<%BANNER%>

Today's Vote Is Not Tomorrow's Vote

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0041504/00001

Material Information

Title: Today's Vote Is Not Tomorrow's Vote the Influence of Time Perspective on Vote Likelihood
Physical Description: 1 online resource (84 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Fernandes, Juliana
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2010

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: future, information, political, present, time, vote
Journalism and Communications -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Mass Communication thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The purpose of this research was to investigate the influence of time perspective on vote likelihood for a political candidate. In this research, time perspective refers to how variations in time frame such as a present frame (i.e., today) or a future frame (i.e., a year from now) influence voter choices and evaluations. Five experiments provide evidence that time perspective changes vote likelihood for a candidate and explain how this process occurs. Study 1 and 1A show that time perspective changed vote choice for a known candidate and that attitudes became more extreme (i.e., polarized) in the present and less extreme (i.e., moderated) in the future. Study 2 shows that time perspective affects vote choice for an unknown candidate and similar to Study 1 and 1A, polarization and moderation effects were observed in the present and in the future, respectively. The hypothesis for this attitude change is based on the information that people use when making evaluations for the present and for the future. The information that people use in the present will be different from information used for the future. Study 3 shows that when voters choose between two candidates for an election in the present, they consider one type of information (issue information).When choosing between two candidates for an election in the future, they consider information that is different (image information) from that used in the present. Study 4 shows that thinking about one?s own opinions can also influence what type of information voters use to evaluate a candidate in the present and in the future.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Juliana Fernandes.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2010.
Local: Adviser: Kaid, Lynda L.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2012-04-30

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2010
System ID: UFE0041504:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0041504/00001

Material Information

Title: Today's Vote Is Not Tomorrow's Vote the Influence of Time Perspective on Vote Likelihood
Physical Description: 1 online resource (84 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Fernandes, Juliana
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2010

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: future, information, political, present, time, vote
Journalism and Communications -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Mass Communication thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The purpose of this research was to investigate the influence of time perspective on vote likelihood for a political candidate. In this research, time perspective refers to how variations in time frame such as a present frame (i.e., today) or a future frame (i.e., a year from now) influence voter choices and evaluations. Five experiments provide evidence that time perspective changes vote likelihood for a candidate and explain how this process occurs. Study 1 and 1A show that time perspective changed vote choice for a known candidate and that attitudes became more extreme (i.e., polarized) in the present and less extreme (i.e., moderated) in the future. Study 2 shows that time perspective affects vote choice for an unknown candidate and similar to Study 1 and 1A, polarization and moderation effects were observed in the present and in the future, respectively. The hypothesis for this attitude change is based on the information that people use when making evaluations for the present and for the future. The information that people use in the present will be different from information used for the future. Study 3 shows that when voters choose between two candidates for an election in the present, they consider one type of information (issue information).When choosing between two candidates for an election in the future, they consider information that is different (image information) from that used in the present. Study 4 shows that thinking about one?s own opinions can also influence what type of information voters use to evaluate a candidate in the present and in the future.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Juliana Fernandes.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2010.
Local: Adviser: Kaid, Lynda L.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2012-04-30

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2010
System ID: UFE0041504:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 CE OF TIME PERSPECTIVE ON VOTE LIKELIHOOD By JULIANA DE BRUM FERNANDES A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2010

PAGE 2

2 2010 Juliana de Brum Fernandes

PAGE 3

3 To all who contributed to my intellectual curiosity and love for the research puzzle

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would first like t o thank Dr. Lynda Lee Kaid for her dedication toward my intellectual growth, her words of wisdom and encouragement, and her endless kindness and generosity. I will be forever thankful for all the things she has taught me Her strength is inspiring and her enthusiasm for the academi c life is remarkable. I would also like to thank Dr. Mike Weigold and Dr. Spiro Kiousi s for being such wonderful mentors and for their constant support throughout my graduate studies. Their expertise and kind words were fundamenta l to the completion of this dissertation. I would like to thank Dr. John Chambers for his eagerness to teach me Psychology. I appreciate his patience and willingness to work with me throughout this process. I would also like to thank my dearest officem ate s West Bowers, David Painter, Mandy Miles and Annie Sugar Their amiability made my life much easier when the difficult tasks knocked on my door. I will never forget the good laughs we had in Weimer G034 the frequent coffee trips to Reitz Union and the collaborative work we have done together I immensely value their friendship. I would also like to thank my PhD colleagues Maria de Moya, Rajul Jain, Jooyun Hwang, Zheng Xiang Matt Ragas, and Jeff Ne ely. I could not have asked for a better group of people to share this experience with. A special thank you goes to Jody Hedge for going out of her way to help the graduate students when they needed the most. I would also like to thank Kim Holloway Sarah Lee, and Judy Hunter for being such friendly people. I would like to thank my mother, Margarida, for always believing that I could accomplish this milestone. Her strength and encouragement kept me moving forward. I would like to thank my father, Sergio; my brother Alexandre; and my aunt Erna for reminding m e that I could achieve my dream.

PAGE 5

5 Finally, I would like to thank my husband, Juliano for being the most wonderful person that I could have ever met in my life. His motivation and energy are contagious and he is an inspiration to me. His support throughout my entire graduate studies was precious and comforting. I could not have done any of this without him

PAGE 6

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TA BLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 8 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 9 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 12 2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ................................ ................................ ............ 16 Temporal Distance Frameworks ................................ ................................ ............. 16 Propo sed Framework ................................ ................................ .............................. 19 Present Time Frame and Attitude Polarization ................................ ................. 19 Future Time Frame and Attitude Moderation ................................ .................... 20 3 STUDY 1 ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 23 Overview ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 23 Method ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 23 Participants and Design ................................ ................................ ................... 23 Materials and Procedure ................................ ................................ .................. 23 Results ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 24 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 25 4 STUDY 1A ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 28 Overview ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 28 Method ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 28 Participants and Design ................................ ................................ ................... 28 Materials and Procedure ................................ ................................ .................. 28 Result s ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 29 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 29 5 STUDY 2 ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 33 Overview ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 33 Method ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 34 Participants and Design ................................ ................................ ................... 34 Materials and Procedure ................................ ................................ .................. 34 Results ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 35

PAGE 7

7 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 36 6 STUDY 3 ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 40 Overview ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 40 Method ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 41 Pretest ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 41 Main Experime nt ................................ ................................ .............................. 42 Participants and design ................................ ................................ .............. 42 Materials and procedure ................................ ................................ ............ 43 Resu lts ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 44 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 45 7 STUDY 4 ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 47 Overview ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 47 Method ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 48 Participants and Design ................................ ................................ ................... 48 Materials and Procedure ................................ ................................ .................. 48 Results ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 50 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 51 8 GENERAL DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ....................... 55 Theoretical Implications ................................ ................................ .......................... 56 Practical Implications ................................ ................................ .............................. 57 Limitations and Future Research ................................ ................................ ............ 58 APPENDIX A STIMULUS MATERIALS ................................ ................................ ........................ 62 B QUESTIONNAIRES ................................ ................................ ................................ 67 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................... 80 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ............................ 84

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3 1 Study 1: Influence of time perspective on vote likelihood by party affiliation using a between subjects design ................................ ................................ ........ 27 4 1 Study 1A: Influence of time perspective on vote likelihood by party affiliation using a within subjec ts design ................................ ................................ ............ 32 5 1 Study 2: Influence of time perspective on vote likelihood by issue position ........ 39 6 1 Pretest Study 3: What type o f information do you consider important when choosing whom to vote for in an election? ................................ .......................... 46 7 1 Study 4: Influence of time perspective on vote likelihood by candidate and type of reasoning ................................ ................................ ................................ 52

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 3 1 Study 1: Influence of time perspective on vote likelihood by party affiliation using a between subjects design. ................................ ................................ ....... 27 4 1 Study 1A: Influence of time perspective on vote likelihood by party affiliation using a within subjects design. ................................ ................................ ........... 32 5 1 Study 2 : Influence of time perspective on vote likelihood by issue position ................................ ................................ .... 39 5 2 Study 2: Influence of time perspective on vote likelihood by issue position (extr ................................ ......... 39 6 2 Study 3: Influence of time perspective on vote likelihood by candidate. ............. 46 7 1 Study 4: Experimental procedure order. ................................ ............................. 52 7 2 Study 4: Influence of time perspective on vote likelihood by candidate and type of reasoning condition. A) No reasons condition. B) Reasons co ndition. ... 53 7 3 Study 4: Influence of time perspective on information use (position on wind power generation versus nuclear power generation) by type of reasoning. ........ 54 A 1 Stimulus material used in Study 3. ................................ ................................ ..... 65 A 2 First table presented to participants in Study 4. ................................ .................. 66 A 3 Second table presented to participants in Study 4. ................................ ............. 66

PAGE 10

10 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy PERSPECTIVE ON VOTE LIKELIHOOD By Juliana de Brum Fernandes May 2010 Chair: Lynda Lee Kaid Major: Mass Communication The purpose of this research was to investig ate the influence of time perspective on vote likelihood for a political candidate. In this research, time perspective refers to how v ariations in time frame such as a present frame (i.e., today) or a future frame (i .e., a year from now) influence voter ch oices and evaluations Five experiments provide evidence that time perspective changes vote likelihood for a candidate and explain how this process occurs. Study 1 and 1A show that time perspective changed vote choice for a known candidate and that attitu des beca me more extreme (i.e., polarized ) in the present and less extreme (i.e., moderated ) in the future. Study 2 shows that time perspective affects vote choice for a n unknown candidate an d similar to Study 1 and 1A, polarization and moderation effect s w ere observed in the present and in the future, respectively. The hypothesis for this attitude change is based on the information that people use when making evaluations for the present and for the future. The information that people use in the present will be different from information used for the future. Study 3 shows that when voters choose between two candidates for an election in the present, they consider one type of information (issue information). When choosing between two

PAGE 11

11 candidates for an election in the future, they consider information that is different (image information) from that used in the present Study 4 opinions can also influence what type of information voters use to evaluate a candidate in the present and in the future

