues 1982 study of
-1.0-0.8-0.6-0.4-0.2.0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 emotional appraisal of candidates, de-
RotatedFactor1 (PositiveAffect) signed to demonstrate the relevance of
emotions using one discrete model of
emotions (Roseman's structural model;
when arousal is low to nervous and see Roseman1979, 1984), reports results
anxiouswhen arousalis high. The circum- that validate the circumplex model
plex model locates all affect termswithin (thoughthey do not recognizeit as such).
the circumplex,the location varying as a Thus studies designed from a discrete
resultof the differentialdegreesof arousal model perspective, using measures in-
on each dimension. Studies of facial tended to demonstratethe distinct influ-
expression, tones of voice, and affect ences of each primary emotion, have
words-in Englishand in other languages found, to the contrary,two dimensionsof
-all report the same basic two-dimen- affect-positive and negative.
sional structure(studiesreviewedin Wat-

Figure2. EmotionalResponse to PreliminaryEmpiricalTest

Reagan on Seven Mood Terms
The 1984 NES data afford an oppor-
1.0 tunity to compare the circumplexmodel
- 0.8 disgustedu neasy of emotion against valence and discrete
0.6 / afaid gr models as it appliesto emotionalresponse
to presidentialcandidates.Replicatingthe
0.4 /
methodology used in previous NES stud-
? 0.2 sympathetic ies, respondents in the 1984 NES were
'O.0- ~~~~~~~~~~rud asked to regard the presidential candi-
0 -0.2- hopeful6
dates and asked if "somethingabout that
.0.4
person, or something he has done has
\
made you have certainfeelingslike anger
] -0.6 \/ or pride."Subjectsthen reportedwhether
-0.86 they have ever felt that emotion, using a
.1.0 list of seven discrete emotions selected
-1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 -0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 from Roseman's discrete model of the
Rotated Factor 1 (Positive Affect) structure of emotions (angry, hopeful,

740

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 19:39:44 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Emotional Response

Figure 3. Gray-Tellegen Two-Factor

Model of Emotional Appraisal

Inputs outputs
Behavioral
Activation
Signalsof Reward Beha--ora (approach
learning;
mastery)

Signalsof Nonpunishment Activation

Activation Increment
in Arousal
(Enthusiasm,
excitement)
Signalsof Mastery System
FocusedSensoryAnalysisof
reward/non-punishment
stimuli

TheBASSystem-Appraisal
andEvaluation
of TaskPerformance
(Scanningfor Indicationsof Success/Failureof SubjectEngagedActions)

Inputs Output
Signalsof Punishment
l ~Behavioral Behavioral
Inhibition
Signalsof Nonreward
Inhibition N Increment
in Arousal
Novel Stimuli (Anxiety)
. --
InnateFearStimuli Increased
Attention

The BIS System-Appraisal and Evaluationof IntrusiveInformation

(Scanningfor ExternalDangeror Threat)

afraid of him, proud, disgusted, sympa- sional. These resultscontradictthe expec-

thetictowardshim, uneasy).This analysis tations of the valencemodel that affective
should provide a robust test since the evaluation is one-dimensionaland vali-
selection of the affect termswas intended dates the circumplexmodel's expectation
to supportthe discretemodel of emotions that affect is two-dimensional.The only
(Abelson et al. 1982; Roseman,Abelson, departurefrom the circumplexmodel is
and Ewing1986). Discretemodels of emo- the somewhat oblique relationship be-
tions shouldfind a multidimensionalsolu- tween the two dimensions(which will be
tion, probably oblique in structure.Fig- addressedmore fully in the later covari-
ures 1 and 2 display plots of the factor ance analysis). These results are not
loadingsfrom factoranalysesof the seven specificto the 1984 NESdata; comparable
emotional measuresfor Mondale and for findingsare reportedin Abelson and col-
Reagan. leagues 1982 and Sullivan and Masters
Only two dimensionsemergefrom the 1988.
factor analysis.3The plotted factor load- The discrete model, as well as a lay
ings replicate the findings reported in grasp of the labels positive and negative,
Abelson et alji 1982; emotional response would suggestthat people feel eitherposi-
to presidentialcandidates is two-dimen- tive or negative feelings, but not both

741

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 19:39:44 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 American Political Science Review Vol. 82
(i.e., affect dimensionswould be bipolar
ratherthan unipolar).The terms positive
and negative seem mutually exclusive;
muchlike blackor white, up or down. Yet
this is clearlynot the case. To resolve this
dilemma we need to turn to a more
specificcircumplexmodel of affect.
The personalitymodels of Gray (1970,
1973, 1981) and Tellegen (1985) identify
emotionality as the manifestationof two
primary systems of emotional arousal.4
Gray calls the first system the behavioral
activation system (BAS). Tellegencalls it
positive emotionality.The second system
in Gray'smodel is the behavioralinhibi-
tion system (BIS), which Tellegen calls
negative emotionality. Figure 3 depicts
the Gray-Tellegenmodel of affect.
The primarycontributionof the Gray-
Tellegen model of emotion is that each
system of emotionalresponseis identified
as having a distinct strategic function.
One system is oriented towards apprais-
ing the implementation of subject-
engaged action (positive emotionality).
The strategicfocus of the positive dimen-
sion of emotionalityis self-regardingand
task management.3This system monitors
the ongoingmasteryand controlachieved
by the individualas a resultof the recruit-
ment and allocation of mentaland physi-
cal resources.This systemproducesvaria-
tion in the arousal of positive emotion,
affects of enthusiasm, pleasure, and ex-
citement. Such affects occur when the
task at hand is going well (andconversely,
when things are going badly, affects of
depressionare likely). The secondsystem,
negative emotionality, monitors the en-
vironment for signs of evident danger.
This system is environment-regarding; it
is concerned with scanning for threats
that may intrude and disrupt ongoing
subject-engagedaction. Some examplesof
such stimuli-loud or sudden noises or
the appearanceof a dangerin the form of
sudden bad weather during an airplane
flight or an unexpectedly violent indi-
vidual or hostile person appearingon the
742
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 19:39:44 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
scene-reflect the kinds of stimuli that
may elicit negative affects.
The two systemsefficientlybalancethe
assignment of mental and physical re-
sourcesbetweenself-absorption(full allo-
cation to the task, or social activity, at
hand, which is adaptive and efficient if
anxiety is low-i.e., a safe environment)
and the claims of attentionwarrantedby
externalcircumstanceswhen confronting
a threat (Simon 1967). Further,the two
systems of emotionalityare well adapted
to maintainingsocial integrationthrough
emotional display (Mastersand Sullivan
1986; Sullivan and Masters 1988). The
developmentof models of affect has been
a steady trendmoving from a recognition
that affect is engaged in evaluation
(valence models) to the further recogni-
tion that affect is also linked to motiva-
tion (discretemodels)and, more recently,
to the recognitionthat affectsupportstwo
specific strategicevaluations (circumplex
models).
The identification of two principal
sourcesof behavior, self-initiatingor self-
engaged action on the one hand and
action initiated in response to external
causeson the otherhand, is a familiarone
in political science. Forexample,political
efficacy is currently defined as two-
dimensional(Craig and Maggiotto 1982;
Shingles 1986). One dimension concerns
attitudes toward self-initiating political
action (internalpoliticalefficacy)and one
dimension concerns attitudes assessing
actions by others (externalpolitical effi-
cacy). In psychology, a number of per-
sonality theories depend on this distinc-
tion. For example, recent work on self-
monitoring (Snyder and Ickes 1985) and
on field dependence also focus on the
location of mastery(self versus situation)
and the degreeof mastery (high or low).
Those describedas high self-monitorsrely
on situational information to regulate
their behavior. Those described as low
self-monitors rely on information from
relevant inner states to regulate their
 EmotionalResponse
behavior. The locus of control literature
(Phares1978; Rotter 1966) also identifies
two personalitytypes on the basis of the
issue of mastery: contrasting between
those who believe that outcomes are the
result of their own behavior internalss)
and those who believe that outcomes are
essentially contingent on luck, fate, or
powerful others (externals).
The Gray-Tellegenmodel offers some
advantages over these conceptions,
though it has much that it shares with
them. First, it distinguishesbetween the
two dimensions,threatand mastery, and
the degree of arousal (high or low) on
each dimension. Second, it differentiates
between mood and temperament(again
enabling situationaland dispositionalin-
fluencesto contend).6Third, it establishes
connectionsbetween emotional response
and motivation (somethingthat informa-
tion-processingmodels of cognitionfail to
do [Hastie 1986]). Finally, while it is
almost certain that the Gray-Tellegen
model is incomplete in important ways
(Derryberryand Rothbart1984), its iden-
tification of two fundamentalsuperordi-
nate dimensions is parsimonious and
capable of emendationin light of further
work.
With respectto emotional responsesto
politicians, the Gray-Tellegenmodel also
has specific advantages.The two dimen-
sions of emotional response suggest that
political candidatesare appraisedon two
fundamentalcriteria. First, Is this candi-
date capable of being in personal com-
mand and able to make the environment
more tractable, predictable,and bounti-
ful, assuming that such resources are
being used to achievepolicies and actions
supported by the individual (mastery)?
The more these featuresare apparent,the
greater the enthusiasm. Second, Is the
candidate likely to pursue policies and
actionsnot supportedby the individualor
give evidence of lack of statureor moral
weakness (threat)?The more these fea-
tures are apparent, especially if they
743
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 19:39:44 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
become so suddenlyor unexpectedly,the
greaterthe anxiety and distress.
The strategic significanceof these ap-
praisalssuggestswhy emotionalresponses
to candidates,and otherpoliticalsubjects
and events, are likely to have such empir-
ical predictivevalidity. Helplessnessand
depression are inextricably intertwined
(Seligman 1975) and concerns for mas-
tery, usually couched as autonomy in
political thought, have been central to
liberal democratic theory (Bay 1965;
Fromm 1941; Lane 1978; Mill 1956). It
would be surprisingindeedif information
about candidatesas to the enhancement
or diminishingof masteryor the increase
or decreaseof threatdid not play a central
role in influencing support for political
leaders.
Data Analysis
Fitting a confirmatoryfactor analysis
(LISREL)model (Joreskog 1969, 1970,
1973) to the 1984 NES data is anieffective
way of assessingwhether the circumplex
model can provide a superioralternative
to discreteand valence model interpreta-
tions of the candidate feeling measures.
LISRELrequiresthat a model be specified
on theoreticalgrounds. The LISRELpro-
gramevaluatesthe goodnessof fit, identi-
fying wherethe model and data do and do
not fit. The data consist of the covariance
structuredescribingthe relationshipsbe-
tween the various feeling measures and
the feeling thermometers.The variables
are treatedas manifestindicatorsof latent
constructs.The Gray-Tellegencircumplex
model identifies the proper structureof
emotionsas two dimensions,masteryand
threat, each effectively unipolar, and the
relationshipbetween the two dimensions
as orthogonal. Valence models would
posit a single effectively bipolar dimen-
sion and discrete models would posit a
multidimensionalsolution of 10, 13, or 14
oblique dimensions (limited in this in-
 American Political Science Review Vol. 82

