1932

Abstract

Persuasion is a vital part of politics—who wins elections and policy disputes often depends on which side can persuade more people. Given this centrality, the study of persuasion has a long history with an enormous number of theories and empirical inquiries. However, the literature is fragmented, with few generalizable findings. I unify previously disparate dimensions of this topic by presenting a framework focusing on actors (speakers and receivers), treatments (topics, content, media), outcomes (attitudes, behaviors, emotions, identities), and settings (competition, space, time, process, culture). This Generalizing Persuasion (GP) Framework organizes distinct findings and offers researchers a structure in which to situate their work. I conclude with a discussion of the normative implications of persuasion.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051120-110428
2022-05-12
2024-06-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/polisci/25/1/annurev-polisci-051120-110428.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051120-110428&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abito JM, Besanko D, Diermeier D. 2019. Corporate Reputation and Social Activism New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Achen CH, Bartels LM. 2016. Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Ahn TK, Huckfeldt R, Ryan JB. 2014. Experts, Activists, and Democratic Politics: Are Electorates Self-Educating? New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Albarracin DG, Kumkale T, Poyner-Del Vento P. 2017. How people can become persuaded by weak messages presented by credible communicators: Not all sleeper effects are created equal. J. Exp. Psychol 68:171–80
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Albarracin DG, Shavitt S. 2018. Attitudes and attitude change. Annu. Rev. Psychol 69:299–327
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Albertson B, Dun L, Gadarian SK. 2020. The emotional aspects of political persuasion. See Suhay et al. 2020169–83
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Althaus SL, Tewksbury D. 2002. Agenda setting and the “new” news: patterns of issue importance among readers of the paper and online versions of The New York Times. Commun. Res 29:2180–207
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Amsalem E, Zoizner A 2022. Real, but limited: a meta-analytic assessment of framing effects in the political domain. Br. J. Political Sci 52:122137
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Arceneaux K, Vander Wielen RJ. 2017. Taming Intuition: How Reflection Minimizes Partisan Reasoning and Promotes Democratic Accountability Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bail C. 2021. Breaking the Social Media Prism: How to Make Our Platforms Less Polarizing Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bail C, Argyle LP, Brown TW, Bumpus JP, Chen H et al. 2018. Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. PNAS 115:379216–21
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Barnes J 1984. The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Bartels LM. 1993. Messages received: the political impact of media exposure. Am. Political Sci. Rev 87:2267–85
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Bashir NY, Lockwood P, Chasteen AL, Nadolny D, Noyes I. 2013. The ironic impact of activists: Negative stereotypes reduce social change influence. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol 43:7614–26
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Bayes R, Druckman JN. 2021. Motivated reasoning and climate change. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci 42:27–35
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Bayes R, Druckman JN, Goods A, Molden DC. 2020. When and how different motives can drive motivated political reasoning. Political Psychol. 41:51031–52
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Berelson BR, Lazarsfeld PF, McPhee WN. 1954. Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Bolsen T, Druckman JN. 2015. Counteracting the politicization of science. J. Commun 65:5745–69
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Booth W. 2004. The Rhetoric of Rhetoric: The Quest for Effective Communication Oxford, UK: Blackwell
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Boudreau C, MacKenzie SA. 2014. Informing the electorate? How party cues and policy information affect public opinion about initiatives. Am. J. Political Sci 58:148–62
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Bovitz GL, Druckman JN, Lupia A. 2002. When can a news organization lead public opinion? Ideology versus market forces in decisions to make news. Public Choice 113:127–55
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Brader T. 2006. Campaigning for Hearts and Minds: How Emotional Appeals in Political Ads Work Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Brady WJ, Wills JA, Jost JT, Tucker JA, Van Bavel JJ. 2017. Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social networks. PNAS 114:287313–18