PAGE 12

12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION It is well known that political candidates start their campaigns long before election day. For instance, President Barack Obama officially announced he would be running in the 2008 U.S. presidential race in Febru ary 2007 ( Pearson & Long, 2007 ), but speculations about a possible candidature started right after he was elected as a U.S. Senator in 2004 ( Smith, 2008 ). Despite campaign started roughly a year and a half before the 2008 November election. Because political campaigns have a natural temporal rhythm, it seems that time plays an important role during political campaigns in at least three ways. First, exploratory committees are usually formed about two years before elect ion day, consider a run for an elective office. These committees essentially assess whether the candidate would have enough support to seek the nomination and be able to raise money to run a competitive campaign ( F ederal Election Commission, 2009 ). Second, candidates selected to be the official presidential nominees for the two major parties in the U.S. have less than six months to continue campaigning and ning of the campaign might not have the same impact closer to the election. Third, perceptions of political candidates and intention to vote might change as a function of time. T here fore, investigating how time influences voter choices and evaluations seem s to be a n important avenue of research. This last point is the very reason for this research In particular this research investigates how time perspective influences vote likelihood for a political candidate. In this research, time perspective refers to how variations in time

PAGE 13

13 frame, such as how a present frame (i.e., today) or future frame (i.e., one year from now) might influence how voters make choices and evaluations. The influence of time perspective on choices and evaluations has been inve stigated across different areas of study. Temporal distance has been studied in psychology (Ainslie, 1975; Metcalfe & Mischel, 1999; Read & Loewenstein, 2000; Trope & Liberman, 2003; Trope, Liberman, & Wakslak, 2007 ) behavioral economics (Frederick, Loewenstein, & O'Donoghue, 2002; O'Donoghue & Rabin, 2000) and political science (Schelling, 1984) However, little is yet known about the influence of temporal distance on voting decisions (Kim, Rao, & Lee 2009 ). Temporal distance has produced several theoretical frameworks. The most popular accounts are based in construal level theory and discounting theories. Construal level theory proposes that temporal distance might change how people mentally represent information. Tro pe and Liberman (2003) suggest ed that individuals tend to focus on concrete aspects of near future events ( e.g., specific aspects that communicate the details of the available information ) and on abstract aspects of distant future events ( e.g., general asp ects that communicate the essence of the available information ) Discounting theories suggest that as the temporal distance to a desirable outcome increases, the perceived value of the outcome decreases (Frederick, Loewenstein, & O'Donoghue, 2002 ). Th e pr esent research suggests another way in which time perspective may influence choices and evaluations I propose that time perspective might influence the information that voters use to evaluate events or people in the present and in the future. More specifi cally, I propose that information considered for voting decisions in the

PAGE 14

14 present will be different from information considered in the future Consider the following example. Political candidates start their campaigns long before election day. Consequently, a great deal of information about the candidates and their position on issues is released long before voters make a voting decision Considering that political campaigns are events that have a natural temporal rhythm, they seem to be ideal for studying ho w voters think about their choices in the present and in the future. For instance, when voters think about voting in the present (i.e. election is today ), it is likely that they will use one type of information, such as the most accessible information (e. g., party affiliation) to evaluate the candidate s As a result their attitude toward the candidate s might be polarized that is, their attitude might be very extreme in either a positive or negative direction. This polarization effect happens because peop le might think about the most accessible piece of information and disregard additional information about the attitude object ( e.g. they may consider party affiliation and not consider issue position ) On the other hand, when voters think about voting in t he future (i.e. election is one year from now ), it is possible that they will be willing to consider different types of information Because the future might signal change other elements and information may be available for a voter to consider his option s ( e.g., candidate is Republican, but he does not support issue x and y. ) C onsidering different sometime diverging points of view may lead to attitude moderation or the tendency to lean more toward the middle Thus, the process of thinking about the pres ent or the future might result in attitude change which can have interesting outcomes in an election setting. This rationale is informed by research on attitude polarization ( Millar & Tesser, 1986; Tesser, 1978; Tesser & Conlee; 1975 ) and moderation (Tetlock & Boettger, 1989;

PAGE 15

15 Wilson, Kraft, & Dunn, 1989; Wilson, Lisle, & Kraft, 1990; Wilson & Schooler, 1991) Attitude polarization suggests that merely thinking about an object will produce more polarized (i.e., more extreme) attitudes toward the object. Attitude moderation, on the other hand, suggests that the more an individual thinks about an object, the more the evaluations toward that object will be moderated (i.e. less extreme). Thus, I propose that when people predict their likelihood of voting for a candidate in the present, they may consider one type of information (i.e. most accessible) However, when they predict their vote likelihood for a candidate in the future, information considered in the present may l ose weight leading the individual to consider other and/or additional information Thus, information considered in the present may be different from information considered in the future perhaps leading to attitude change The remaining chapters of this research are organized as follows. Chapter 2 presents a review of the main theoretical approaches on temporal distance, as well as research on attitude polarization and moderation. Chapter s 3 4 and 5 introduce a test of the effect of time perspective on v ote likelihood for a candidate. In three experimental studies, I show that time perspective changes vote likelihood for the same candidate depending on the election time frame Chap ters 6 and 7 provide evidence of how time perspective influences vote like lihood for political candidates. In two experimental studies, I show that voters use different types of information when they decide vote choices in the present versus in the future. Finally, Chapter 8 presents a general discussion of these findings, theor etical and practical implications, limitations, and future research ideas.

PAGE 16

16 CHAPTER 2 THEORETICAL BACKGROU ND Choices and evaluations involving time perspective are ubiquitous in everyday life. Individuals often make decisions about which products to buy f one that will happen in a month, decisions about when to take vacations, or whom to vote for in an election that is happening today or months away. Understanding this exact process, namely, how choices and evaluations might be di fferent in a present frame versus a future frame, is the overarching question of this research. A great deal of research on temporal distance has been advanced due to choices and e valuations Time perspective refers t o how variations in time frame might influence how individuals make choices and evaluations. Next, I presen t literature that explains how temporal distance influences choices and evaluations Temporal Distance Framework s Research has identified several theoretical frameworks that explain how temporal distance influence s choices and evaluations The first framework construal level theory (CLT) suggests that people construct representations of the same event differentl y based on the tempo ral distance of an event (Trope & Liberman, 2003). According to CLT, when individuals think of events in the near future, they will use concrete, low level construals. These low level construals are usually rich in details, contextuali zed, secondary, and goal irrelevant. When individuals think of events in the distant future, they will use abstract, high level construals. As opposed to low level construals, high level construals extract the essence of the represented information and thu s are simp le, de contextualized, primary and goal relevant (Trope & Liber man, 2003; Trope,

PAGE 17

17 Liberman, & Waksla k 2007) For example, consider the act of voting in an election in the near future as opposed to in the distant future. When thinking about voting i n the near future, a voter might think about specific, detailed steps that he will have to take in order to vote. These specific steps might involve going to the poll location, standing in line, marking his choices on the ballot, and c asting the ballot. These steps are considered concrete or low level construals. When thinking about voting in the distant future, a voter might think about more abstract concerns related to voting. These abstract concerns might represent voting as an exercise of democratic i deals or the excitement of going to the poll location. These abstract concerns are considered high level construals. The main difference between higher and lower level construals is that higher level construals focus on the essence of the available inform ation as opposed to lower level construals which focus on detailed features of the available information The following analogy suits this explanation very well: when we are close to an object, such as a tree, we can see the d etails of the leaves, the col or variations etc., bu t when we are far away from the same tree, all we see is a tree in the middle of a park (Liberman & Trope, 2008) ly distant an event is, the more it will be represented at & Wakslak, 2007, p. 84). In the political arena, a study conducted by Kim, Rao, and Lee (2009) investigated whether the fit between temporal distance and message orientation (i.e, abstract vs. concrete persu asiveness appeals) message. In experiment 1, the authors found that the fit between temporal distance and message orientation enhanced the persuasiveness of the message and resulted in

PAGE 18

18 more favorable eval uations of the political candidate. In subsequent studies, t he authors found that abstract appeals were more persuasive than concrete appeals when the decision was temporally distant, and that this effect was stronger for individuals with low levels of pol itical knowledge than for individuals with sophisticated political knowledge. The second framework discounting theories suggests that the value of a desirable outcome might change as a function of its temporal distance (Frederick, Loewenstein, & O'Don oghue, 2002 ) In this line of research, a great deal of evidence has suggested that individuals consider a reward more valuable when presented in the near future than when presented in the distant future, even when the distant future reward is larger (Read & Loewenstein, 2000).Therefore, as the temporal distance of an outcome increases, the value of the outcome decreases (Read, Loewenstein, & Kalyanaraman, 1999) For example, according to discounting theories, when voters think about their likelihood of voting for a candidate in the present versus in the future, the likelihood of vot ing for a candidate in the future will be smaller than the likelihood of voting for the same candidate in the present. This flip might be a consequence of, for instance, thinking that the candidate will not be as good as he seemed to be at the beginning of the campaign, or as a result of a gaffe or scandal involving the candidate. These two research frameworks have one thing in common: they predict that temporal dist ance changes choices and evaluations Similar to these theoretical frameworks, I propose that time perspective influences likelihood of voting for a political candidate differently when the election is set in the present versus in the future. Formally stat ed, the first hypothesis is:

PAGE 19

19 H 1 : L ikelihood of voting for a political candidate in the present will be different from likelihood of voting for the same candidate in the future. Proposed Framework This research presents an alternative explanation of how tim e perspective may influence vote r choices and evaluations Instead of changing how people construe information (construal level theory) or how people discount information (discounting theory), time perspective may influence the information considered in th e present versus in the future. B ecause time perspective might change how individuals think about events and people it may also influence the information that is considered when people think about these events and people. Thus, the main hypothesis regardi ng how time perspective influences choices and evaluations is that information considered in the present will be different from information considered in the future, leading to attitude change. This explanation is informed by research on attitude polarizat ion and moderation. Present Time Frame and Attitude P olarization Simply asking people to think about an object might lead them to report more extreme attitudes in the direction of their initial attitude. This phenomenon is called attitude polarization Tes ser ( 1978) explains that this polarization effect is a result of the organized knowledge structures or schemas. Thought can change the set of relevant cognitions so as to make them more consistent with the initial attitu might make some beliefs more salient and provide rules p. 297), which may result in a set of beliefs that are more consistent, and less ambivalent. Thus, thoughts that