Figure 4. Two-Factor Model of Emotional Response: Mondale

-.46

(Environment
) Tsk-

5 .68
~~.67 .81
.78 .63 .85 .76

angry afri uneasy disgusted feeling hope proud syptetic

thermomfeter
MONDALE.0

.10 .28 -.08

Source:1984 NES.

stance to 7 by the number of measures for ULS estimation; however, goodness-

availablein the NES).
The latent constructmasteryis defined
by the indicators hopeful, proud, and
sympathetic.The latentconstructthreatis
defined by the indicators angry, afraid,
disgusted, and uneasy. The feeling ther-
mometers for Reagan and Mondale are
identified as confounded measures; that
is, the feelingthermometersare indicators
that are causally dependent upon both
latent constructs.
The model is estimated using poly-
choric and polyserial correlations, cal-
culated by LISREL,because the feelings
measuresreportedfor each candidateare
dichotomous. As a result the models are
estimatedusing unweightedleast squares
(ULS).7Figures4 and 5 presentthis model
specification and the standardizedsolu-
tions for Mondale and Reagan.
The chi-squarevalue is not available
744
of-fit indexes and, more importantly,the
root mean squareresidualvalue are pro-
vided. For Mondale, the goodness-of-fit
index is .999, the adjustedgoodness of fit
is also .999, and the root mean square
residual is .013. For Reagan, the good-
ness-of-fit index is .999, the adjusted
goodness-of-fitis .998, and the root mean
squareresidualis .014. These values dem-
onstratethat each model fits the data very
well.
The variancein feeling thermometersis
essentiallydefinedby the two latent con-
structsof emotional response, threat and
mastery. The model accountsfor much of
the varianceof the feeling thermometers;
R2 = .78 for Mondale's feeling ther-
mometerand R2 = .74 for Reagan'sfeel-
ing thermometer.These R-squaredvalues
are as high as are generallyreportedfor
single items in measurementmodels (the

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 19:39:44 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 EmotionalResponse

Figure 5. Two-Factor Model of Emotional Response: Reagan

-.54

((Environ ent r (Task-

.83 .2
87 865
.70.5

angry afraid disgusted uneasy feeling hope prou sympathetic

Source: 1984 NES.

remainingvarianceis assumedto be error the two latentfactors,threatand mastery,

variance;few single items are completely
reliableindicatorsof a latent construct).
There are some correlated errors in
each model, none from one domainto the
other domain of great magnitude (the
highestbeing r = .10 from afraidto sym-
patheticin the Reaganmodel). The factor
analysis, reportedin Figures1 and 2, sug-
gestedthat sympathyis more problematic
as a measureof mastery (positive affect).
The relatively low epistemiccorrelations
(reliabilities)in each model and the epis-
temic relationship from threat to sym-
pathy in the Mondalemodel confirmthat
assessment.Tomkins(1981)has suggested
that some affective terms are combina-
tions of biological primary affects and
cognitivereferences.The LISRELand fac-
tor analysis of sympathy suggests that it
may be one of these combinations.8The
substantialnegative correlationsbetween
may be due to either the choice of affect
terms (see Appendix) or perhaps to the
propensity for respondentsto positively
respondto politicalcandidates(Lippmann
1922).
These results provide the preliminary
evidencethat using the feelingthermome-
ter measures, even as a summary, "on-
balance" measure of affect evaluation,
obscures more than it reveals. Mastery
plays a more influentialrole than threatin
defining the feelings. towards Mondale
and Reagan. The epistemic correlations
suggest that mastery may be as much as
twice as influentialas threat(an interpre-
tation consistentwith the reportedfactor
analysis).9 This suggests that identifica-
tion with the candidate(positiveaffect)is
the more potent considerationinfluencing
the disposition to vote for a candidate-
though threatis also a powerfulinfluence