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Broockman DE, Butler DM. 2017. The causal effects of elite position-taking on voter attitudes: field experiments with elite communication. Am. J. Political Sci 61:1208–21
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Broockman DE, Kalla JL. 2016. Durably reducing transphobia: a field experiment on door-to-door canvassing. Science 352:6282220–24
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Bullock JG. 2011. Elite influence on public opinion in an informed electorate. Am. Political Sci. Rev 105:3496–515
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Campbell A, Converse PE, Miller WE, Stokes DE. 1960. The American Voter Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Carlson TN. 2019. Through the grapevine: informational consequences of interpersonal political communication. Am. Political Sci. Rev 113:2325–39
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Carpenter CJ. 2019. Cognitive dissonance, ego-involvement, and motivated reasoning. Ann. Int. Commun. Assoc 43:11–23
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Chaiken S. 1980. Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol 39:5752–66
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Chaiken S, Trope Y, eds. 1999. Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology New York: Guilford
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Cheatham L, Tormala ZL. 2015. Attitude certainty and attitudinal advocacy: the unique roles of clarity and correctness. Pers. Soc. Psychol. B 41:111537–50
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Chen S, Chaiken S. 1999. The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context. Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology S Chaiken, Y Trope 73–96 New York: Guilford
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Chong D, Druckman JN. 2007a. Framing public opinion in competitive democracies. Am. Political Sci. Rev 101:4637–55
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Chong D, Druckman JN. 2007b. Framing theory. Annu. Rev. Political Sci 10:103–26
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Chong D, Druckman JN. 2010. Dynamic public opinion: communication effects over time. Am. Political Sci. Rev 104:4663–80
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Cionea IA, Hoelscher CS, Ileş IA. 2017. Arguing goals: an initial assessment of a new measurement instrument. Commun. Rep 301:151–65
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Clifford S, Jerit J 2018. Disgust, anxiety, and political learning in the face of threat: disgust and political learning. Am. J. Political Sci 62:2266–79
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Coppock A. 2021. Persuasion in Parallel Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Cotter RG, Lodge M, Vidigal R. 2020. When, how, and why persuasion fails. See Suhay et al. 202051–65
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Dahl RA. 1971. Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Della Vigna S, Gentzkow M 2010. Persuasion: empirical evidence. Annu. Rev. Econ 2:643–69
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Disch L. 2011. Toward a mobilization conception of democratic representation. Am. Political Sci. Rev 105:1100–14
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Druckman JN. 2003. The power of television images: the first Kennedy-Nixon debate revisited. J. Politics 65:2559–71
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Druckman JN. 2012. The politics of motivation. Crit. Rev 24:2199–216
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Druckman JN. 2014. Pathologies of studying public opinion, political communication, and democratic responsiveness. Political Commun. 31:3467–92
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Druckman JN. 2022. Experimental Thinking: A Primer on Social Science Experiments New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Druckman JN, Bolsen T. 2011. Framing, motivated reasoning, and opinions about emergent technologies. J. Commun 61:4659–88
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Druckman JN, Fein J, Leeper TJ. 2012. A source of bias in public opinion stability. Am. Political Sci. Rev 106:2430–54
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Druckman JN, Jacobs LR. 2015. Who Governs? Presidents, Public Opinion, and Manipulation Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Druckman JN, Klar S, Krupnikov Y, Levendusky M, Ryan JB 2021. Affective polarization, local contexts, and public opinion in America. Nat. Human Behav 5:28–38
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Druckman JN, Leeper TJ. 2012a. Is public opinion stable? Resolving the micro/macro disconnect in studies of public opinion. Daedalus 141:450–68
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Druckman JN, Leeper TJ. 2012b. Learning more from political communication experiments: pretreatment and its effects. Am. J. Political Sci 56:4875–96