PAGE 20

20 due to their increased salience. This process will result in more extreme attitudes, or attitude polarization. In a situation where individuals might have to evaluate an object and time perspective is involved, thinking about the object in a present frame might lead to more polarized attitudes. In fact, all demonstrations of attitude polarization have involved thoughts about the present. For example, if a voter has to predict his li kelihood of voting for a political candidate when the election is in the present time (e.g., today), it is likely that the most accessible information will be used to make that prediction. Therefore, if the voter is evaluating his chance of voting for a Re publican candidate in the present, for instance, it is likely that he will use the party affiliation cue as information for that evaluation. Thus, Hypothesis 2 predicts that: H 2 : L ikelihood of voting for a political candidate in the present w ill show a pol arization effect : attitudes will be extreme Future Time Frame and Attitude Moderation Research on a ttitude moderation suggests that the more an individual thinks about an attitude object, the less extreme his attitude toward the object is ( Wilson, Dunn, B ybee, Hyman, & Rotondo 1984; Wilson, Kraft, & Dunn 1989; Wilson & Schooler 1991 ). T his process is usually observed when individuals initially hold very positive or very negative attitudes toward an object. For example, individuals may be encouraged to e ngage in a thoughtful analysis about an attitude object. Tetlock and Boettger (1989) others) for their decisions, they tend to use every piece of information that they ha ve available. Consequently, both diagnostic and non diagnostic information are included when making an evaluation. This process will lead to more moderated attitudes toward

PAGE 21

21 the object because people are willing to use different types of information instead of the most diagnostic information (e.g., initial opinion). The authors explain that because the evaluation process becomes more complex, people become less aware of the difference between the most diagnostic information and least diagnostic information u sed during the thoughtful analysis and as a result it produces more moderated attitudes. As opposed to the polarization effect, thinking about an object in a future frame might lead to more moderated attitudes. B ecause the future might signal change, vot ers might consider alternative information (non diagnostic information ) as opposed to only considering the most accessible information ( diagnostic information ) For example, if a voter has to predict his likelihood of voting for a political candidate when the election is in the futur e time it is likely that alternative information, that is, different from that considered in the present will be used to make that prediction. Therefore, if the voter is evaluating his chance of voting for a Republican candida te in the future it is likely that he will use different information, not only the most accessible. Particularly, the information considered in the present will lose weight when making the same choice or evaluation for a future time. Thus, Hypothesis 3 pr edicts that: H 3 : L ikelihood of voting for a political candidate in the future will show a moderation effect : attitudes will be less extreme In this line of research, the literature on introspective thought advocates that individuals tend to consider less diagnostic information when they have to reevaluate an object. This research suggests that when individuals are encouraged to analyze carefully their evaluations or when individuals must give reasons for their decisions and

PAGE 22

22 evaluations, they tend to includ e different and/or additional information than if they did not have to think introspectively about their decisions and evaluations (Wilson, Kraft, & Dunn, 1989; Wilson, Lisle, & Kraft, 1990; Wilson & Schooler, 1991). This process also leads to more moderat e attitudes toward the attitude object. Thus, in the case of this research, when an event, such as an election, is happening in the present, it is likely that voters will consider what they like the most or the least (diagnostic information) in a political candidate. However, when the same event will happen in the future, it is likely that people will consider different and/or additional information (non diagnostic information) about the candidate Considering the above, I propose that when voters predict t heir likelihood of voting for a candidate in the present, they may consider one type of information. However, when they predict their likelihood of voting for a candidate in the future, informati on considered in the present lo ses weight. Thus, information considered in the present will be different from information considered in the future Formally stated, the hypothesis is : H 4 : When thinking about decisions for the future, individuals will consider information that is different from that considered for th e present, leading to attitude change. The next five chapters in this research present evidence of the influence of time perspective on vote likelihood and evidence that time perspective influences the use of different types of information in the present a nd in the future.

PAGE 23

23 CHAPTER 3 STUDY 1 Overview voting for a political candidate. In this study, participants were either asked to indicate how likely they would be to vote for candidate Barack Obama in the present (i.e., today) or in the future (i.e., one year from now). Political party was measured by asking participants to indicate which party they identified themselves the most with. I hypothesize d d of voting for a candidate in the present would be different from likelihood of voting for the same candidate in the future (Hypothesis 1) I also had a hypothesis about the direction of this change. Pe more polarized (i.e., more extreme) in the present (Hypothesis 2) and more moderated (i.e., less extreme) in the future (Hypothesis 3) Method Participants and Design Participants were 198 undergraduate students from a large southeastern university recruited to participate in the e xperiment in exchange for extra credit The design of the experiment consisted of a three ( party : Democrat, Republican, Independent ) by two (time: present vs. future) between subjects design The dependent variable was vote likelihood. Materials and Proced ure This study was conducted during the Fall of 2008, while the 2008 Presidential General Election campaign was developing. Upon arrival at the research lab, participants were given an informed consent form and seated at individual computer

PAGE 24

24 stations. P arti cipants were asked to read an immigration reform speech extracted from web site Participants were clearly notified that the speech they were reading was from Senator Barack Obama and that they should read it in its entirety in order position on immigration After reading the speech, participants were asked to fill out a questionna ire. The questionnaire included questions about their attitudes toward several immigration policy issues discussed in the speech, their evaluation of the candidate measured through a feeling thermometer ranging from 0 (cool) to 100 (warm) and their likeli hood of voting qu estions were measured using a Likert scale ranging from 1 very unlikely to 7 very likely. All materials and instructions used in this study were presented on a computer screen. Results The means for each cell are displayed in Table 3 1. A univariate analys is of variance indicates a main effect of party ( F ( 2 192 ) = 104.97 p < .001), but no main effect of time was observed ( F ( 1 192 ) = 0.57 p = .44) on vote likelihood The analysis reveals an interaction between party and time factors ( F ( 2 192 ) = 11.29 p < .001). As Figure 3 1 shows, participants who considered themselves Democrats indicated that they would be more likely to vote for Barack Obama in the present than in the future ( M P resent = 6.69, M F uture = 5.97; F ( 1 192 ) = 4.39 p < .05). Participan ts who considered themselves Republicans indicated that they would be less likely to vote for Barack

PAGE 25

25 Obama in the present than in the future ( M P resent = 1.80, M F uture = 3.15; F ( 1 192 ) = 11.09 p < .05 ). Participants who considered themselves Independents indicated that they would be more likely to vote for Barack Obama in the present than in the future ( M P resent = 5.41, M F uture = 4.29; F ( 1 192 ) = 8.47 p < .05). Discussion The results of Study 1 p ro vide evidence for Hypothesis 1. Democrats indicated th at they would be more likely to vote for Barack Obama in the present than in the future. On the other hand, Republicans indicated that they would be more likely to vote for Barack Obama in the future than in the present In the course of a political campa ign, Independents are usually the middle ground. They are the type of voters that politicians go after because they do not have strong ties with either of the two main parties in the United States. In the case of this study, Independents followed the same pattern of Democrats. In fact, national exit polls showed that 52% of those who considered themselves Independents voted for Barack Obama in the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election ( CNN 2008 ). Thus, the overall results grant support to the hypothesis that tim The results of this study also suggest that a polarization effect occurs in the present (Hypothesis 2) and a moderation effect occurs in the future (Hypothesis 3) For example, Democrats were very likely to vote for Barack Obama in the present as opposed to Republicans who were very unlikely to vote for the candidate In the future, on the other hand, Democrats and Republicans changed their likelihood of voting for Barack Obama in the opposite direction as that of th e present. In the future, Democrats were less willing to vote for Barack Obama and Republicans were more willing. When one compares the means for Democrats and Republicans in the present, it is possible

PAGE 26

26 to see that people polarized their attitudes in eithe r a positive or negative direction, respectively. However, when one compares the means for Democrats and Republicans in the future, it is possible to see that instead of having very polarized attitudes toward the candidate, a movement toward the middle occ more moderated.

PAGE 27

27 Table 3 1. Study 1: Influence of time perspective on vote likelihood by party a ffiliation using a b etween subjects design Present M (SE) Future M (SE) F value df p Democrat ( n = 7 8) 6.69 (.23) 5.97 (.25) 4.39 1 .037 Republican ( n = 57) 1.80 (.27) 3.15 (.29) 11.09 1 .001 Independent ( n = 63) 5.41 (.28) 4.29 (.26) 8.47 1 .004 N = 198 Figure 3 1. Study 1: Influence of time perspective on vote likelihood by party affiliati on using a between subjects design

PAGE 28

28 CHAPTER 4 STUDY 1A Overview Study 1A was designed to provide additional evidence to Hypothesis 1. A within subjects design was applied, as well as a modification in the time frame o f the question about voting in the future The objective of this study is to investigate how general the time perspective effect is. In this study, each participant indicated how likely they would be to vote for Barack Obama in the present and in the future. Political party was measured as a between subjects factor. Method Participants and Design Participants were 104 undergraduate students from a large southeastern university recruited to participate in the experiment in exchange for extra credit The design of the experiment consisted of a three ( party : Democrat, Republ ican, Independent ) by two (time: present and future manipulated within subjects) mixed design The dependent variable was vote likelihood. Materials and Procedure Similar to Study 1, this study was conducted during the 200 8 Presidential General E lection phase. The materials and procedure of this study were the same as those of Study 1 but including two modifications Each participant was asked to respond to the likelihood of voting for Barack Obama in the present and in th e future, characterizing the manipulation of the factor time as within subjects. In addition, instead of asking the question was changed for Barack Obama four