745

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 19:39:44 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 American Political Science Review Vol. 82
(not surprisingin the light of the frequent
use of "negativecampaigning").
But before turning to the question of
how feelings may influence voting, can
more evidence be brought forward to
validate the task management-environ-
ment regarding distinction? Theories of
democratic leadership identify at least
two majorideal types of leadershiproles,
trustee and delegate (Pitkin 1967). The
trustee role, as an ideal type, suggests
leadershipprincipallyevaluatedon bonds
of trust and identification(good trustees
would displaypositive qualitiesof compe-
tence and rectitude).The delegaterole, as
an ideal type, suggests leadershipprinci-
pally evaluated on common policy ac-
tions and issue agendas.
While as normative ideals these types
are drawnas distinct,we can assumethat,
empirically, elements of each may have
some influenceon leadershipappraisal.1o
Of course, specificcandidatesarelikely to
display features relevant to each ideal
type of representativeand thereforeelicit
assessmentsby the public on standards
derivedfrom each type. If we can identify
characteristicfeatures of candidatesthat
are apparentlylinked to leadership,such
as trustand identification,and featuresof
candidatesthat are apparentlylinked to
policy, then it would be possible to test
whetherthe formerare likely to elicit feel-
ings of confidence and enthusiasm and
whetherthe latter are likely to elicit feel-
ings of threat. We can hypothesize that
personal characteristicsof a candidate,
featuresthat suggestpersonalcontrol and
probity, are more likely linked to feelings
of mastery and that issue positions, de-
scribing-plansto shapethe environmentin
particularways, are more likely linked to
feelings of threat.
Studies of candidate appraisal have
found that a variety of considerations
may play a role in assessing candidates
(Kinder 1986; Miller, Wattenburg, and
Oskana 1986). While these studies have
746
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 19:39:44 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
found that respondentsutilizea variety of
considerations,the variousconsiderations
can be divided into two domains. The
first domain contains appraisalof moral
leadership (integrity, empathy, honesty,
and the like). This domain identifies
features of a candidatethat are likely to
elicit feelings of respect and trust. The
second domain identifies appraisal of
command: Does the performanceof the
candidate yield, whether from luck or
skill, positive outcomes? This second
domain contains appraisals of perform-
ance in meetingthe crisesand demandsof
the world at large. The failureof a leader
to meet the confronting challenges suc-
cessfully should, according to the task
management-environmentregardingdis-
tinction elicit more feelings on the threat
dimensionthan on the masterydimension
of emotional appraisal. Though, if the
failure is perceivedto be due to a failure
of character, depression rather than
anxietymay be a dominantfeelingamong
followers. The 1984 NES contains varia-
bles that can be used to construct mea-
sures of both moral leadershipresources
(the first domain) and leadershipcompe-
tence (the second domain).
The 1984NEScontainsa numberof dif-
ferent assessmentsof the two presidential
candidates:their personal characteristics
(15 measures)and Reagan'sjob approval
ratings (4 measures). In addition, ques-
tions ascertaining issue positions were
used to construct measuresof the close-
ness of the respondentto the two candi-
dates on leadingforeignpolicy issues and
domesticpolicy issues. ForReaganwe can
assess leadershipcompetenceby combin-
ing the measuresof Reagan'sjob approval
(a simple additive scale combining the
four measuresof Reagan'sjob approval,
V258, V260, V262, and V264. Cronbach's
a = .88).11A comparableset of measures
for Mondale is not available.
For both candidatesthe personal char-
acteristicsof the candidatecan be assessed
 Emotional Response
by using the 16 assessmentsfor Reagan
(V319-34) and Mondale (V335-50). Fac-
tor analyses of these 16 assessments
("How well does the word
scribe 7") shows a single factor
accountingfor approximately60% of the
common variance for both candidates
(the second factor in each case accounts
for less than 10% of the common vari-
ance). Other studies have found more
dimensions (Miller, Wattenburg, and
Oskana 1986). A factor analysis of the
1984 NES measuresfinds that single fac-
tors best describeReagan'scharacteristics
and Mondale'scharacteristics.Five terms
loaded high on both first factors: hard-
working, decent, compassionate, moral,
and kind. The common content of this
factorcan best be describedas morallead-
ership(i.e., mattersof rectitudeand lead-
ership resources). Simple additive scales
for Reagan and Mondale were created
from thesefive items (Cronbach'sa = .88
for Reagan and Cronbach'sca = .85 for
Mondale).
Issue appraisalmeasureswere created
using the simple absolute distances be-
tween respondent(V122) and candidates
on the liberal-conservativescale (V126for
Reagan and V130 for Mondale) and on
the four domestic policy issues on which
the respondent'sposition is ascertained
(V375, V382, V401 and V414: govern-
ment spending, minority aid, economic
status of women, and governmentguar-
anteed living-guaranteedjob). The relia-
bilities for the respondent-Reaganprox-
imity scale on domestic issues (Cron-
bach'sa = .81) and respondent-Mondale
proximityscale on domesticissues (Cron-
bach's ax = .76) are acceptable. Similar
proximity scales were created on three
foreign policy issues (V395, V388, and
V408: defense spending, involvement in
Central America, and cooperation with
Russia) and acceptable reliabilitieswere
obtained;Cronbach'sca= .75 for respon-
dent-Reaganand Cronbach'sca = .67 for
respondent-Mondale.
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 19:39:44 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
It would seem plausible to argue that
perception of a candidate taking a dif-
ferent policy position would most likely
de- generate feelings of threat (since, if
elected, that candidatewould attempt to
move the society in directionsnot favored
by the respondent).Thuswe can hypothe-
size that the closer the respondent per-
ceives the candidateto his or her position,
then the less threatening;and that this ap-
praisal should have little impact on feel-
ings of mastery.On the other hand, inso-
far as the relationshipbetween political
leader and supporteris one of identifica-
tion (as almost all varietiesof theoriesof
political leadership attest), then percep-
tions of the candidateregardingthe effec-
tive handlingof the tasks at hand should
be more strongly linked to the elicitation
of positive emotionalitythan to the elici-
tation of negative emotionality.
In the two regression equations that
follow, a number of candidate charac-
teristics, policy appraisals, and one
dimension of emotional response are en-
tered as independentvariablespredicting
to the other of the two dimensions of
emotionality. The purpose of the regres-
sion equationsis to identify which candi-
date features are particularlyrelated to
each dimension of emotionality. The re-
gression equations should not be inter-
preted as claims of causality. The recip-
rocal influences of emotional and cog-
nitive appraisal remain insufficiently
understoodto be able to specify with any
confidence the causal interplay of the
various interpretiveprocesses. There is a
lively debatein psychologyon this subject
and little consensus(Fiskeand Pavelchak
1985;Lazarus1982, 1984;Tassinaryet al.
1984; Tomkins 1981; Tsal 1985; Zajonc
1980, 1982). There is little doubt that
emotional processes influence memory
(Bower1981) and that emotionaland cog-
itive processes are mutually influential,
but precisely how is currently not well
understood (but see Millar and Tesser
1986). The primary purpose of these
747
 American Political Science Review Vol. 82
equations, then, is to gain a betterunder-
standingof the two distinctdimensionsof
feelings.
Table1 presentsthe relationshipof can-
didate characteristics and policy ap-
praisals to the scale of threat (a simple,
summated,equally weighted scale of the
four negative affect terms, angry, afraid,
disgusted, and uneasy; Cronbach'sa =
.74 for Reagan and Cronbach'sa = .75
for Mondale). Table 2 presents the rela-
tionship of candidate characteristicsand
policy appraisalsto the scaleof mastery(a
simple, summated,equallyweightedscale
of the threepositive affectterms, hopeful,
proud, and sympathetic;Cronbach'sa =
.68 for Reaganand Cronbach'sa = .68
for Mondale). In order to obtain a mini-
mally acceptable scale, in terms of reli-
ability, the term sympatheticis retained
for use in the scales for Reagan and for
Mondale.
The findings generally support the
threat-masterydistinction as based on
self-initiatingand environment-regarding
appraisals.12 ForReaganand for Mondale
moral leadership is strongly related to
both threatand masterybut more strong-
ly associatedwith feelingsof masterythan
it is with feelings of threat. For Reagan,
leadershipcompetence-his job approval
-is more associatedwith threatthan it is
with mastery:the ratio of the fi for leader-
ship competenceto the fi for moralleader-
ship is about two to one.'3
Of the six possible issue appraisals,
closenessof the respondentto Reaganand
to Mondaleon ideology and domesticand
foreign policy issues, three have a sub-
stantial association with threat. The far-
therReaganis perceivedfrom the respon-
dent on foreign policy issues, the more
threateninghe is to the respondent(a rela-
tionship stronger than the influence of
party identification). For Mondale, the
crucialappraisalis perceivedclosenesson
domestic issues. The farther Mondale is
perceived from the respondent on
domestic issues, the more threatening.
748
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 19:39:44 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Given the tenor and rhetoricof the 1984
campaign,the respectivevulnerabilitiesof
the two candidates match closely these
findings; Reagan vulnerable on foreign
policy and Mondalevulnerableon domes-
tic policy (Pomperet al. 1985). For Mon-
dale only, perceptionof distancefrom the
voter on ideology has the consequenceof
evoking threat.This confirmsthe conven-
tional wisdom that Reaganwas generally
not perceivedin ideological terms. Table
2 shows that only on domesticpolicy and
only for Mondale is closeness between
candidateand respondentrelatedto posi-
tive emotionalresponse.
Party identificationplays a more influ-
ential role in determiningMondale'sap-
praisalthan it does Reagan's(thoughthis
is probablyinfluencedby the lack of a job
performance assessment for Mondale;
party identificationmay "pick up" that
variance). Interestingly, the small but
negative values for party identification
and feelings of mastery associated with
Reagan suggest that the most partisan
Republicanshad somewhatmorereserved
feelings about Reagan than less partisan
supporters (perhaps as a result of con-
tinued conservative complaint that the
Reagan performance in office had not
done enough for the conservative agen-
da). More importantly,these small13'sfor
party identificationshow that emotional
response to Reagan was broadly shared
and not very differentwhatever the par-
tisan identificationof the respondent.By
comparison, Mondale evokes different
feelings among Democrats than among
Republicans.This suggeststhatMondale's
appeal (or lack thereof)was, much more
than Reagan's, limited to the pool of
Democraticparty identifiers.
The equation for Mondale is less
powerfulthan that for Reagan(the multi-
ple R-squaredfor Mondale is some 20
points lower). Most of this differenceis
apparentlydue to lack of informationon
Mondale's competence. The importance
of job approvalin definingthe emotional
 Emotional Response

Table 1. Regressionof Feelings of Threaton CandidateEvaluations

Reagan Mondale
CandidateEvaluation b t b 3 t
Candidatecharacteristics
Leadershipcompetence(Reaganjob
approval) -.47 -.44 -12.7
Moral leadership -.45 -.21 -6.8 -.56 -.20 -7.7
Party identification(Republican) -.06 -.08 -3.1 .13 .21 6.9
Policy appraisals
Domesticissues (closeness) -.03 -.02 - .8* -.18 -.15 -4.9
Foreignissues (closeness) -.13 -.13 -4.7 -.09 -.05 -1.6*
Ideologicalcloseness -.06 -.06 -2.2* -.10 -.10 -3.2
Emotionalresponse
Mastery .13 .13 4.9 -.04 -.05 -1.6*
R2 .52 .29
AdjustedR2 .52 .28
F 208.90 85.71
df 7, 1369 6, 1273
Source:1984 NES.
*Not significantat p .01.

Table 2. Regressionof Feelings of Masteryon CandidateEvaluations

Reagan Mondale
CandidateEvaluation b t b 3 t

Candidatecharacteristics
Leadershipcompetence(Reaganjob
approval) .39 .36 10.2
Moral leadership .74 .33 11.5 .85 .28 11.5
Party identification(Republican) -.06 -.06 -3.1 -.22 -.31 -11.3
Policy appraisals
Domesticissues (closeness) .05 .04 1.4* .13 .10 3.4
Foreignissues (closeness) .05 .05 1.9* .06 .05 1.8*
Ideologicalcloseness .06 .05 2.2* .05 .04 1.5*
Emotionalresponse
Threat .13 .13 4.9 -.05 -.04 -1.6*
R2 .53 .34
Adjusted R2 .53 .34
F 224.8 111.5
df 7, 1369 6, 1273

Source:1984 NES.
*Not significantat p = .01.