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Druckman JN, Levendusky MS, McLain A. 2018. No need to watch: how the effects of partisan media can spread via inter-personal discussions. Am. J. Political Sci 62:199–112
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Druckman JN, Lupia A. 2000. Preference formation. Annu. Rev. Political Sci 3:1–24
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Druckman JN, Lupia A 2006. Mind, will, and choice: lessons from experiments in contextual variation. The Oxford Handbook of Contextual Political Analysis RE Goodin, C Tilly 97–113. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Druckman JN, McGrath MC. 2019. The evidence for motivated reasoning in climate change preference formation. Nat. Climate Change 9:111–19
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Druckman JN, Nelson KR. 2003. Framing and deliberation: how citizens’ conversations limit elite influence. Am. J. Political Sci 47:4729–45
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Druckman JN, Parkin M. 2005. The impact of media bias: how editorial slant affects voters. J. Politics 67:41030–49
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Druckman JN, Peterson E, Slothuus R. 2013. How elite partisan polarization affects public opinion formation. Am. Political Sci. Rev 170:157–79
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Eagly AH, Chaiken S. 1993. The Psychology of Attitudes Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Eckles D, Gordon RB, Johnson GA 2018. Field studies of psychologically targeted ads face threats to internal validity. PNAS 115:23E5254–55
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Feinberg M, Willer R. 2013. The moral roots of environmental attitudes. Psychol. Sci 24:156–62
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Feinberg M, Willer R. 2019. Moral reframing: a technique for effective and persuasive communication across political divides. Soc. Pers. Psychol. Compass 13:e12501
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Fishbach A, Ferguson MJ. 2007. The goal construct in social psychology. Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles AW Kruglanski, ET Higgins 490–515 New York: Guilford
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Fishbein M, Ajzen I. 2010. Predicting and Changing Behavior: The Reasoned Action Approach New York: Taylor & Francis
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Flores AR. 2019. Persuasion and ballot initiatives: How persuasive were the televised campaign ads on same-sex marriage?. Politics Groups Identities 7:1177–93
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Flynn DJ, Nyhan B, Reifler J. 2017. The nature and origins of misperceptions: understanding false and unsupported beliefs about politics. Adv. Political Psychol 38:S1127–50
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Ford BQ, Feinberg M, Lam P, Mauss IB, John OP. 2019. Using reappraisal to regulate negative emotion after the 2016 U.S. presidential election: Does emotion regulation trump political action?. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol 117:5998–1015
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Gaines BJ, Kuklinski JH, Quirk PJ. 2007. The logic of the survey experiment reexamined. Political Anal. 15:11–20
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Gallup G, Rae SF. 1940. The Pulse of Democracy: The Public-Opinion Poll and How It Works New York: Simon & Schuster
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Garsten B. 2006. Saving Persuasion: A Defense of Rhetoric and Judgment Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Gentzkow M, Shapiro JM. 2010. What drives media slant? Evidence from daily newspapers. Econometrica 78:135–71
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Gerber AS, Gimpel JG, Green DP, Shaw DR. 2011. How large and long-lasting are the persuasive effects of televised campaign ads? Results from a randomized field experiment. Am. Political Sci. Rev 105:1135–50
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Gil de Zúñiga H, Copeland L, Bimber B 2014. Political consumerism: civic engagement and the social media connection. New Media Soc 16:3488–506
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Gilens M, Hertzman C. 2000. Corporate ownership and news bias: coverage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. J. Polit 62:2369–86
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Girvan EJ, Weaver J, Snyder M. 2010. Elevating norm over substance: self-monitoring as a predictor of decision criteria and decision time among independent voters. Anal. Soc. Iss. Public Policy 10:1321–36
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Gooch A. 2018. Ripping yarn: experiments on storytelling by partisan elites. Political Commun. 35:2220–38
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Green MC, Brock TC. 2000. The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol 79:5701–21
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Groeling T. 2013. Media bias by the numbers: challenges and opportunities in the empirical study of partisan news. Annu. Rev. Political Sci 16:1129–51