PAGE 29

29 Both questions were measured using a 7 point Likert scale ranging from 1 very unlikely to 7 very likely. These changes were made to investigate how general the time perspective effect is. Results The means for each c ell are displayed in Table 4 1 No main effect of time was observed ( F ( 1 101 ) = 3.27 p > .05). A 3 x 2 repeated measure s ANOVA indicates an interaction between party and time factors ( F ( 2 101 ) = 11.32 p < .001). As Figure 4 1 shows, participants who considered themselves Democrats indicated that they would be more likely to vote for Barack Obama in the present than in the future ( M P resent = 6.62, M F uture = 5.78; F ( 1 101 ) = 17.59 p < .001). Participants who considered themselves Republicans showed a reversal. These participants indicated that they would be less likely to vote for Barack Obama in the present than in the future ( M P resent = 1.91, M F uture = 2.54; F ( 1 101 ) = 9.68 p < .05). Participants who considered themselves Independents indicated t hat they would be more likely to vote for Barack Obama in the present than in the future ( M P resent = 4.86, M F uture = 4.43; F ( 1 101 ) = 3.81 p = .054). Discussion The results of Study 1A replicate the results of Study 1 and provide further evidence for Hy pothesis 1 L ikelihood of voting for a candidate changes as a function of time perspective The pattern of results obtained for Democrats, Republicans, and Independents shows that even using a within subjects design and changing the temporal distance to fo ur years, the results were exactly the same as those of Study 1. These results lend further support to the hypothesis that time perspective produces attitude change.

PAGE 30

30 Similar to the results of Study 1, the results of Study 1A also showed a polarization effe ct in the present (Hypothesis 2) and a moderation effect in the future (Hypothesis 3) Democrats and Republicans likelihood of voting for Barack Obama was polarized in the present, but moderated in the future. The results of Study 1 and 1A point to the fo llowing speculation about how time pe rspective might influence vote likelihood: when people think about events that happen in the present, they may consider one type of information about that event. However, it seems that when people think about events tha t will happen in the future, the information considered in the present loses weight and different information is considered. Thus, as in the case of Study 1 and 1A it is likely that when Democrats were asked to predict their likelihood of voting for the c andidate in the present time, they may have considered one type of information (e.g., the candidate who I read the speech from is Barack Obama, a Democrat) which polarized their opinions. When they were asked to predict their likelihood of voting for the c andidate in the future, different and/or issue seems to be a little incoherent) which moderated their opinions The opposite, therefore, could be applied to Republicans. When asked to predict their vote likelihood in the present time, they may have considered information such as; the candidate who I read the speech from is not a Republican, causing polarization. W hen they were asked to predict their vote likelihood in the future time, other type of information may have been considered (e.g., the position of the candidate on the issue may not seem so flawed) causing moderation Although Study 1 and 1A do not show that people are

PAGE 31

31 using different types of information when pre dicting likelihood of voting in the present versus in the future, I intend to investigate this explanation in subsequent experiments.

PAGE 32

32 Tabl e 4 1. Study 1A: Influence of time perspective on vote likelihood by party a ffiliation using a w i thin subjects design Present M (SE) Future M (SE) F value df p Democrat ( n = 37 ) 6.62 (.22) 5.78 (.24) 17.59 1 .000 Republican ( n = 37) 1.91 (.22) 2.54 (.24) 9.68 1 .002 Independent ( n = 30) 4.86 (.25) 4.43 (.26) 3.81 1 .054 N = 104 Figure 4 1. Study 1A: Influence of time perspective on vote likelihood by party affiliation using a within subjects design

PAGE 33

33 CHAPTER 5 STUDY 2 Overview Studies 1 and 1A showed that asking participants their likelihood of voting for a political candidate in the present and in the future produced attitude change. However, one may argue that this attitude change and the polarization and moderation effects obtained in the previous two studies might have been caused by knowledge of the author of the spe ech. Since participants in Study 1 and 1A knew that the speech was from candidate Barack Obama, this initial cue might have guided how Democrats, Republicans, and Independents answered the question in the present. However, this explanation can be partially ruled out because when participants read the same speech from Barack Obama and answered the question in the future, their likelihood of voting for the candidate changed significantly. More interestingly, these results were found using a between and a wit hin subjects design. Study 2 was developed to rule out any alternative explanation related to party or candidate bias Instead of disclosing the identity of the author of the speech, this information was omitted from participants. Participants were asked to read a speech about immigration and to indicate how likely they would be to vote for that candidate in the present or in the future. Participants were also asked to indicate how favorable or unfavorable they were towards an issue disc ussed in the speech. This measure was then used as an independent variable. I predicted that likelihood of voting for a candidate in the present would be different from likelihood of voting for the same candidate in the future (Hypothesis 1) In the presen t, participants should have more extreme attitudes (Hypothesis 2) toward the candidate. In the future, participants should

PAGE 34

34 show a reversal, that is, their attitudes should be less extreme (Hypothesis 3). Thus, participants in the favorable condition will b e more likely to vote for the candidate in the present than in the future. Participants in the unfavorable condition will be more likely to vote for the candidate in future than in the present. Method Participants and Design Participants were 231 undergra duate students from a large southeastern university recruited to participate in the experiment in exchange for extra credit The design of the experiment consisted of a two ( issue position : favorable vs. unfavorable ) by two (time: present vs. future) betwe en subjects design The dependent variable was vote likelihood. Materials and Procedure Upon arrival at the research lab, participants were given an informed consent form and seated at individual computer stations. Participants were asked to read an immigr ation reform speech extracted from The identity of the author of the speech was omitted Similar to the procedure of Stud y 1 and 1A, the speech task was included in the experiment to familiarize participants with C andidate stand on immigration policies. After reading the speech, participants were asked to fill out a questionnaire which included questions about their attitudes toward several immigration policy issues, their evaluation of the candidate measured with a feel ing thermometer ranging from 0 (cool) to 100 (warm) degrees an d their likelihood of voting for C ikely would you be to vote for C andidate X u be to vo te for C andidate X if the election were held one year from now?). Both questions were

PAGE 35

35 measured using a Likert scale ranging from 1 very unlikely to 7 very likely. The factor split of one of the issues that parti cipants gave their opinion about. The question asked participants to indicate, in a scale that ranged from 1 unfavorable to 7 This specific issue was All materials and instructions used in this study were presented on a computer screen. After the completion of the questionn aire, participants were thanked debrie fed, and dismissed. None of the participants suspected that the speech was from candidate Barack Obama. Results The means for each cell are displayed in Table 5 1 No main effects of time ( F ( 1 227 ) = 0.10 p = .75) or issue position ( F ( 1 227 ) = 1.72 p = .19) were observed. A univariate analysis of variance indicates an interaction between issue position and time factors ( F ( 1 227 ) = 20.89 p < .001). As Figure 5 1 shows, participants who considered the mselves favorable to the issue, and consequently i position, indicated that they would be more lik ely to vote for C andidate X in the present than in the future ( M P resent = 5.01, M F uture = 4.18; F ( 1 227 ) = 13.26 p < .001). Participants who considered themselves unfa vorabl e to the issue, and consequently in indicated that they wo uld be more likely to vote for C andidate X in the future than in the present ( M P resent = 4.01, M F uture = 4.73; F ( 1 227 ) = 8.22 p = .005). Pairwise com parisons within the future condition showed that those who were unfavorable to the issue were more likely to vote for Candidate X than those who were

PAGE 36

36 favorable to the issue ( M (F avorable) Future = 4.18 M (U nfavorable) F uture = 4.73; F ( 1 227 ) = 4.23 p < .05 ). Considering that the position of Candidate X was to provide illegal immigrants with a path to citizenship, those who were unfavorable to this issue completely changed their opinion when asked about their likelihood of voting for the candidate in the fut ure Additional analysis was run to investigate how those who were very unfavorable and very favorable to the issue would vote for the candidate in the present and in the future. I n this analysis, only participants who had more extreme positions, either f avorable or unfavorable, were included in the analysis. Thus, participants who adopted a more neutral position (or were close the overall mean M Overall = 4.38) were excluded from the analysis. The results of this analysis reveal a main effect of issue position ( F ( 1 190 ) = 4.12 p < .05) but no main effect of time ( F ( 1 190 ) = 0.16 p > .60) on likelihood of voting. A univariate analysis of variance reveals an interaction between the time and issue position factors ( F ( 1 190 ) = 15.32 p < .001) As F igure 5 2 shows, participants who considered themselves favorable to the issue indicated that they would be more likely to vote for Candidate X in the present than in the future ( M P resent = 5.01, M F uture = 4.18; F ( 1 190 ) = 13.95 p < .001). Participants who considered themselves unfavorable to the issue indicated that they would be more likely to vote for Candidate X in the future than in the present ( M P resent = 3.87, M F uture = 4.54; F ( 1 190 ) = 4.62 p = .03). Discussion The results of Study 2 provide further support for Hypothesis 1, which states that likelihood of voting for a candidate in the present would be different from likelihood of voting for the same candidate in the future. Participants who were favorable to the issue (and consequently, they

PAGE 37

37 likely to vote for him in the present than in the future. Participants who were unfavorable to the issue ( and consequently ) were surprisingly more likely to vote for the candidate in the future than in the present. Furthermore, when comparisons were made within the future condition (favorable vs. unfavorable), people who were unfavorable to the issue were actually more likely to vote for the candidat e than people who were favorable to the issue. This is a very interesting result because, hypothetically, it could change the result or the direction of an election. When participants who adopted a more neutral position toward the issue were excluded from the analysis, a similar pattern of results to those with the overall sample was observed. This result corroborates to the idea that time perspective changes The results of Study 2 are interesting be cause they show a complete reversal of opinion as a function of time perspective. The results of this study also show a polarization effect in the present (Hypothesis 2) and a moderation effect in the future (Hypothesis 3). In the present, participants li kelihood of voting for the candidate was more extreme i n either a positive (favorable group ) or negative (unfavorable group ) direction. Howev clearly more moderated for both groups (favorable and unfavorable). Similar to Studies 1 and 1A, Study 2 suggests that when people think about their preferences for the present, one type of information might be elicited. However, when people think about their preferences for the future, it seem s that informa tion elicited in

PAGE 38

38 the present lo ses weight, and different and/or additional information is considered in the future. Subsequent studies were designed to test this hypothesis.