749

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 19:39:44 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 American Political Science Review Vol. 82
characterization of President Reagan
might, as many have concluded, suggest
the benefit of incumbencyto candidates
for reelection. One handicap facing the
challengeris that demonstratingability to
performin the office must be made with-
out the electoratehaving the opportunity
to observe the challengerin the role of
office holder (unless the challengerpre-
viously held the office). Of course, some
incumbents find their history not so
valued an asset (Fordand the pardon of
Nixon; Carter and the perceived eco-
nomic record), and in this instanceMon-
dale has been Carter's vice-president.
There is no formal evaluation of
Mondale's expected job performance
availablein the 1984 NESdata, so the two
analyses are not precisely equivalent.
Apart from this difference,the patternof
findings is remarkablysimilar.
On balance,the patternof findingssug-
gests that feelingsof threatare evoked by
perceptionof job performance,by percep-
tions of moral leadership,and by policy
appraisals.The findings also suggest that
feelings of mastery are evoked equally
stronglyby appraisalsof moralleadership
rectitudeand leadershipcompetenceand
more weakly by party identificationand
perhaps some policy appraisals. Finding
that each dimensionof affect covaries in
different ways and to different degrees
with policy appraisals and leadership
characteristicsis consistentwith the theo-
reticalassertionthat each system of emo-
tional response has a different strategic
orientation.
Vote Disposition
Evaluating how much influence cog-
nitive and emotional appraisals have,
especially with respect to causality, is
problematic, given the current state of
knowledge. Brody and Page (1972) argue
that distinguishingcausality is difficult
because issue positions, perceptions,and
750
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 19:39:44 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
evaluationsmay be subjectto persuasion
and projection, thus making differentiat-
ing causalinfluencesamongthe proximity
judgments difficult. Further, a national
cross-sectionalsurvey is not a research
design best adapted to the unravelingof
the interplay between various sequential
and simultaneousrelationships.Nonethe-
less, we can begin to assess the relative
influenceof the various assessmentscon-
sideredon the propensityto vote for pres-
identialcandidateby examiningthe asso-
ciations between the different influences
and vote intention.
Brody and Page (1973), Kelley and
Mirer(1974)and Rahnand her colleagues
(n.d.) argue that people compare candi-
date images, summarizingjudgmentsand
feelings so as to form a voting decision
based on which candidatefares better in
the comparativeprocess. Rahn and col-
legues go on to show that using com-
parativemeasuresconsistentlyproducesa
more successfulpredictivemodel than do
models using the respondents'positions
on the issues and the respondent'sassess-
ments of the candidates'characteristics.
The comparativeperceptionsapproach
is replicatedhere for most of the candi-
date characteristics.A measure for each
respondent was created by subtracting
Mondale's leadership scale score from
Reagan'sleadershipscale score. The pro-
cedure yields a positive value when the
comparison advantages Reagan, zero
when the comparisonis seen as tied and
negative when the comparison advan-
tages Mondale. The scores describe the
extent to which a respondent perceives
Reagan or Mondale to be the better
leader, in the sense of more hardworking,
decent, compassionate,moral, and kind.
The more positive the scores, the more
likely the respondentwill decide to vote
for Reagan;the more negativethe scores,
the more likely the respondentwill decide
to vote for Mondale (insofaras that com-
parisonis influential).Similarlycompara-
tive judgmentsare measuredon ideology
 Emotional Response

Table 3. Regression of Vote Disposition on Comparative Candidate and

Policy Evaluations

CandidateEvaluation b (3 t

Candidatecharacteristics
Leadershipcompetence(Reaganjob approval) .27 .30 10.7
Moral leadership .04 .03 1.2*
Party identification(Republican) .09 .15 6.9
Policy appraisals
Domesticissues .06 .08 3.3
Foreignissuesa .03 .04 1.9*
Ideologicala .00 .00 .2*
Emotionalresponse
Masterya .14 .27 10.3
Threat -.08 -.14 -5.7
R2 .79
AdjustedR2 .79
F 489.3
df 8, 1016

Source:1984 NES.
aComparativecloseness.
*Not significantat p = .01.

(the respondent'sdistance from Mondale
subtractedfrom the respondent'sdistance
from Reagan), domestic policy issues,
foreignpolicy issues, mastery(subtracting
the mastery scale for Mondale from the
masteryscale for Reaganfor each respon-
dent), and threat.
Leadership competence is available
only for Reagan, as previously noted, so
this is the only measurethat is not com-
parative. I assume, with Rahn and her
colleagues,thatpartyidentificationincor-
porates a comparativejudgment.Unlike
Rahn and her colleagues, I treat affect as
two-dimensional, with candidates being
compared on the degree of feelings of
mastery and on the degree of feelings of
threat.Table 3, on vote disposition(using
the four-point scale for vote disposi-
tion),14 is regressed on candidate char-
acteristics, party identification, policy
appraisals, and the two factors of emo-
tional appraisal, threat and mastery. As
the vote dispositionscale is coded so that
intention to vote for Reagan is high, a
positive value predictsto a greaterinten-
751
tion to vote for Reagan and a negative
value predicts to a greater intention to
vote for Mondale.15
A positive assessmentof Reagan'scom-
petenceand the comparisonof feelingsof
masteryelicitedby the two candidatesare
the two most importantfactorsin predict-
ing a vote disposition favoring Reagan
(j3'sof .30 and .27 respectively).Next in
importanceare party identification(3 =
.15) and feelings of threat (,3 = - .14).
Consistent with the LISRELanalysis of
the feeling measuresand the feeling ther-
mometersfor Mondaleand Reagan,posi-
tive feelingsare more weighty than nega-
tive feelings (a ratio of 2 to 1).16 As a
group the policy appraisal measures do
badly in predicting the vote. Only the
comparisonof perceptionof closenesson
domestic issues reachesstatisticalsignifi-
cance although its influence (,3 = .08) is
weak compared to the assessment of
Reagan'scompetence, the two emotional
appraisalsand party identification. The
overallstrengthof the model is quitehigh,
the adjustedR2 = .79,17

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 19:39:44 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 American Political Science Review Vol. 82
It is strikingthat issue appraisalshave
little apparentdirect influenceon voting.
Feelingsabout the candidates,ratherthan
thoughtful assessmentsregardingpublic
policies, appearto be centralto the voters'
choices. But perhaps it is prematureto
conclude that issues have little direct
influence in determiningthe outcome of
elections.After all, few candidatespublic-
ly assert that issues do not matter.A fre-
quent conclusionof voting studies is that
the electoratedoes not engage in careful
policy analysis and comparison of the
party platformsofferedby the majorpar-
ties of candidates.This conclusion is fre-
quentlyheld to demonstratethat the elec-
torate does not meet the standards re-
quired by "classicaldemocratictheory."
The obvious references are to Schum-
peter, Berelson,and the Michiganschool.
Perhaps, as is frequently asserted, the
public at largedoes not performto expec-
tations, but there is a competentpolitical
stratathat does meet thesestandards.?8 If,
so the argumentgoes, we divide the elec-
torate into levels of competency,we can
discerna more active and influentialseg-
ment that does have the cognitive skill
and experience to utilize the necessary
sophisticatedskills required of a demo-
cratic electorate.19
In the preliminaryanalyses that follow
three cautionarypoints should be kept in
mind. First,the combinationof stratifica-
tion of the sampleand listwise deletionof
missingvalues reducesthe size of the sub-
samples, in some cases substantially.
Second, the measurement of cognitive
ability and its effects may be better
attempted in experimentalresearch de-
signsthanin secondaryanalysisof a cross-
sectionalnational sample. And third, the
1984 NES data are collected quite late in
the impressionformationprocessand as a
result may be less helpful in illuminating
how impressionsare formedand evaluat-
ing what role cognitive ability and emo-
tional appraisal,respectively,play.
Various measureshave been put forth
752
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 19:39:44 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
to define and measureelectoratecompe-
tency, among them differentindicatorsof
cognitive complexity, ideological sophis-
tication, and constraint (Neuman 1986).
Therestill remainslittle consensuson how
best to measurecognitive ability in poli-
tics (but see Lushkin1987). We need not
select such a measure,as we are here con-
cernedwith the searchfor segmentsof the
electorate that eschew emotional re-
sponsesto the candidatesand rely instead
upon the policy positions and ideological
perspectives of the candidates. Perhaps
the single measureon which most atten-
tion has centeredis education.Whileedu-
cation may not measurecognitive ability
in politicsdirectlyand may contributeless
to its development than expected, most
democratictheoriesexpectthat education
preparespeople for citizenship(see, e.g.,
Thompson 1971). Further, educational
attainment has often been used as one
measureof sophistication,as it measures
the ability and willingnessto acquirecog-
nitive skills as well as to learn citizenship
(Neuman1986). If lack of sophisticationis
the reason for so few using policy con-
siderationsto decide which candidateto
support, then we can expect to find that
stratifyingthe electorateon educationwill
reveal a difference between those who
rely upon feelings about the candidate
and those who rely upon policy con-
siderations.
Table 4 presentsthe same analysisas in
Table3, the regressionof vote disposition
on candidate characteristicsand policy
evaluations, but with the data stratified
into those with less than a high school
diploma, those with at least a high school
diploma,and those with some collegeand
postsecondaryeducation. Only unstand-
ardized regression coefficients are pro-
vided (bs), as the relevant comparisons
are between educationstrata.
The only suggestion that education
divides the adult population into strata,
each with its own mode of reasoning, is
that assessment of Reagan's leadership
 Emotional Response