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Groenendyk E. 2016. The anxious and ambivalent partisan: the effect of incidental anxiety on partisan motivated recall and ambivalence. Public Opin. Q 80:2460–79
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Groenendyk E. 2019. Two minds, but one heart: a good “gut” feeling moderates the effect of ambivalence on attitude formation and turnout. Am. J. Political Sci 63:2368–84
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Groenendyk E, Krupnikov Y 2021. What motivates reasoning? A theory of goal-dependent political evaluation. Am. J. Political Sci 65:1180–96
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Groves RM. 2011. Three eras of survey research. Public Opin. Q 75:5861–71
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Guess AM, Barberá P, Munzert S, Yang JH 2021. The consequences of online partisan media. PNAS 118:14e2013464118
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Guess A, Coppock A. 2020. Does counter-attitudinal information cause backlash? Results from three large survey experiments. Br. J. Political Sci 50:41497–515
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Habermas J. 1984. The Theory of Communicative Action Boston: Beacon
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Hager A, Hilbig H. 2020. Does public opinion affect political speech?. Am. J. Political Sci 64:4921–37
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Hamby A, Brinberg D, Daniloski K. 2017. Reflecting on the journey: mechanisms in narrative persuasion. J. Consum. Psychol 27:111–22
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Hersh ED, Schaffner BF 2013. Targeted campaign appeals and the value of ambiguity. J. Politics 75:2520–34
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Hill SJ, Lo J, Vavreck L, Zaller J. 2013. How quickly we forget: the duration of persuasion effects from mass communication. Political Commun. 30:4521–47
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Hillman AL. 2010. Expressive behavior in economics and politics. Eur. J. Political Econ 26:4403–18
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Hillygus DS, Shields TG. 2008. The Persuadable Voter: Wedge Issues in Presidential Campaigns Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Holbrook AL 2011. Attitude change experiments in political science. The Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science JN Druckman, DG Green, JH Kuklinski, A Lupia 141–54. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Hovland CI, Weiss W. 1951. The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opin. Q 15:4635–50
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Howat AJ. 2019. The role of value perceptions in intergroup conflict and cooperation. Politics Groups Identities 9:4657–80
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Howe LC, Krosnick JA. 2017. Attitude strength. Annu. Rev. Psychol 68:327–51
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Kalla JL, Broockman DE. 2018. The minimal persuasive effects of campaign contact in general elections: evidence from 49 field experiments. Am. Political Sci. Rev 112:1148–66
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Kalla JL, Broockman DE. 2020. Reducing exclusionary attitudes through interpersonal conversation: evidence from three field experiments. Am. Political Sci. Rev 114:2410–25
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Kalla JL, Broockman DE. 2021. Which narrative strategies durably reduce prejudice? Evidence from field and survey experiments supporting the efficacy of perspective-getting. Am. J. Political Sci. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12657
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  101. Karpowitz C, Mendelberg T. 2014. The Silent Sex: Gender, Deliberation, & Institutions Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Kim E. 2019. Entertaining beliefs in economic mobility PhD Diss., Univ. Penn. Philadelphia, PA:
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Kinder DR, Kalmoe NP. 2017. Neither Liberal nor Conservative: Ideological Innocence in the American Public Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Klapper JT. 1960. The Effects of Mass Communication Glencoe, IL: Free Press
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Klar S. 2013. The influence of competing identity primes on political preferences. J. Politics 75:41108–24
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Kraft PW, Krupnikov Y, Milita K, Ryan JB, Soroka S 2020. Social media and the changing information environment: sentiment differences in read versus recirculated news content. Public Opin. Q 84:S1195–215
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Kubin E, Puryear C, Schein C, Gray K. 2021. Personal experiences bridge moral and political divides better than facts. PNAS 118:6e2008389118
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Kunda Z. 2001. Social Cognition: Making Sense of People Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. , 4th ed..