PAGE 39

39 Table 5 1. Study 2 : Influence of time perspect ive on vote l ikelihood by issue p osition Present M (SE) Future M (SE) F value df p Favorable to issue ( n = 125) 5.01 (.14) 4.18 (.17) 13.26 1 .000 Unfavorable to issue ( n = 106) 4.01 (.15) 4.73 (.20) 8.22 1 .005 N = 231 Figure 5 1. Study 2: Influence of time perspective on vote likelihood by issue position and omitting the Figure 5 2. Study 2: Influence of time perspective on vote likelihood by issue position

PAGE 40

40 CHAPTER 6 S TUDY 3 Overview The previous studies have shown that time perspective changes likelihood of voting for a candidate candidate in the present was different from likelihood of voting for the same c andidate in the future. Furthermore, likelihood of voting for the candidate was polarized in the present and moderated in the future. The purpose of Study 3 is to investigate how this process occurs. I propose that time perspective influence s the informati on that people use to evaluate a candidate in the present and in the future. More specifically, I propose that information considered in the present will be different from information considered in the future when a voter makes a voting decision. R elevant to the political communication literature, I specify what type of information (image versus issue information ) people consider more important when making political decisions for the present and the future. Traditional voting behavior models ( Campbell, Con verse, Miller, & Stokes, 1964 ) explain that policy issues and candidate image are two powerful influences on voting decisions in addition to party affiliation and group influences. Campbell et al (1964) posit that issues and candidate image are short term influences on voting decisions as opposed to party affiliation and groups which are long term influence s Issues and candidate image are believed to be short term influences because they are elements that develop as the campaign goes on and are specific t o a particular election cycle The issues that are important and salient in one election might not be as important and salient in a different election. Candidate image is easier to classify as short term

PAGE 41

41 influence because the variability in candidates pers onality between and within elections is high. Thus, one may argue that because issues and image information are short term influences on voting decisions, they would be more important when a voter evaluates a candidate in the present than in the future. Ho wever, do people consider image information more important than issue information or vice versa when they make voting decisions? In addition, do people consider more image information in the present and more issue information in the future or vice versa wh en they make their voting decisions? In addition to testing H ypothesis 4 Study 3 posits the following research question s : RQ 1 : What type of information do participants consider more important when making voting decisions? RQ 2 : What type of information do participants consider when evaluating a candidate in the present versus in the future? In order to answer RQ1, a pretest asked participants to indicate what type of information they consider more important when making voting decisions. Hypothesis 4 and RQ2 were tested in the main experiment. In the main experiment, time perspective was manipulated by asking participants to indicate how likely they would be to vote for a candidate if the election were today versus one year from now. Method Pretest The purpo se of this pretest was to identify what type of information participants consider most important when trying to decide how to vote in an election (RQ1) One hundred and twenty nine p articipants were asked to write down what type of information they conside r most important when deciding whom to vote for. It is important to note

PAGE 42

42 that participants were instructed to write whatever information they thought was important to make their decision. Thus, no specific instructions about listing issue or image informat ion were given to participants. Responses to this question were open ended and the following coding scheme was implemented: (1) any mentions of or platform or specific mention of an candidate background, trait characteristics, personality, pr ivate life were coded as any of the two previous categories were c As Table 6 1 shows, participants consider re important than when they make voting decisions. Fifty four percent of the participants said that issues are more important as opposed t o 24% who said that image traits are more important when they make a vote decision Twenty two percent of participants indicated other type of information as important in the decision making process Main Experiment Participants and d esign Participants wer e 162 undergraduate students from a large southeastern university recruited to participate in the experiment in exchange for extra credit The design of the experiment consisted of a two ( time : present vs. future, manipulated between subjects ) by two (info rmation type: image and issue, manipulated within subjects) mixed design

PAGE 43

43 Materials and p rocedure Participants received an email message containing the invitation to participate in the study. Participants could click on a web link that randomly assigned t hem to one of the two time frame conditions. After being presented with an informed consent form, cycles, scholars and political strategists have become very intereste d in understanding how young people make their political decisions. In an attempt to contribute to this growing body of knowledge, we would like to ask you a few questions about how you make decisions when choosing whom to vote for in an election. Several studies have been done to understand how people make decisions when choosing whom to vote for in an election. An important part in this process is to understand how people evaluate candidates. A survey conducted by a notorious 1 research institute asked par ticipants to rate political candidates on several personality traits and on several political issues. Participants interviewed in this survey were asked to rate two candidates on four personality traits and on four political issues on a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 was very low and 10 was very high. The results of the survey revealed the following scores for the candidates : After reading the cover story, all participants were shown a table ( see Figure A 1 ) where information about Candidate A and Candidate B was displayed. Two types of information were presented for both candidates: image information and issue information along with a score for both types of information and a general score These 1 The author of this research meant to write famous research institute The word appeared in the stimuli showed to parti cipants but none of them mentioned the word in debriefing questions.

PAGE 44

44 scores were supposed to be the scores that participants from th e cover story gave candidates. After seeing the table, participants in the present condition were asked: Now that you have learned information about Candidate A and Candidate B, imagine that these two candidates are running for a political office. If the election were being were Now that you have learned information about Candidate A and Candidate B, imagine that these two candidates are running for a political of fice. If the election choice question, all participants were asked to indicate, on a scale from 1 to 7, which information contributed the most to their vote choice ( 1 im age information vs. 7 issue information). Finally, demographic questions such as gender, party affil iation, and age were collected. Results Vote likelihood. A chi square test revealed a significant difference between conditions ( 2 (1) = 4.46, p < .05). A s Figure 6 2 shows, i n the present condition, participants were significantly more likely to vote for Candidate B (59%) than for Candidate A (41%) ( z = 3.65, p < .001) In the future condition, the results s howed a complete reversal: participants were sign ificantly less like ly to vote for Candidate B (42%) than for Candidate A (58 %) ( z = 2.55, p < 001) Information use. A univariate analysis of variance was conducted to test what type of information contributed the most to participants vote choice. No ma in effect of time was observed ( F ( 1 160 ) = 0.29 p > 50 ). Participants in the present condition indicated that they used more issue information ( M P resent = 4.50 ) as opposed to participants in the future condition, who used more image information ( M F utur e = 4.33 )

PAGE 45

45 but this difference was not significant. These results failed to show that people use different types of information in the present and in the future and suggest further investigation. Discussion The results of S tudy 3 show that, in the present participants were more likely to vote for the candidate who received a higher score on issue positions, suggesting that their vote choice was based on issues. When asked about t heir likelihood of voting for a candidate in the future, participants were mo re likely to vote for the candidate who received the higher score on image traits, suggesting that their vote choice was based on image traits. Although the means for the information use were not significant, they point to the predicted direction. When peo ple predict their likelihood of voting for a candidate in the present, they use one type of information in this case, they used more issue information. When people predict their likelihood of voting for a candidate in the future, they use different infor mation in this case, they use d more image information. Overall the results of this study suggest that time perspective significantly change was caused by differe nt types of information that participants used to evaluate the candidate. However, the information use results should be taken with caution. Further investigation should be conducted to test whether people were using different types of information when eva luating the candidate i n the present and in the future.

PAGE 46

46 Table 6 1. Pretest Study 3 : What type of information do you consider important when choosing whom to vote for in an election ? Issue Image Other Frequency 86 38 36 Percentage 53.7% 23.7% 22.5% N = 129 Figure 6 2. Study 3: Influence of time perspective on vote likelihood by candidate

PAGE 47

47 CHAPTER 7 STUDY 4 Overview Studies 1, 1A, and 2 have shown that time perspective influences people likelihood of voting for a political candidate In these three studies, participants changed their likelihood of voting for the same candidate depending on the time frame of the election. Study 3 corroborated to these results and provided implicit evidence that people use on e type of information in th e present (issue information) and a different type of information (image information) in the future. The purpose of Study 4 is to provide further evidence of how people use information when evaluating a candidate in the present and in the future. S imilar to Study 3, I propose that time perspective influence s the information that people use to evaluate candidates in the present and in the future. More specifically, I propose that information considered in the present will be different from information consi dered in the future (Hypothesis 4) Time perspective was manipulated between subjects by asking participants to indicate which candidate they would vote for if the election were in the present or in the future. In addition, a type of reasoning factor was a dded to the design of this study. This factor was manipulated between subjects by asking some participants (reasons condition) to indicate how much of several pieces of information influenced their opinion s about the candidates Others did not perform this task (no reasons condition) The reason why this factor was included in the study was to s influences likelihood of voting for a candidate when the election is set in the present or in the future Attitude m oderation research suggests that asking people to think about or give reasons why they think the

PAGE 48

48 way they do changes their opinions about an attitude object. I n the no reasons condition, time perspective should litical candidate and this attitude change should be influenced by the different types of information used to evaluate a candidate in the present and in the fu ture. In the reasons condition, time perspective should for a candidate. However, as attitude moderation research posits, thinking about your own opinion should produce attitude change. Thus, vote likelihood for the candidate should be different than that observ ed in the no reasons condition. In particular, li kelihood of voting for the candidate should present the opposite results of those in the no reasons condition. Information use, in turn, should follow the same pattern. Considering this, m y hypothese s are as follow: H5: ill influence likelihood of voting for a candidate in a direction that is different from H6: nformation used to evaluate a candidate differently that not thinking abou Method Participants and Design Participants were 182 undergraduate students from a large southeastern university recruited to participate in the experiment in exchange for extra credit The design of the experiment consisted of a two ( type of reasoning : no reasons vs. reasons ) by two (time: present vs. future) between subjects design Materials and Procedure Participants were asked to come to a research lab where they were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions All informati on presented to participants was on