Table 4. Regression of Vote Disposition on Comparative Candidate and

Policy Evaluations: Stratified by Education

Low Medium High

Education Education Education
CandidateEvaluation b t b t b t
Candidatecharacteristics
Leadershipcompetence
(Reaganjob approval) .12 1.8* .38 7.7 .28 8.5
Moralleadershipa .23 2.0* .03 4* .01 3*
Partyidentification(Republican) .22 5.8 .05 2.0* .08 4.6
Policy appraisals
Domesticissuesa .06 1.2* .04 1.5* .07 3.1
Foreignissuesa .25 1.2* .13 1.1* .16 1.6*
Ideologicala .02 .6* .00 .0* .03 1.6*
Emotionalresponse
Masterya .13 3.0 .14 5.9 .12 7.1
Threat -.06 -1.3* -.09 -3.3* -.08 -5.1
R2 .83 .80 .80
AdjustedR2 .82 .78 .79
F 60.5 145.2 264.9
df 8, 100 8, 310 8, 588

Source: 1984 NES.

aComparativecloseness.
*Not significantat p = .01.

competenceand moral leadershiphas lit- dent on foreignpolicy issues, or closer to

tle influence on vote disposition among
the less educated;in this stratapartyiden-
tification has a substantial association
with vote disposition.This might suggest
that the less educated, compared to the
more educated, rely more on partisan
cues and less on candidatecharacteristics.
Studiesby Lau(1986)and Miller,Watten-
burg, and Oskana (1986) find that the
more educatedhave more political infor-
mation than the less educated.
Only the domesticissue closenesscom-
parisonis significantlyrelatedto the vote
disposition in the more educated strata
(which suggests that issues may have
some influence on voters actions, but
most likely this influence is an indirect
effect through emotional response). But
apart from these differences,the percep-
tion that one candidate is ideologically
closerto the voter, is closerto the respon-
753
the respondent on domestic issues does
not seem to play a greaterrole in the vote
decision for the more educated than for
the less. Moreover, comparativefeelings
about the candidatesseem, if anything,
more influentialamong the more than the
less educated (and the ratio of the influ-
ence of feelingsof masteryto the influence
of feelings of threat remainsrather con-
stant at two to one, suggestingthat across
the differenteducationalstrata,feelingsof
threathave about half the impactof feel-
ings of mastery on vote decisions).
Stratifying the sample by interest in
politics, anotherfactor commonlyheld to
lead to political sophistication(Neuman
1986), finds even less evidence of greater
reliance on cognitive cues among the
higher strata. All of the nine policy ap-
praisals, three within each stratum,have
weak coefficientsand none are statistical-

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 19:39:44 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 AmericanPolitical Science Review Vol. 82
iy significant(Marcus1987). The coeffi-
cients for the two dimensions of emo-
tional response are weaker in the least
interestedstratum(.10 and -.06 for mas-
tery and threat)and strongerin the mod-
erate and high intereststrata and display
the same two-to-one ratio found in the
analyses above (.17 and .15 for mastery
and -.07 and -.09 for threat). These
resultssuggestthe not-surprisingrelation-
ship that interest in politics and pas-
sionate engagement toward or against
candidatesis linked.
One explanationfor why issuesplay so
little influence in candidate choice is
offered by Page (1976, 1978). Page's
analysisof party platformsand candidate
positions concludesthat candidatesavoid
controversialissues and attempt to pre-
sent ambiguouspositions that can appeal
to the broadestrangeof likely voters. Ob-
taining definitive, or even moderately
accurate,informationon the positions of
candidateson even the most controversial
issues of the day may be quite difficult
and thereforeprevent many voters from
issue-voting even if they are so inclined
(Page and Brody 1972). Yet for those
issues that are important to the voter,
issue comparisonsmay play an important
role. To evaluatethis possibility,the sam-
ple was stratifiedinto thirdsby the degree
of importanceof threedomesticissues on
which the 1984 NES ascertained how
important the issue is to respondents
(government spending, economic status
of women, and government guaranteed
living-guaranteedjob; V380, V407, and
V420 respectively).20The results essen-
tially mirrorthose in Table4. None of the
bs for the nine policy appraisals,three in
each stratumof importance,has a signifi-
cant influenceon vote disposition. As in
the previous tables, the influence of the
two dimensionsof feeling is stable across
the three strata (mastery has bs of .15,
.13, and .15 and threat has bs of - .05,
-.08, and -.07 across the three strata).
The resultsare noteworthyfor the con-
754
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 19:39:44 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
sistent reliance on emotional response in
the sampleas a whole and within various
subsamples. While these findings must
await confirmationfrom more appropri-
ate researchdesigns before being treated
as more than suggestive,the basic finding
of pervasive and uniform reliance on
emotional response is consistent with a
numberof studies in politics (Kinderand
Sears1981; Kuklinskiet al. 1987; Searset
al. 1980).
Notwithstanding these findings, it
would be incorrectto concludethat issues
do not play an influentialrole in voters
choices between presidentialcandidates.
Table 1 presentsresults that suggest that
issues and policy considerationsdo influ-
ence voters by acting upon emotions and
particularlyon the environment-regard-
ing dimension of emotion, feelings of
threat. Emotionsare rarely, in the West-
ern tradition,takenas rationalor of adap-
tive benefit, althoughDavid Hume is one
notable exception(Lloyd1984). But emo-
tions may providepeoplewith an efficient
means of comprehendingtheir circum-
stances. Reliance on emotional response
to characterizecandidates on leadership
ability, competence,and issuesand policy
positions provides the electorate with a
speedyand efficientmeansof determining
candidate suitability on criteria that are
consistentwith the requirementsof repub-
lican forms of government.
Conclusion
The circumplexmodel providesan eco-
nomical approach to the study of emo-
tional response. More importantly, by
demonstratingthat emotionality consists
of two concurrent appraisal processes,
one strategicallydedicatedto self-initiat-
ing action and one strategicallydedicated
to evaluating threat, the results reported
here resolve the anomalous findings of
previous studies that positive and nega-
 EmotionalResponse
tive emotions are often concurrently
reported.
The relationshipbetween the structure
of emotions and candidateappraisalcan
also be useful in gaining a better under-
standingof the likely success of different
strategies of political campaigning.The
consistentfinding that positive emotional
response to the candidatesis more influ-
ential than negative emotional response
suggeststhat electionsturnmore on moral
leadershipand leadershipcompetenceand
less on issues. Issue appraisals do not
seem to have much, if any, influenceon
the emotionalenthusiasmcreatedby can-
didates. Yet issues are shown to have an
influenceon the threatdimensionof emo-
tional response. This suggests that run-
ning a campaignbased on matching the
issue positions of the voters has limited
prospectsfor strengtheninga candidate's
image of leadership and competence.
Indeed,as GaryHart'sdeclinein the sum-
mer of 1987 suggested, running a cam-
paign solely "on the issues"may createa
disquietingsense that somethingis being
hidden or that there is somethinglacking
in the characterof the candidate.This in
turn is likely to provoke press inquiries
into the characterof the candidate.
Insofaras issuepositionsof a candidate
are seen to be discrepantfrom the issue
positions of the voters, candidates risk
arousing feelings of anxiety and threat
among voters. Thus candidatesmay best
use issues to forestall others from using
issues against them, as in negative cam-
paigning, or from taking positions
throughmiscalculationthat place them in
opposition to their supporters.
It is importantto add that threat feel-
ings are elicited by the prospect of an
unpredictableenvironmentas well as by
that of a hostileenvironment(Gray1981).
This would suggestwhy candidatesare so
quick to paint their opponents as "flip-
flopping on the issues." Successfulcam-
paign rhetoricof this genre can make the
opposition candidate vulnerable by de-
755
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 19:39:44 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
picting the candidate as uncertain and
likely to take unpredictablepositions. It
would seem that the most successfulcam-
paign strategywould try to build support
throughdepictinga candidateas compe-
tent to producegood resultsin the job and
of good probity and to use issues only
defensively (to sustain calm feelings
ratherthan build enthusiasticsupport).21
Position taking, if misguided, can hurt.
But unless necessary to respond to chal-
lenges raised by the opposition, position
taking is not likely greatly to help a can-
didate build enthusiasm.
Finally, these results suggest, as has
been long noted, that public debate is
often accompaniedby heat and passion.
Madisonidentifiedan importantrelation-
ship between emotions, deliberation,and
the attentiongiven to publicmeasures:"It
is a measure of misfortune, inseparable
from human affairs,that public measures
are rarely investigatedwith that spirit of
moderation which is essential to a just
estimateof theirreal tendencyto advance
or obstructthe public good; and that this
spirit is more apt to be diminishedthan
prompted by those occasions which re-
quirean unusualexerciseof it" (Federalist
Papers, no. 37; italics added). Madison's
insight is that passion (or to use our ter-
minology, emotional response) is what
draws individualsto politics. Madison is
properlyskepticalof the influenceof emo-
tions, but he recognizesthat emotionsare
an unavoidableand dynamicpart of poli-
tics.22Emotions do not just form empty
feelings,are not merelysubjective;rather,
they constitutevital strategicunderstand-
ings (Marcusand Rahn n.d.). While the
process by which these emotional re-
sponses are arrived at is hidden (Tsal
1985) and is likely to be fallible, emotion-
ality nonethelessdoes serve instrumental
purposes. It is perhaps appropriate to
reexaminethe receivedwisdom that emo-
tions constitute "a regrettableimperfec-
tion in an otherwise perfect cognitive
machine"(Scherer1982).
 American Political Science Review Vol. 82

