IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/amposc/v55y2011i3p561-573.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Dynamics of Ambivalence

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas J. Rudolph

Abstract

This article explores the dynamics of candidate ambivalence over the course of a presidential campaign. Candidate ambivalence tends to decrease as a campaign unfolds, although the rate of ambivalence decay is not constant across time or individuals. Two alternative theories of ambivalence change are considered and tested. Consistent with a motivational account, the results indicate that partisan reasoning contributes to the diminution of ambivalence over time. Consistent with an informational account, the results suggest that exposure to heterogeneous information heightens ambivalence. Ambivalence is least likely to decline among people who are exposed to cross‐cutting information, politically sophisticated individuals with weak partisan attachments, and, during the general election phase of the campaign, those who live in homogenous areas with little political competition.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas J. Rudolph, 2011. "The Dynamics of Ambivalence," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(3), pages 561-573, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:amposc:v:55:y:2011:i:3:p:561-573
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00505.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00505.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00505.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Dieter Dekeyser & Henk Roose, 2022. "Polarizing policy opinions with conflict framed information: activating negative views of political parties in a multi-party system," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 56(3), pages 1121-1138, June.

    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:wly:amposc:v:55:y:2011:i:3:p:561-573. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1540-5907 .

    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.