PAGE 49

49 a computer sc reen After being seated at individual computers, all participants were asked to read an introductory text. The introductory text contained general information about how to generate energy efficiently, and i t support ed the adoption of two types of energy generation: nuclear power and wind power ( see Appendix A ) After reading the introductory text, participants were shown a first table (see Figure A 2) containing on s everal policy issues Candidates A and B were in agreement in three out of four issues. The only issue that the candidates were in disagreement was the position on the adoption of nuclear power. Candidate A did not support the adoption of nuclear power and Candidate B did support the adoption of nuclear power. After being exposed for 20 seconds to this table, participants could proceed by clicking on the continue button on the computer screen. Participants assigned to the reasons condition were asked to thi nk about how much of several pieces of information influenced their opinions about the candidates. The pieces of information were position on health care, position on immigration, p osition on generation of nuclear power, and p osition on the war in Iraq. Pa rticipants indicate d how much of that information influenced their opinions about the candidates on a scale from 1 influenced a lot to 7 did not influenced at all. Participants in the no reasons condition were not asked to perform this task. Next, all par ticipants were shown a second table ( see Figure A 3 ) containing the same information as that of the first table, but with the addition of a new position on a different issue: wind power. This time, Candidate A agreed with the adoption of wind power generat ion and Candidate B did not agree with the adoption of wind power generation. After being exposed for 20 seconds to this second table, participants could proceed by clicking on the continue button on the

PAGE 50

50 computer screen. Next, participants assigned to the present condition were asked to indicate which candidate they would vote for if the election were held today. Participants in the future condition were asked to indicate which candidate they would vote for if the election were held a year from now. Both qu estions were measured using a 7 point Likert scale ranging from 1 very unlikely to 7 very likely. After that, participants were asked to indicate how much of several pieces of information they used in order to make the vote decision. Demographic questions such as age, gender, and political affiliation were also included in the questionnaire (for a complete overview of the ex perimental procedure order, see Figure 7 1 ). Results Vote likelihood. The overall percentages for each candidate are displayed in Table 7 1. As Figure 7 2 shows participants in the present/no reasons condition were more likely to vote for C andidate B (62.5%) than for Candidate A (37.5%) 2 (1) = 19.74, p < .001) On the other hand, participant s in the future/no reasons condition were less likely to vote for C andidate B (18.2%) than for Candidate A (81.8%). Conversely, participants in the present/ reasons condition were less likely to vot e for C andidate B (25.4%) than for Candidate A (74.6%) 2 (1) = 9.09, p = .003) Participants in the future/reasons condition were more likely to vote for C andidate B (60.9%) than for Candidate A (39.1%). These results support Hypothese s 5 and 6. Informat ion use. A univariate analysis of variance indicates an interaction between type of reasoning and time factors ( F (2, 178) = 21.24, p < .001). No main effects of type of reasoning ( F ( 1 178) = 0.0 8 p > .05 ) and time ( F ( 1 178) = 2.28 p > .10 ) were obse rved. As Figure 7 3 shows, participants in the no reasons condition used the position on nuclear power generation much more in the present than in the future

PAGE 51

51 ( M P resent = 4.83, M F uture = 3.02; F ( 1 178 ) = 23.31 p < .001). On the other hand, participants i n the reasons condition used the position on nuclear power generation much more in the future than in the present ( M P resent = 3.55, M F uture = 4.47; F ( 1 178 ) = 4.00 p < .05). These results support Hypothesis 4. Discussion The results of Study 4 reveal th ree interesting results. First, participants change d their vote choice as a function of time perspective Corroborating the results of the previous four studies, p articipants changed their vote choice when asked about their likelihood of voting for a candi date i n the present and in the future. Second, Study 4 provided explicit evidence that participants use d different types of information when evaluating candidates in the present and in the future Participants in the present condition used one type of info rmation. However, participants in the future condition considered different information than that used in the present Third, type of reasoning moderates vote likelihood and information use. W hen people think about their opinions a complete reversal of th eir choices and information use is observed, as opposed to those who do not think about their choices.

PAGE 52

52 Tab le 7 1. Study 4: Influence of time perspective on vote likelihood by candidate and type of reasoning Candidate A Candidate B Present Future Present Future 2 df p No reasons ( n = 100) 37.5 % 81.8 % 62.5 % 18.2 % 19.74 1 .001 Reasons ( n = 82) 74.6 % 39.1 % 25.4 % 60.9 % 9.09 1 .003 N = 182 Figure 7 1 Study 4: Experimental procedure order. Introductory Text First Table Four Issues Second Table Five Issues Information Use Vote Choice Reasons Manipulation Time Perspective Manipulation Present Future No r easons M anipulation

PAGE 53

53 A B Figure 7 2 Study 4: Influence of time perspective on vote likelihood by candidate and type of reasoning condition A) No r easons condition. B) Reasons condition.

PAGE 54

54 Figure 7 3 Study 4: Influence of t ime perspective on information u se (p osit ion on wind power generation versus nuclear po wer generation) by type of reasoning

PAGE 55

55 CHAPTER 8 GENERAL DISCUSSION of voting for a political candidate. Evidence from five experiments show s that peop le chang e their vote when the election has a different time frame. When asked about the present, people sh owed a polarization effect. W hen asked about the future, people name also resulted in a change of opinion between the present and the future. In fact, participants who were favorable to the issue in the present were less likely to vote for the candidate in the future, and a reversal of attitudes was seen among participants who were unfavorable to the issue (Study 2). My hypothesis for this change of attitude is based on the information that people use when making evaluations for the present and the future. The information that people use in the present will be different from information used in the future. Results from Study 3 implicitly suggest that when people chose between two candidates for an election in the present, people used more issue information. When people chose between two candidates for an election in the futur e, people used more image information. This result confirms the hypothesis that people use different types of information when evaluating a political candidate in the present and in the future. Results of Study 4 corroborate these findings. When asked how likely they would be to vote for one of two candidates in the present, participants in a no reasons condition used one type of information (nuclear power) in the present while participants in the future condition dismissed that information and used differ ent information (wind power) However, when participants were asked to think about their opinions about the can didates (reasons condition), participants in the present and future

PAGE 56

56 conditions showed a complete reversal of vote choice and information use than participants in the no reasons conditions. Clearly, the results of these five experiments and that this change is moderated by the information that people use when mak ing their vote choice. Theoretical Implications The findings in this research corroborate to the temporal distance literature. In five of the time frame that the ele ction would take place. The finding that people change their choices and evaluations because of temporal distance is a robust finding in the literature ( Trope & Libermann, 2003 ; Frederick, Loewenstein, & O'Donoghue, 2002 ). Additionally, the findings in th is research provide an alternative explanation of how time perspective affects evaluations aspect s of the temporal distance frameworks presented in this research. Construal level theory posits that peopl evaluations change as a function of temporal distance because of the way people mentally represent information On one hand, w hen thinking about an event in the near future individuals will tend to focus on concrete aspects of that event. On the other hand, when thinking about an event in the distant future, individuals will tend to focus on abstract aspects of the event. Discounting theory posits that as temporal distance to a desirable outcome increases, the perceived value of the outcome decreases thus, causing differences on h ow much the outcome is desired in the present and in the future, for instance The explanation presented in this research adds to the temporal distance framework s in at least two ways. First, I show that time pers pective can polarize

PAGE 57

57 candidate. Second a candidate is moderated by the information that the y use when evaluating the candidate in the present or in the future. None of the extant theoretical frameworks on temporal distance suggest that information use might moderate how people predict their choices and evaluations in the present and in the futur e. An attempt to put forward a theory of information use was one of the main goals of this research. Practical Implications candidate? As stated in the introduction of this res earch, time seems to be an important element during a political campaign. In a certain way, time dictates when and how announcements will be given, when fund raising should start, or when a political advertisement should be aired The results of this resea rch have demonstrated that time is indeed an important element during a political campaign. I t seems that the timing for communicating ideas during a political campaign might also influence how people evaluate and ultimately decide on a candidate. Candida tes should be aware that voters use different types of information when evaluating whom to vote for in the present and in the future. Thus, knowing which type of information should be released closer or father away from election day can greatly benefit cam paign strategies. As Study 3 implicitly suggested, it seems that people use more issue information when evaluating a candidate in the present and more image information when evaluation a candidate in the future. Perhaps a good strategy for political candid ates would be to focus on issues on early stages of the campaign, and as the election day approaches, more emphasis could be given to image information.