Table A-1. Regression of Vote Disposition on Comparative Candidate and

Policy Evaluations with Feeling Thermometers To Assess Affect

CandidateEvaluation b j3 t
Candidatecharacteristics
Leadershipcompetence(Reaganjob approval) .27 .30 10.6
Moralleadership .01 .01 A*
Party identification(Republican) .09 .15 6.8
Policy appraisals
Domesticissues .05 .07 3.3
Foreignissues .02 .04 1.8*
Ideological -.01 -.02 -.9*
Emotionalresponse
Feelingthermometers .01 .42 12.0
R2 .79
Adjusted R2 .79
F 555.3
df 7, 1026
Source: 1984 NES.
aComparativecloseness.
*Not significant at p = .01.

Appendix: The Measurement be gained by using the feeling thermome-

of Emotional Response
Thereis a furthertest availableto assess
the claim that the feeling thermometers
are confoundedmeasures.The regression
presentedin Table 3 can be reestimated
with the differencebetween Reagan and
Mondale feeling thermometersreplacing
the two scales of mastery and threat. If
relationshipsare differentwhen the feel-
ing thermometersare used, then it would
suggest that the feeling thermometers
covary with these independentvariables
in ways not capturedby the two scales of
mastery and threat. Table A-1 presents
this regressionanalysis.
The results,exceptfor the measurement
of emotional response, are almost iden-
tical to those reportedin Table 3, with no
differencesgreaterthan .02 for standard-
ized or unstandardizedregressioncoeffi-
cients, R-squaredor adjusted R-squared
values. This might suggest that the two-
dimensionalmodel adds little to what can
ters. However, this conclusionwould be a
substantial mistake. The feeling ther-
mometers mask two quite different ap-
praisalprocesses.
The thermometerscale, as a measureof
emotionalresponse,is a confoundedmea-
surementdevice. Substantively,responses
to feeling thermometerswill be an indis-
tinguishablemixture of the intensity of
threatand the intensityof masteryevoked
by the objectof appraisal.Continuedreli-
ance on thermometer scales to assess
global feelings regarding an object of
appraisalwould be ill advised.
The feelingsmeasuresdevelopedfor the
National ElectionStudiesare an improve-
ment over the feelingthermometers.They
provide multiple measures of the two
dimensions and these indicators enable
the two dimensions to be discriminated
from each other. However, they suffer
three liabilities. First, one of the positive
mood terms, sympathetic, is not a good
measureof mastery.It is less reliablethan

