IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/bjposi/v32y2002i04p663-690_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Television Effects and Voter Decision Making in Australia: A Re-examination of the Converse Model

Author

Listed:
  • DENEMARK, DAVID

Abstract

Australian data are used in this article to re-examine Converse's thesis that the mass media's electoral effects are felt most strongly amongst voters with the lowest levels of political interest and awareness. Non-participation of many such voters in voluntary electoral systems obscures the full complexity of television's influence in voters' decision making. Australia's compulsory electoral system, however, by forcing the least interested to vote, crystallizes further distinctions in the patterns of media effects in the electorate. Results show that voters with the lowest levels of prior political awareness are the most responsive to effects of overall television news exposure, and they employ those media cues in their vote decisions late in the campaign. At the same time, voters with moderate levels of political interest are more susceptible to absorbing television's issue agenda, but do not use those issue-based cues to change their vote.

Suggested Citation

  • Denemark, David, 2002. "Television Effects and Voter Decision Making in Australia: A Re-examination of the Converse Model," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 32(4), pages 663-690, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:bjposi:v:32:y:2002:i:04:p:663-690_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0007123402000273/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alex Coram, 2008. "The dynamics of resource spending in a competition between political parties: general notes on the Red Queen effect," UMASS Amherst Economics Working Papers 2008-01, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:bjposi:v:32:y:2002:i:04:p:663-690_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jps .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.