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Lasswell HD 1948. The structure and function of communication in society. The Communication of Ideas L Bryson 37–51 New York: Harper
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Lau RR. 2020. Classic models of persuasion. See Suhay et al. 2020 29–50
  111. Lazarsfeld PF, Berelson B, Gaudet H. 1944. The People's Choice: How the Voter Makes Up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign New York: Duell, Sloan & Pearce
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Leeper TJ, Slothuus R. 2014. Political parties, motivated reasoning, and public opinion formation. Adv. Political Psychol 35:S1129–56
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Lelkes Y. 2020. National and cross-national perspectives on political media bias. See Suhay et al. 2020 572–89
  114. Levendusky M. 2018. Americans, not partisans: Can priming American national identity reduce affective polarization?. J. Politics 80:159–70
    [Google Scholar]
  115. Levine AS. 2021. Single conversations expand practitioners’ use of research: evidence from a field experiment. PS Political Sci. Polit 54:3432–37
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Levine AS, Kline R. 2017. A new approach for evaluating climate change communication. Climatic Change 142:1–2301–9
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Levine AS, Kline R. 2019. Loss-framed arguments can stifle political activism. J. Exp. Political Sci 6:3171–79
    [Google Scholar]
  118. Levitan LC, Verhulst B. 2016. Conformity in groups: the effects of others’ views on expressed attitudes and attitude change. Political Behav 38:2277–315
    [Google Scholar]
  119. Levy R. 2021. Social media, news consumption, and polarization: evidence from a field experiment. Am. Econ. Rev 111:3831–70
    [Google Scholar]
  120. Liberman N, Trope Y. 1998. The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: a test of temporal construal theory. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol 75:15–18
    [Google Scholar]
  121. Lodge M, Taber CS. 2013. The Rationalizing Voter New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  122. Lupia A. 2006. How elitism undermines the study of voter competence. Crit. Rev 18:1–2217–32
    [Google Scholar]
  123. Lupia A, McCubbins MD. 1998. The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need to Know? New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  124. McGraw K, Dolan TM. 2007. Personifying the state: consequences for attitude formation. Political Psychol. 28:3299–327
    [Google Scholar]
  125. McGuire W 1969. The nature of attitudes and attitude change. The Handbook of Social Psychology G Lindzey, E Aronson 136–314 Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
    [Google Scholar]
  126. Ma Y, Dixon G, Hmielowski JD. 2019. Psychological reactance from reading basic facts on climate change: the role of prior views and political identification. Envir. Commun 13:171–86
    [Google Scholar]
  127. Malhotra N, Michelson MR, Rogers T, Valenzuela AA 2011. Text messages as mobilization tools: the conditional effect of habitual voting and election salience. Am. Political Res 39:4664–81
    [Google Scholar]
  128. Marcus GE. 2002. The Sentimental Citizen: Emotion in Democratic Politics Univ. Park, PA: Pa. State Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  129. Markovich Z, Baum MA, Berinsky AJ, de Benedictis-Kessner J, Yamamoto T. 2020. Dynamic persuasion: decay and accumulation of partisan media persuasion Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association Jan. 9–11, San Juan, PR
    [Google Scholar]
  130. Martin G, McCrain J. 2019. Local news and national politics. Am. Political Sci. Rev 113:2372–84
    [Google Scholar]
  131. Matz SC, Kosinski M, Nave G, Stillwell DJ. 2017. Psychological targeting as an effective approach to digital mass persuasion. PNAS 114:4812714–19
    [Google Scholar]
  132. Matz SC, Netzer O. 2017. Using big data as a window into consumers’ psychology. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci 18:Dec.7–12
    [Google Scholar]