756

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 19:39:44 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Emotional Response
is generally desired. And its location in
the circumplex,Figures1 and 2, and the
two LISRELmodels, suggest that sym-
pathy is a compound mood term and
should be dropped as a measure of the
mastery dimension. Adding one or two
additional mastery emotion indicators
would seem advisable (see Watson and
Tellegen1985, for numerousalternatives).
Second, the feeling measuresare dichoto-
mous, thus sacrificing the range of re-
sponses offeredby the feeling thermome-
ters. Third, current emotional response
measuresdo not identify the nonaffective
pole of each dimension. An alternative
procedurewould be to use semantic dif-
ferential formats with the appropriate
mood term anchoring the low-arousal
pole scale and the appropriatemood term
anchoring the high-arousal pole of the
scale. For example, mastery mood terms
and their low-arousal polar opposites
such as the following could be used: indif-
ferent, curious,enthusiastic,unenthusias-
tic; interested,withdrawn;and depressed,
happy. For threat mood terms and their
low-arousalpolar oppositesthe following
could be used: tense, calm; upset, com-
fortable; worried, contented; and ner-
vous, relaxed (Marcus 1985). Using this
measurement approach each measure
would provide a wider range of scores
than the currentmeasures.Further,using
this proposed measurement approach
would provide for multiplemeasuresand
thus ensure ample opportunity for item
analysis (reliability and validity assess-
ment) and enable scale buildingand mul-
tiple indicatormethods of analysis.
Notes
The data utilized in this analysis were made
available by the Inter-UniversityConsortiumfor
Politicaland Social Research.The data for the 1984
AmericanNational ElectionStudy were originally
collectedby the Universityof Michigan,Centerfor
PoliticalStudiesof the Institutefor Social Research
for the National ElectionStudiesunder the overall
directionof WarrenE. Miller. Santa Traugottwas
757
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 19:39:44 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
director of studies in 1984. The data were collected
under a grant from the National Science Foundation.
I thank Kimberly Jordan for help in conducting the
statistical analyses, and Andy Crider, George
Goethals, Saul Kassin, Donald T. Campbell, W.
Lance Bennett, Tim Cook, Roger Masters, Lyn Rags-
dale, Wendy Rahn, and John L. Sullivan for their
useful comments and suggestions.
1. In the data used here, the correlations be-
tween feeling thermometers for Mondale and
Reagan and vote intention (V425) in the 1984 NES
are .50 and .53 for Mondale and Reagan respective-
ly. Further, if we use the strength of voting prefer-
ence (V426) and voting intention to create a four-
point scale, the correlation between Reagan's feeling
thermometer score and the vote intention scale in-
creases to .78, and the correlation between Mon-
dale's feeling thermometer and the vote intention
scale increases to .71 (the correlation between the
vote intention scale and V425 is .94; the increases in
correlation between feeling thermometers and vote
intention scale result from using a scale with more
categories [see Bollen and Barb 19811).
2. It is necessary to differentiate between con-
scious and nonconscious cognitive processes, each of
which can influence behavior, as well as between the
interdependent influences of emotional and cogni-
tive processes (Lewicki 1986; Millar and Tesser 1986;
Tassinary et al. 1984).
3. For Mondale, the first factor has an eigen-
value of 2.62 and the second factor has an eigen-
value of 1.54; together the two factors account for
60% of the variance. For Reagan, the first factor has
an eigenvalue of 2.74 and the second factor has an
eigenvalue of 1.37; together the two factors account
for 59 % of the variance. In each case the third eigen-
value is well below 1.00 (.77 and .78 respectively).
4. Fonberg (1986) reviews the neurophysio-
logical basis for the two-system paradigm.
5. While the mastery dimension is hypothesized
to be self-orientated, the capacity for identification
with others (e.g., empathy and group identification)
extend appraisals of mastery to collective action and
to the actions of others.
6. The full Gray-Tellegen model accounts for
mood and temperament (stable emotional differ-
ences). Temperament can be defined as reactivity
levels. Temperament is the disposition, across situa-
tional states, to interpret any environment as, for
example, threatening. Because the NES data, used
here, does not contain any acceptable measures of
temperament, this aspect of the Gray-Tellegen
model can not be pursued.
7. The correlation matrices are positive definite.
Reestimating with maximum likelihood gives essen-
tially the same solutions. Also, defining the model
with three latent concepts, threat, mastery, and feel-
ing thermometer-the latter defined by one indica-
tor-provides the same solution, differing only in
that rather than epistemic correlations running from
 American Political Science Review Vol. 82
mastery and threat to the feeling thermometer
indicator, the solution has structuralparameters
runningfrom masteryand threatto the latent con-
cept, feelingthermometer.The values are the same.
8. It may also be the case that there is a third
dimension of emotion, empathy, which has been
shown to have a cognitiveand affectivedimensions
(Davis 1983;Chlopanet al. 1985). The collectionof
feeling measuresin the NES series does not enable
this possibilityto be pursued.In any case, this and
other studies (Mastersand Sullivan 1986) suggest
that the two dimensions of circumplex model
account for the predominantvariance in feelings.
Seen. 3.
9. See n. 4.
10. Sullivanand Masters(1988)have shown us-
ing experimentalproceduresthat emotionaldisplays
by presidentialcandidatesevoke two dimensionsof
emotional appraisal in observers, hedonic and
agonic, which are equivalentto the two dimensions
conceptualizedhere as masteryand threat.
11. Scale scoresreportedfor these and all subse-
quentscalesare the averagevalues of the sum of all
valid responseswhen the numberof valid responses
is equal to, or one less than, the maximumnumber
of itemsin the scale. Forexample,a scale with four
itemswill returna scalescoreif respondentsprovide
valid responsesto any three,or all four, scaleitems.
This preserves more cases for subsequentmulti-
variateanalysis(which, using listwisedeletion,can
sharply reduce the number of cases available for
analysis).
12. With samples as large as those in the NES
series, statisticalsignificanceis readilyachievedfor
all but the smallestrelationships.Substantiveassess-
mentsmust be made, ratherthanhavinginterpreta-
tion rest on the issue of inferentialrisk.
13. Since I am interested, in this analysis, in
comparingthe relative influenceof differentinde-
pendentvariablesand as the scales are "scale-free"
(thatis, the rangeof the scalescoresis a resultof the
availablenumberof itemsmakingup eachscale),the
relevantstatisticis the j3,the standardizedregression
coefficient.
14. See n. 1.
15. It has beensuggestedthatbecausecompetence
as a measure of leadershipis available only for
Reagan,this measureshould be removedfrom the
comparativemodel, in this and in other analysesto
follow. Of course, as the incumbent,only Reagan
can be evaluatedby the voters on presidentiallead-
ership performance.For Mondale, voters may ex-
trapolate from Mondale's campaign activity as
reported and seen, current policy positions, and
from his past record as a political leader. Many
voting theoriesdo assumecomparisonbetween an
incumbent'srecord of performanceand the chal-
lenger'spositions.Theoreticalissuesaside,removing
Reagan'sjob approval from the analysis does not
changethe resultsin any principalway. All coeffi-
758
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 19:39:44 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
cients increase marginally by about the same small
amounts. The R-squared drops by an average of .05.
More importantly, policy appraisals remain uni-
formly small and emotional responses become more
influential. Alternative tables, with leadership com-
petence removed, are available from the author.
16. The proportion may well change from candi-
date to candidate and from campaign to campaign,
depending on the particular strengths and liabilities
of specific candidates. More studies will be needed to
ascertain how labile these appraisals are and pre-
cisely what kinds of information have most conse-
quence for emotive appraisal.
17. Consistent with the findings reported in Rahn
and colleagues n.d., the comparative model does
better than models that predict vote choice based on
ideological and issues closeness and level of threat
and mastery reported for each candidate (i.e., a non-
comparative model). For the model predicting vote
for Reagan, using distance measures between
Reagan and the respondent, the adjusted R-squared
is .75. For Mondale, the adjusted R-squared is .76
when using Mondale's characteristics and closeness
to the respondent (including Reagan's job perform-
ance in the Mondale model).
18. This tradition has flourished in areas other
than voting, for example in the analysis of who com-
prehends and subscribes to the rules of the game and
political tolerance (Mueller n.d.).
19. The studies that find such strata have been
countered by studies that dispute the methodology
of the studies and the findings themselves (Sullivan,
Piereson, and Marcus 1982). But on balance the
more accepted position seems to be that put forth by
Lippmann, Schumpeter, and others in that tradition
(for a review, see Krouse and Marcus 1984).
20. In order to identify the strata, those who iden-
tified an issue as extremely important were assigned
a score of three on that issue; those who identified
the issue as very important were assigned a score of
two on that issue; those who identified the issue as
somewhat important were assigned a score of one on
that issue; and all others were assigned a score of
zero. The scores were aggregated to form an index.
All those with a total of three or less are the low-
importance strata; those with a total of four or five
are the medium-importance strata; and those with a
total greater than five are the high importance
strata.
21. Selective examples show what can transpire
when political campaigns fail to sustain the candi-
date image as strong and competent; for example,
Gary Hart, Edmund Muskie, and George Romney
quickly come to mind as candidates who failed in
precisely this fashion. Personal stability and strength
would appear to be minimal requisites for com-
petence.
22. The principal focus of Madison's skeptical
attention, in Federalist Papers, no. 37, is on the
fallibility and partiality of reason; a common con-
 Emotional Response
cern in contemporarysocial science (Greenwald
1980;Marcusand Rahnn.d.; Markus1986;Nisbett
and Ross 1980).
References
Abelson, Robert,Donald Kinder,MarkPeters,and
SusanFiske.1982. Affectiveand SemanticCom-
ponents in Political Person Perception.Journal
of PersonalityandSocialPsychology 42:619-30.
Bay, Christian.1965. The Structureof Freedom.
New York:Athenaeum.
Bollen, Kenneth,and KenneyBarb.1981. Pearson's
R and CoarselyCategorizedMeasures.American
SociologicalReview 46:232-39.
Bower, Gordon.1981. Mood and Memory.Ameri-
can Psychologist36:129-48.
Breckler,Steven J. 1984. EmpiricalValidation of
Affect, Behavior, and Cognition As Distinct
Componentsof Attitude.Journalof Personality
and Social Psychology 47:1191-1205.
Brody, Richard,and BenjaminPage. 1972. Com-
ment: The Assessmentof Policy Voting. Ameri-
can PoliticalScienceReview 66:450-58.
Brody, Richard,and BenjaminPage. 1973: Indif-
ference,Alienation,and RationalDecisions:The
Effectsof CandidateEvaluationson Turnoutand
the Vote. Public Choice15:1-17.
Chlopan, Bruce,M. McCain,J. Carbonell,and R.
Hagen. 1985. Empathy:A Review of Available
Measures.Journalof Personalityand SocialPsy-
chology 48:635-53.
Conover, Pamela J., and Stanley Feldman.1986.