PAGE 58

58 Candidates should also take into consideration when and to who m their messages are directed Republican s might not be as enthusiastic about voting for a Democrat ic candidate (or vice versa) in the present, but as time goes by, more information may be available for them to make a more complete evaluation, which might lead them to change their a ttitudes. Lim itations and Future Research This research has some limitations. First, an undergraduate student population was used throughout the five studies in this research. One may argue that an undergrad uate population might not represe nt the average American voter and that the findings may not be generalized to the population Second, the future question was always remotely distant one year or four years. Perhaps asking a month or months away would be perceived as more realistic to subjects. Third participants r eceived a limited amount of information about the candidates when t hey had to make their vote choice. Perhaps providing participants with more informati on about the candidates such as voting record, personal life, and issue platform would have diminished t he artificial stimuli information. Fourth Study 1, 1A, and 2 did not measure whether the political message (i.e., political speech) might have influenced the results. Specific questions about message factors should be included in future investigations. Fi nally Study 3 failed to show that participants were using different types of information to evaluate the candidate in the present and in the future. This lack of results might have been due to the nature of the question A single item bipolar measure aske d participants to indicate how much of issue or image information they used to evaluate the candidate. This single item might not have captured how much of each type of information participants use d to evaluate the candidate, thus, weakening

PAGE 59

59 the potential to reveal what participants used to make their decision. A multi item measure or a thought list would have been more appropriate in this context. Also, directly asking participants to choose between image or issue information might have introduced a social say that issue information is more important to evaluate candidates than image information is although research has found evidence that image traits are an important element when evaluat ing a political candidate (Kiousis, Bantimaroudis, & Ban, 1999) To remedy this problem, a subtle wording of issue (e.g., candidate position on health care, position on immigration) and image (e.g., candidate is honest, candidate is attractive) information might be more appropriate to ease the social desirability concern. For future research, a systematic investigation of how different types of information evaluations in the present and in the future would be interestin g Examples of that could include how negative versus positive information, or how ambiguous versus unambiguous information affect vote likelihood. Another interesting avenue of research would be to conduct a panel study with a sample of eligible voters. A ccompanying voters since the beginning of a political campaign until the day they cast their votes would give us more insightful information about how time affects their evaluations and how information is used in the present and in the future. The inclusio n of present and future questions in surveys conducted by the National political decisions. More interesting, it would provide us with comparisons across time and across ele ction cycles for several political offices. Another interesting avenue of

PAGE 60

60 research would be to analyze how time is explicitly or implicitly used in messages by political candidates and how they affect peopl It would also be i nteresting to investigate how involvement plays a role when people make decisions for the present and for the future. In this line of thought, involvement could be investigated at the level of the decision (i.e., how involved I am with my decision in the p resent vs. in the future) or at the level of the issue being discussed by the candidate (i.e., how important/personally relevant the issue is to me). Research on involvement has shown that the level of involvement mig ht change how people evaluate an advert isement (Krugman 1967 2000 ), how people evaluate products and make decisions (Dholakia, 2001) or how people process information about an object ( Andrews & Shimp, 2006; Celsi & Olsen, 1988; Petty & C aci op p o ,1979, 1984; Petty, Cacioppo & Schumann, 1983; Za ichkowsk,1985 ) In addition, and more specific to the political arena, early research on involvement and political advertising showed that individuals with low levels of involvement with a campaign are the most likely to be influenced by political adverti sing ( Rothschild & Ray, 1974 ). The level of involvement might also dictate the amount of cognitive effort that an individual is able and motivated to pursue. For instance, the Elaboration Likelihood Model ( Petty & Wegener, 1999 ) posits that individuals proc ess information either centrally or peripherally depending on the level of involvement with a given political message. When individuals are processing under low involvement, the peripheral route is likely to take place. When individuals are processing unde r high involvement, the central route is likely to take place. Bringing this model into the context of this research, it is likely that when voters think about voting for a candidate in the present, they might use the peripheral route, focusing more on

PAGE 61

61 per ipheral cues, heuristics and simple messages about the candidates. On the other hand, when voters think about voting for a candidate in the future, they might use the central route, focusing on learning as much information as they can, on evaluating all av ailable information more carefully (Newman & Perloff, 2004) Thus, investigating involvement toward a present or future decision could provide interesting insights on how people choose their politi cal candidates. Likew ise, investigating how commitment (Ahl uwalia, Burnkrant, & Unnava, 2000; Eagly & Chaiken,1995; Krosnick, Boninger, Chuang, Berent, & Carot, 1993; Petty & Krosnick,1995) attitudes toward a political candidate when the election is set i n the present or in the future would provide interesting insights on how attitude strength (i.e. commitment) might affect present and future choices. Similar outcomes might be expected from consideration of an individual l sense o It might be the case that when individuals think about their decisions for the future, a higher level of uncertainty aris es. However, as compared to decisions for the present, decisions for the future offer the possibility of more acquisition of information, which might ease uncertainty. Therefore, it seems that the amount (and perhaps the quality) of information might moder level of certainty when making decisions for the present or for the future.

PAGE 62

62 APPENDIX A STIMULUS MATERIALS M aterial used in Study 1, 1A, and 2 I come to you today to enter the debate on comprehensive immigration reform. It is a debate that will touch on the basic questions of morality, the law, and what it means to be an American. I know that this debate evokes strong passions on all sides. The recent peaceful but passionate protests that we saw all across the country -500,000 in Los Angeles and 100,000 in Chicago -are a testament to this fact, as are the concerns of millions of Americans about the security of our borders. When Congress last addressed this issue comprehensively in 1986, there were approximately 4 million illegal immigrants living in the United States. That number had grown substantially when Congress again addressed the issue in 1996. Today, it is estimated that there are more than 11 million undocumented aliens living in our country. The American people are a welcoming and genero us people. But those who enter our country illegally, and those who employ them, disrespect the rule of law. And because we live in an age where terrorists are challenging our borders, we simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected undocumented, and unchecked. Americans are right to demand better border security and better enforcement of the immigration laws. To begin with, the agencies charged with border security would receive new technology, new facilities, and more people to st op, process, and deport illegal immigrants. But while security might start at our borders, it doesn't end there. Millions of undocumented immigrants live and work here without our knowing their identity or their

PAGE 63

63 background. We need to strike a workable bar gain with them. They have to acknowledge that breaking our immigration laws was wrong. They must pay a penalty, and abide by all of our laws going forward. They must earn the right to stay over a 6 year period, and then they must wait another 5 years as le gal permanent residents before they become citizens. But in exchange for accepting those penalties, we must allow undocumented immigrants to come out of the shadows and step on a path toward full participation in our society. In fact, I will not support an y bill that does not provide this earned path to citizenship for the undocumented population -not just for humanitarian reasons; not just because these people, having broken the law, did so for the best of motives, to try and provide a better life for thei r children and their grandchildren; but also because this is the only practical way we can get a handle on the population that is within our borders right now. To keep from having to go through this difficult process again in the future, we must also repla ce the flow of undocumented immigrants coming to work here with a new flow of guestworkers. Illegal immigration is bad for illegal immigrants and bad for the workers against whom they compete. Replacing the flood of illegals with a regulated stream of lega l immigrants who enter the United States after background checks and who are provided labor rights would enhance our security, raise wages, and improve working conditions for all Americans. But I fully appreciate that we cannot create a new guestworker pro gram without making it as close to impossible as we can for illegal workers to find employment. We

PAGE 64

64 do not need new guestworkers plus future undocumented immigrants. We need guestworkers instead of undocumented immigrants. Toward that end, American employer s need to take responsibility. Too often illegal immigrants are lured here with a promise of a job, only to receive unconscionably low wages. In the interest of cheap labor, unscrupulous employers look the other way when employees provide fraudulent U.S. c itizenship documents. Some actually call and place orders for undocumented workers because they don't want to pay minimum wages to American workers in surrounding communities. These acts hurt both American workers and immigrants whose sole aim is to work h ard and get ahead. That is why we need a simple, foolproof, and mandatory mechanism for all employers to check the legal status of new hires. It behooves us to remember that not every single immigrant who came into the United States through Ellis Island h ad proper documentation. Not every one of our grandparents or great grandparents would have necessarily qualified for legal immigration. But they came here in search of a dream, in search of hope. Americans understand that, and they are willing to give an opportunity to those who are already here, as long as we get serious about making sure that our borders actually mean something. Today's immigrants seek to follow in the same tradition of immigration that has built this country. We do ourselves and them a disservice if we do not recognize the contributions of these individuals. And we fail to protect our Nation if we do not regain control over our immigration system immediately. Material used in Study 3

PAGE 65

65 Candidate A Candidate B Survey ratings of traits such as competence, integrity, reliability, and charisma Average Score on traits = 8 Survey ratings of traits such as competence, integrity, reliability, and charisma Average Score on traits = 6 issues such as immigra tion, health care, Iraq war, and energy Average Score on issues = 6 issues such as immigration, health care, Iraq war, and energy Average Score on issues = 8 Total average score = 7 Total average score = 7 Figu re A 1. Stimulus material used in Study 3. M aterial s used in Study 4 o Introductory text: Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are often called greenhouse gases. Scientists have been paying close attention to specific types of gases that are created and e mitted solely through human activities. One of the principal greenhouse gases that enter the atmosphere because of human activities is carbon dioxide (CO2). Carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coa l), solid waste, trees and wood products, and also as a result of other chemical reactions (e.g., manufacture of cement). The demand for fossil fuels such as gasoline and coal is expected to increase greatly with the predicted growth of the U.S. and global economies. Therefore, scientists recommend the generation of nuclear power to reduce global warming since it emits very low levels of carbon dioxide. In addition, in order to avoid air pollution, scientists recommend that electricity be generated by wind power since the use of wind turbines does not generate pollution or radioactive waste like most

PAGE 66

66 other forms of electricity generation do. In summary, scientists recommend that states support the adoption of both nuclear power and wind power in an effort to control pollutants in the environment. (Source: Conservation International Agency, December 2008). Candidate A Candidate B Supports a plan that will provide affordable health care to all Americans Supports a plan that will provide affordable health care to all Americans Supports providing illegal immigrants with a path to citizenship Supports providing illegal immigrants with a path to citizenship Supports the adoption of a timetable to withdraw all troops from Iraq Supports the adoption of a timetable to withdraw all troops from Iraq Does not support the adoption of nuclear power Supports the adoption of nuclear power Figure A 2. First table pres ented to participants in Study 4 Candidate A Candidate B Supports a plan that will provide affordable health care to all Americans Supports a plan that will provide affordable health care to all Americans Supports providing illegal immigrants with a path to citizenship Supports providing illegal immigrants with a path to citizenship Supports the adoption of a timetable to withdraw all troops from Iraq Supports the adoption of a timetable to withdraw all troops from Iraq Does not support the adoption of nuclear power Supports the adoption of nuclear power Supports the adoption of wind power generation Do es not support the adoption of wind power generation Figure A 3. Second table presented to participants in Study 4