  133. Miller PV. 2017. Is there a future for surveys?. Public Opin. Q 81:S1205–12
    [Google Scholar]
  134. Minozzi W, Neblo MA, Esterling KM, Lazer DMJ. 2015. Field experiment evidence of substantive, attributional, and behavioral persuasion by members of Congress in online town halls. PNAS 112:133937–42
    [Google Scholar]
  135. Minozzi W, Song H, Lazer DMJ, Neblo MA, Ognyanova K. 2020. The incidental pundit: Who talks politics with whom, and why?. Am. J. Political Sci 64:1135–51
    [Google Scholar]
  136. Mousa S. 2020. Building social cohesion between Christians and Muslims through soccer in post-ISIS Iraq. Science 369:6505866–70
    [Google Scholar]
  137. Moy P, Rinke EM 2012. Attitudinal and behavioral consequences of published opinion polls. Opinion Polls and the Media: Reflecting and Shaping Public Opinion C Holtz-Bacha, J Strömbäck 225–45. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK
    [Google Scholar]
  138. Mullinix KJ. 2016. Partisanship and preference formation: competing motivations, elite polarization, and issue importance. Political Behav. 38:2383–411
    [Google Scholar]
  139. Mutz DC, Sniderman PM, Brody RA 1996. Political persuasion: the birth of a field of study. Political Persuasion and Attitude Change DC Mutz, PM Sniderman, RA Brody 1–16. Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  140. Nelson TE, Clawson RA, Oxley ZA. 1997. Media framing of a civil liberties conflict and its effect on tolerance. Am. Political Sci. Rev 91:3567–83
    [Google Scholar]
  141. Nelson TE, Oxley ZM. 1999. Issue framing effects on belief importance and opinion. J. Politics 61:41040–67
    [Google Scholar]
  142. Nickerson DW, Rogers T. 2020. Campaigns influence election outcomes less than you think. Science 369:65081181–82
    [Google Scholar]
  143. O'Keefe DJ. 2016. Persuasion: Theory and Practice Los Angeles: Sage. , 3rd ed..
    [Google Scholar]
  144. O'Keefe DJ. 2018. Message pretesting using assessments of expected or perceived persuasiveness: evidence about diagnosticity of relative actual persuasiveness. J. Commun 68:1120–42
    [Google Scholar]
  145. O'Keefe DJ. 2021. Persuasive message pretesting using non-behavioral outcomes: differences in attitudinal and intention effects as diagnostic of differences in behavioral effects. J. Commun 71:4623–45
    [Google Scholar]
  146. Osmundsen M, Bor A, Vahlstrup PB, Bechmann A, Bang Petersen M. 2021. Partisan polarization is the primary psychological motivation behind political fake news sharing on Twitter. Am. Political Sci. Rev 115:3999–1015
    [Google Scholar]
  147. Ostfeld MC. 2019. The new white flight? The effects of political appeals to Latinos on white Democrats. Political Behav. 41:3561–82
    [Google Scholar]
  148. Pennycook G, Epstein Z, Mosleh M, Arechar AA, Eckles D, Rand DG 2021. Shifting attention to accuracy can reduce misinformation online. Nature 592:590–95
    [Google Scholar]
  149. Pennycook G, McPhetres J, Zhang Y, Lu JG, Rand DG 2020. Fighting COVID-19 misinformation on social media: experimental evidence for a scalable accuracy-nudge intervention. Psychol. Sci 31:7770–80
    [Google Scholar]
  150. Persily N, Tucker JA, eds. 2020. Social Media and Democracy: The State of the Field, Prospects for Reform New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  151. Petty R, Cacioppo J. 1986. The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol 19:123–205
    [Google Scholar]
  152. Porter E, Wood TJ 2019. False Alarm: The Truth about Political Mistruths in the Trump Era New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  153. Schattschneider EE. 1960. The Semisovereign People: A Realist's View of Democracy in America New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston
    [Google Scholar]
  154. Settle JE. 2018. Frenemies: How Social Media Polarizes America New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  155. Shadish WR, Cook TD, Campbell DT. 2002. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inferences Boston: Houghton Mifflin
    [Google Scholar]