EmotionalReactionsto the Economy:rm Mad
as Hell and rmNot GoingTo TakeIt Any More.
AmericanJournalof PoliticalScience30:50-78.
Craig,StephenC., andMichaelA. Maggiotto.1982.
MeasuringPoliticalEfficacy.PoliticalMethodol-
ogy 8:85-110.
Davies, Alan F. 1980. Skills, Outlooks, and Pas-
sions: A Psychoanalytic Contributionto the
Study of Politics. Cambridge:CambridgeUni-
versity Press.
Davis, Mark H. 1983. MeasuringIndividualDif-
ferences in Empathy:Evidencefrom a Multi-
dimensionalApproach. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology44:133-26.
Derryberry,Douglas, and Mary Rothbart. 1984.
Emotion,Attention,and Temperament.In Emo-
tion, Cognition,andBehavior,ed. CarrollIzard,
JeromeKagan, and RobertZajonc. New York:
CambridgeUniversityPress.
Diener, Ed, and Robert A. Emmons. 1984. The
Independenceof Positive and Negative Affect.
Journalof Personalityand SocialPsychology47:
1105-17.
Fishbein, Martin, and Icek Ajzen. 1975. Belief,
Attitude,Intention,and Behavior:An Introduc-
tion to Theory and Research. Reading, MA:
759
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 19:39:44 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Addison-Wesley.
Fiske, Susan, and M. Pavelchak. 1985. Category-
based versus Piecemeal-basedAffective Re-
sponses: Developments in Schema-triggered
Affect. In The Handbook of Motivation and
Cognition:Foundationsof Social Behavior,ed.
RichardSorrentinoand E. Higgins. New York:
GuilfordPress.
Fonberg, Elzbieta. 1986. Amygdala, Emotions,
Motivation,and DepressiveStates. In Emotion:
Theory, Research,and Experience,ed. Robert
Plutchik and Henry Kellerman.London:Aca-
demic.
Fromm, Erich. 1941. Escape from Freedom. San
Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
Gray, Jeffrey A. 1970. The Psychophysiological
Basis of Introversion-Extroversion. Behaviour
Researchand Therapy8:249-66.
Gray, Jeffrey A. 1973. Causal Theories of Per-
sonalityandHow To TestThem.InMultivariate
Analysis and PsychologicalTheory, ed. Joseph
R. Royce. New York:Academic.
Gray, JeffreyA. 1981. The Psychophysiologyof
Anxiety. In Dimensionsof Personality:Papersin
Honourof H. J. Eysenck,ed. RichardLynn.New
York:Pergamon.
Greenwald,Anthony. 1980. The TotalitarianEgo:
Fabricationand Revision of Personal History.
AmericanPsychologist35:603-18.
Hastie, Reid. 1986. A Primer of Information-
processingTheory for the PoliticalScientist.In
Political Cognition,ed. RichardLau and David
Sears. Hillsdale,NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.
Izard, Carroll E. 1971. Patterns of Emotions:A
New Analysis of Anxiety and Depression.New
York:Academic.
Izard, Carroll E. 1977. Human Emotions. New
York:Plenum.
Jbreskog,Karl G. 1969. A General Approach to
Confirmatory Maximum Likelihood Factor
Analysis. Psychometrika34:183-202.
J6reskog, Karl G. 1970. A General Method for
Analysis of CovarianceStructures.Biometrika
57:239-51.
Jareskog, Karl G. 1973. A General Method for
Estimatinga LinearStructuralEquationSystem.
In StructuralEquationModels in the Social Sci-
ences, ed. ArthurS. Goldbergerand 0. D. Dun-
can. New York:Seminar.
Kelley, Stanley, and Thad Mirer.1974. The Simple
Act of Voting. AmericanPolitical Science Re-
view 68:572-91.
Kinder, Donald. 1986. PresidentialCharacterRe-
visited. In Political Cognition, ed. Richard
Lau and David Sears. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Kinder,Donald, and David Sears. 1981. Prejudice
and Politics: Symbolic Racism versus Racial
Threatto the Good Life.Journalof Personality
and Social Psychology40:414-31.
 American Political Science Review Vol. 82
Krouse, Richard, and George E. Marcus. 1984.
Electoral Studies and Democratic Theory Recon-
sidered. Political Behavior 6:23-39.
Kuklinski, James, E. Ottati, N. Schwarz, and
Robert Wyler. 1987. Why the Slippage? Explain-
ing Why People Support Abstract Principles
More Than the Application of Them. Presented
at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political
Science Association, Chicago.
Lane, Robert E. 1978. Autonomy, Felicity, Futility:
The Effects of the Market Economy on Political
Personality. Journal of Politics 40:2-24.
Lau, Richard. 1986. Political Schemata, Candidate
Evaluations, and Voting Behavior. In Political
Cognition, ed. author and David Sears. Hills-
dale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lazarus, Richard. 1982. Thoughts on the Relations
of Emotion and Cognition. American Psycholo-
gist 37:1019-24.
Lazarus, Richard. 1984. On the Primacy of Cogni-
tion. American Psychologist 39:124-29.
Lewicki, Pawel. 1986. Nonconscious Social Infor-
mation Processing. Orlando, FL: Academic.
Lippmann, Walter. 1922. Public Opinion. New
York: Macmillan.
Lloyd, Genevieve. 1984. The Man of Reason:
"Male" and "Female" in Western Philosophy.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Lushkin, Robert. 1987. Measuring Political Sophis-
tication. American Journal of Political Science
31:856-99.
Marcus, George E. 1985. A Theory and Methodol-
ogy for Measuring Emotions in Politics. Pre-
sented at the annual meeting of the Political
Methodology Society, Berkeley.
Marcus, George E. 1987. The Structure of Emo-
tional Appraisal: 1984 Presidential Candidates.
Presented at the annual meeting of the Inter-
national Society for Political Psychology, San
Francisco.
Marcus, George E., and Wendy Rahn. N.d. Emo-
tions and Democratic Politics. In Research in
Micropolitics, ed. Samuel Long. Greenwich, CT:
JAI.
Markus, Gregory. 1986. Stability and Change in
Political Attitudes: Observed, Recalled, and "Ex-
plained." Political Behavior 8:21-45.
Masters, Roger, and Dennis Sullivan. 1986. Non-
verbal Displays and Political Leadership in
France and the United States. Presented at the
1986 annual meeting of the American Political
Science Association, Washington.
Mill, John Stuart. 1956. On Liberty. Indianapolis,
IN: Bobbs-Merrill.
Millar, Murray, and Abraham Tesser. 1986. Effects
of Affective and Cognitive Focus on the
Attitude-Behavior Relation. Journal of Personal-
ity and Social Psychology 51:270-76.
Miller, Arthur, Martin Wattenburg, and Malanchuk
Oskana. 1986. Schematic Assessments of Candi-
760
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 19:39:44 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
dates. American Political Science Review 80:
521-40.
Mueller, John. N.d. Trends in Political Tolerance.
Public Opinion Quarterly. Forthcoming.
Neuman, Russell. 1986. The Paradox of Mass Poli-
tics: Knowledge and Opinion in the American
Electorate. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
Nisbett, Richard, and Lee Ross. 1980. Human
Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social
Judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Page, Benjamin. 1976. The Theory of Political
Ambiguity. American Political Science Review
70:742-52.
Page, Benjamin. 1978. Choices and Echoes in Presi-
dential Elections. Chicago: Chicago University
Press.
Page, Benjamin, and Richard Brody. 1972. Policy
Voting and the Electoral Process; The Vietnam
War Issue. American Political Science Review
66:979-95.
Phares, E. Jerry. 1978. Locus of Control. In Dimen-
sions of Personality, ed. Harvey London and
John E. Exner, Jr. New York: John Wiley.
Pitkin, Hannah. 1967. The Concept of Representa-
tion. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Plutchik, Robert. 1980. Emotion: A Psychoevolu-
tionary Synthesis. New York: Harper & Row.
Pomper, Gerald, Ross Baker, Charles Jacob, Scott
Keeter, Wilson Carey McWilliams, and Henry
Plotkin. 1985. The Election of 1984. Chatham,
NJ: Chatham.
Rahn, Wendy, John Aldrich, Eugene Borgida, and
John Sullivan. N.d. A Social-Cognitive Model of
Candidate Appraisal. In Information and Demo-
cratic Processes, ed. John Ferejohn and James
Kuklinski. Urbana-Champaign: University of
Illinois Press. Forthcoming.
Roseman, Ira. 1979. Cognitive Aspects of Emotion
and Emotional Behavior. Presented at the annual
meeting of the American Psychological Associa-
tion, Washington.
Roseman, Ira. 1984. Cognitive Determinants of
Emotions: A Structural Theory. In Emotions,
Relationships, and Health, Review of Personality
and Social Psychology, no. 5, ed. P. Shaver.
Beverly Hills: Sage.
Roseman, Ira, Robert Abelson, and Michael Ewing.
1986. Emotions and Political Cognition: Emo-
tional Appeals in Political Communication. In
Political Cognition, ed. Richard Lau and David
Sears. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rotter, J. B. 1966. Generalized Expectancies for
Internal versus External Control of Reinforce-
ment. Psychological Monographs 80:1.
Russell, James A. 1980. A Circumplex Model of
Affect. Journal-of Personality and Social Psy-
chology 39:1161-78.
Sears, David O., Richard R. Lau, Tom R. Tyler,
and Harris M. Allen, Jr. 1980. Self-Interest vs.
 EmotionalResponse
Symbolic Politicsin Policy Attitudesand Presi-
dential Voting. AmericanPolitical Science Re-
view 74:670-84.
Scherer,Klaus. 1982. The Nature and Functionof
Emotion.Social ScienceInformation21:507-9.
Seligman,Martin. 1975. Helplessness:On Depres-
sion, Development,and Death. San Francisco:
Freeman.
Shingles, Richard. 1986. Dimensions of Political
Efficacy:Tests of New and Old Measures.Pre-
sentedat the AmericanPoliticalScienceAssocia-
tion annualmeeting,Washington.
Simon, Herbert.1967. Motivationaland Emotional
Controlsof Cognition.PsychologicalReview74:
29-39.
Snyder,Mark,and WilliamIckes.1985. Personality
and SocialBehavior.In TheHandbookof Social
Psychology, 3d ed., vol. 2, Special Fields and
Applications, ed. Gardner Lindzey and Elliot
Aronson. New York:RandomHouse.
Storm, Christine,and Tom Storm. 1987. A Taxo-
nomic Study of the Vocabularyof Emotions.
Journalof Personalityand SocialPsychology53:
805-16.
Sullivan,Dennis, and RogerMasters.1988. Happy
Warriors: Leaders' Facial Displays, Viewers
Emotions,and PoliticalSupport.AmericanJour-
nal of PoliticalScience32:345-68.
Sullivan, John L., JamesPiereson, and George E.
Marcus.1982. PoliticalToleranceand American
Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Tassinary, Louis, Scott Orr, George Wolford,
Shirley Napps, and John Lanzetta.1984. The
Role of Awareness in Affective Information
Processing: An Exploration of the Zajonc
Hypothesis.Bulletinof the PsychonomicSociety
22:489-92.
Tellegen,Auke. 1985. Structuresof Mood and Per-
George E. Marcusis Professorof Political Science,WilliamsCollege, Williamstown,
MA 01267.
761
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 19:39:44 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
sonality and Their Relevance to Assessing
Anxiety, with an Emphasis on Self-Report. In
Anxiety and the Anxiety Disorders, ed. A.
Hussain Tuma and J. D. Maser. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Thompson, Dennis. 1971. The Democratic Citizen:
Social Science and Democratic Theory in the
Twentieth Century. New York: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Tomkins, Silvan S. 1981. The Quest for Primary
Motives: Biography and Autobiography of an
Idea. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy 41:306-29.
Tsal, Yehoshua. 1985. On the Relationship between
Cognitive and Affective Processes: A Critique of
Zajonc and Markus. Journal of Consumer Re-
search 12:358-62.
Warr, Peter, Joanna Barter, and Garry Brown-
bridge. 1983. On the Independence of Positive
and Negative Affect. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 44:644-51.
Watson, David, and Auke Tellegen. 1985. Toward a
Consensual Structure of Mood. Psychological
Bulletin 98:219-35.
Wiener, B., D. Russell, and D. Lerman. 1978. Affec-
tive Consequences of Causal Ascriptions. In New
Directions in Attribution Research, 3. vols., ed.
John H. Harvey and R. F. Kidd. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Zajonc, R. B. 1980. Feeling and Thinking: Prefer-
ences Need No Inferences. American Psycholo-
gist 35:151-75.
Zajonc, R. B. 1982. On the Primacy of Affect.
American Psychologist 39:117-23.
Zevon, M. A., and Auke Tellegen. 1982. The Struc-
ture of Mood Change: An Ideographic/Nomo-
thetic Analysis. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 43:111-22.