  156. Sinclair B. 2012. The Social Citizen: Peer Networks and Political Behavior Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  157. Slothuus R. 2016. Assessing the influence of political parties on public opinion: the challenge from pretreatment effects. Political Commun. 33:2302–27
    [Google Scholar]
  158. Slothuus R, Bisgaard M. 2021a. How political parties shape public opinion in the real world. Am. J. Political Sci 65:4896911
    [Google Scholar]
  159. Slothuus R, Bisgaard M. 2021b. Party over pocketbook? How party cues influence opinion when citizens have a stake in policy. Am. Political Sci. Rev 115:31090–96
    [Google Scholar]
  160. Sniderman PM, Theriault SM 2004. The structure of political argument and the logic of issue framing. Studies in Public Opinion WE Saris, PM Sniderman 133–65. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  161. Song H, Lewis NA, Ballew MT, Bravo M, Davydova J et al. 2020. What counts as an “environmental” issue? Differences in issue conceptualization by race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. J. Env. Psychol 68:101404
    [Google Scholar]
  162. Soroka S, Fournier P, Nir L. 2019. Cross-national evidence of a negativity bias in psychophysiological reactions to news. PNAS 116:3818888–92
    [Google Scholar]
  163. Stanley ML, Henne P, Yang BW, De Brigard F. 2020. Resistance to position change, motivated reasoning, and polarization. Political Behav. 42:3891–913
    [Google Scholar]
  164. Stark TH, Silber H, Krosnick JA, Blom AG, Aoyagi M et al. 2020. Generalization of classic question order effects across cultures. Sociol. Method. Res 49:3567–602
    [Google Scholar]
  165. Suhay E, Grofman B, Trechsel AH, eds. 2020. The Oxford Handbook of Electoral Persuasion New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  166. Sydnor E. 2019. Disrespectful Democracy: The Psychology of Political Incivility New York: Columbia Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  167. Tappin BM. 2020. Estimating the between-issue variation in party elite cue effects Work. Pap., Mass. Inst. Technol. Cambridge, MA: https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/p48zb
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  168. Tappin BM, Pennycook G, Rand DG. 2020. Bayesian or biased? Analytic thinking and political belief updating. Cognition 204:104375
    [Google Scholar]
  169. Tappin BM, Pennycook G, Rand DG 2021. Rethinking the link between cognitive sophistication and politically motivated reasoning. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen 150:61095–114
    [Google Scholar]
  170. Teeny JD, Petty RE. 2021. The perception of others’ attitude bases and position as antecedents of inferred open-mindedness: consequences for attitudinal advocacy. Paper presented at Psychology Department Speaker Series Northwestern Univ. Evanston, IL:
    [Google Scholar]
  171. Tesler M, Zaller J 2017. The power of political communication. The Oxford Handbook of Political Communication K Kenski, KH Jamieson 69–84 New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  172. Valentino NA, Brader T, Groenendyk EW, Gregorowicz K, Hutchings VL 2011. Election night's alright for fighting: the role of emotions in political participation. J. Politics 73:1156–70
    [Google Scholar]
  173. Van Bavel JJ, Reinero DA, Spring V, Harris EA, Duke A. 2021. Speaking my truth: why personal experiences can bridge divides but mislead. PNAS 118:e2100280118
    [Google Scholar]
  174. Weeks BE, Ardèvol-Abreu A, Gil de Zúñiga H. 2017. Online influence? Social media use, opinion leadership, and political persuasion. Int. J. Public Opin. Res 29:2214–39
    [Google Scholar]
  175. Wiest SL, Raymond L, Clawson RA 2015. Framing, partisan predispositions, and public opinion on climate change. Glob. Envir. Change 31:187–98
    [Google Scholar]
  176. Wojcieszak M, Garrett RK. 2018. Social identity, selective exposure, and affective polarization: how priming national identity shapes attitudes toward immigrants via news selection. Human Commun. Res 44:3247–73
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051120-110428
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051120-110428
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error