PAGE 67

67 APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRES Study 1 1. How likely would you be to vote for Barack Obama if the election were being held a)TODAY? [present c ondition] OR b) ONE YEAR FROM NOW? [future condition] 2. Please evaluate candidate Barack Obama on each of the scales in the subsequent screens: For example, if you think the candidate is very pleasant you would check the UNPLEASANT PLEASANT scale as follows : UNPLEASANT:____:____:____:____:____:____:_X_:PLEASANT On the other hand, if you think he is very unpleasant, you would rate him as follows: UNPLEASANT:_X_:____:____:____:____:____:____:PLEASANT If you think he is somewhere between these two extremes, the n you would check the space that best represents your reaction on that scale. If you feel that you have no reaction to him on any one scale, please check the middle space number to indicate your neutrality. UNQUALIFIED:____:____:____:____:____:____:____:QU ALIFIED UNSOPHISTICATED:____:____:____:____:____:____:____:SOPHISTICATED DISHONEST:____:____:____:____:____:____:____:HONEST UNBELIEVABLE:____:____:____:____:____:____:____:BELIEVABLE UNSUCCESSFUL:____:____:____:____:____:____:____:SUCCESSFUL UNATTRAC TIVE:____:____:____:____:____:____:____:ATTRACTIVE

PAGE 68

68 UNFIRENDLY:____:____:____:____:____:____:___:FRIENDLY INSINCERE:____:____:____:____:____:____:____:SINCERE EXCITABLE:____:____:____:____:____:____:____:CALM UNAGGRESSIVE:____:____:____:____:____:____:_ ___:AGGRESSIVE WEAK:____:____:____:____:____:____:____:STRONG INACTIVE:____:____:____:____:____:____:____:ACTIVE 3. Please give us your feelings toward candidate Barack Obama on this feeling thermometer. Ratings between 50 degrees and 100 degrees mean that you feel favorable and warm toward him. Ratings between 0 degrees and 50 mean that you don't feel favorable toward him and that you don't care too much for him. If you don't feel particularly warm or cold, or you are unfamiliar with this candidate, you wo uld rate him at the 50 degree mark. Cool/Unfavorable 0 -------------------50 -------------------100 Warm/Favorable Candidate Barack Obama: _______ degrees 4. How old are you? ___________ years. 5. What is your gender? Male Female 6. What is your ethnicity? Ca ucasian/White African American Hispanic/Latino Native American

PAGE 69

69 Asian Pacific Islander Middle Eastern Other 7. Which of the following best represents your political beliefs ? 8. What do you think was th e purpose of this study? Study 1A 1. How likely would you be to vote for Barack Obama if the election were being held a)TODAY? [present condition] AND b) FOUR YEARS FROM NOW? [future condition] 2. Please evaluate candidate Barack Obama on each of the scales in the subsequent screens: For example, if you think the candidate is very pleasant you would check the UNPLEASANT PLEASANT scale as follows: UNPLEASANT:____:____:____:____:____:____:_X_:PLEASANT On the other hand, if you think he is very unpleasant, you wo uld rate him as follows: UNPLEASANT:_X_:____:____:____:____:____:____:PLEASANT If you think he is somewhere between these two extremes, then you would check the space that best represents your reaction on that scale. If you feel that you have no

PAGE 70

70 reaction t o him on any one scale, please check the middle space number to indicate your neutrality. UNQUALIFIED:____:____:____:____:____:____:____:QUALIFIED UNSOPHISTICATED:____:____:____:____:____:____:____:SOPHISTICATED DISHONEST:____:____:____:____:____:____:__ __:HONEST UNBELIEVABLE:____:____:____:____:____:____:____:BELIEVABLE UNSUCCESSFUL:____:____:____:____:____:____:____:SUCCESSFUL UNATTRACTIVE:____:____:____:____:____:____:____:ATTRACTIVE UNFIRENDLY:____:____:____:____:____:____:___:FRIENDLY INSINCERE: ____:____:____:____:____:____:____:SINCERE EXCITABLE:____:____:____:____:____:____:____:CALM UNAGGRESSIVE:____:____:____:____:____:____:____:AGGRESSIVE WEAK:____:____:____:____:____:____:____:STRONG INACTIVE:____:____:____:____:____:____:____:ACTIVE 3. P lease give us your feelings toward candidate Barack Obama on this feeling thermometer. Ratings between 50 degrees and 100 degrees mean that you feel favorable and warm toward him. Ratings between 0 degrees and 50 mean that you don't feel favorable toward h im and that you don't care too much for him. If you don't feel particularly warm or cold, or you are unfamiliar with this candidate, you would rate him at the 50 degree mark. Cool/Unfavorable 0 -------------------50 -------------------100 Warm/Favorable Ca ndidate Barack Obama: _______ degrees 4. How old are you? ___________ years.

PAGE 71

71 5. What is your gender? Male Female 6. What is your ethnicity? Caucasian/White African American Hispanic/Latino Native American Asian Pacific Islander Middle Eastern Ot her 7. Which of the following best represents your political beliefs ? 8. What do you think was the purpose of this study? Study 2 1. How likely would you be to vote for Candidate X if the election were being held a )TODAY? [present condition] OR b) ONE YEAR FROM NOW? [future condition]

PAGE 72

72 2. How unfavorable or unfavorable are you toward providing illegal immigrants with a path to citizenship? Unfavorable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Favorable 3. Please evaluate candidate Candidate X on eac h of the scales in the subsequent screens: For example, if you think the candidate is very pleasant you would check the UNPLEASANT PLEASANT scale as follows: UNPLEASANT:____:____:____:____:____:____:_X_:PLEASANT On the other hand, if you think he is very unpleasant, you would rate him as follows: UNPLEASANT:_X_:____:____:____:____:____:____:PLEASANT If you think he is somewhere between these two extremes, then you would check the space that best represents your reaction on that scale. If you feel that you have no reaction to him on any one scale, please check the middle space number to indicate your neutrality. UNQUALIFIED:____:____:____:____:____:____:____:QUALIFIED UNSOPHISTICATED:____:____:____:____:____:____:____:SOPHISTICATED DISHONEST:____:____:____ :____:____:____:____:HONEST UNBELIEVABLE:____:____:____:____:____:____:____:BELIEVABLE UNSUCCESSFUL:____:____:____:____:____:____:____:SUCCESSFUL UNATTRACTIVE:____:____:____:____:____:____:____:ATTRACTIVE UNFIRENDLY:____:____:____:____:____:____:___:FR IENDLY INSINCERE:____:____:____:____:____:____:____:SINCERE EXCITABLE:____:____:____:____:____:____:____:CALM

PAGE 73

73 UNAGGRESSIVE:____:____:____:____:____:____:____:AGGRESSIVE WEAK:____:____:____:____:____:____:____:STRONG INACTIVE:____:____:____:____:____:_ ___:____:ACTIVE 4. Please give us your feelings toward Candidate X on this feeling thermometer. Ratings between 50 degrees and 100 degrees mean that you feel favorable and warm toward him. Ratings between 0 degrees and 50 mean that you don't feel favorable t oward him and that you don't care too much for him. If you don't feel particularly warm or cold, or you are unfamiliar with this candidate, you would rate him at the 50 degree mark. Cool/Unfavorable 0 -------------------50 -------------------100 Warm/Favor able Candidate X: _______ degrees 5. How old are you? ___________ years. 6. What is your gender? Male Female 7. What is your ethnicity? Caucasian/White African American Hispanic/Latino Native American Asian Pacific Islander Middle Eastern Other

PAGE 74

74 8. Which of the following best represents your political beliefs ? 9. Please describe in no more than a paragraph the content of the speech that you just read. 10. When you were reading the speech, did you feel that the speech could have been written by a candidate from a specific political party? Please write down your thoughts in the space below. 11. What do you think was the purpose of this study? Study 3 Pretest 1. When you are trying to decide how to vote in an election, w hat information do you use to try to make a voting decision? Main Experiment 1. Now that you have learned information about candidate A and candidate B, imagine that these two candidates are running for a political office. a) If the election were being held TOD AY, which candidate would you vote for? [present condition] OR b) If the election were being held ONE YEAR FROM NOW, which candidate would you vote for? [future condition]

PAGE 75

75 2. Using the scale below, please i ndicate which of the following pieces of information contributed the most to your choice: e 2 3 4 5 6 choice 3. What is your age? ___________ years. 4. What is your gender? Male Female 5. What is your ethnicity? Caucasian/White African American Hispanic/Latino Native American Asian Pacific Islander

PAGE 76

76 Middle Eastern Other 6. Which of the following best represents your political beliefs ? ndependent or other 7. Are you registered to vote? 8. Are you an American citizen? 9. What do you think was the purpose of this study? 10. Please write any comments that you might have about this study in the space below: Study 4 1. [Only shown to par ticipants in reasons conditions] Now that you learned information about Candidate A and Candidate B, please indicate how much of the following pieces of information influenced your opinions about the candidates? a) Position on health care: Not much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A lot b) Position on immigration: Not much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A lot

PAGE 77

77 c) Position on nuclear power: Not much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A lot d) Position on the war in Iraq: Not much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A lot 2. Are you favorable or unfavorable to the generation of wind power energy? 3. Are you favorable or unfavorable to the generation of nuclear power energy? 4. If the election were being held a) TODAY, which candidate would you vote for? [Present condition] b) ON E YEAR FROM NOW, which candidate would you vote for? [Future condition] 5. How much did the following piece of information influence your opinion about the candidate that you just voted for? [Each piece of information appeared on d ifferent screens] a) Position on health care vs. Position on immigration: Used health care much more 1 through 7 Used immigration much more b) Position on immigration vs. Position on war in Iraq: Used immigration much more 1 through 7 Used war in Iraq much mor e c) Position on war in Iraq vs. Position on wind power generation:

PAGE 78

78 Used war in Iraq much more 1 through 7 Used wind power much more d) Position on war in Iraq vs. Position on nuclear power generation: Used war in Iraq much more 1 through 7 Used nuclear power much more e) Position on wind power generation vs. Position on nuclear power generation [key question]: Used wind power much more 1 through 7 Used nuclear power much more 6. Please give us your feelings toward Candidate A and Candidate B on this feeling thermo meter. Ratings between 50 degrees and 100 degrees mean that you feel favorable and warm toward them. Ratings between 0 degrees and 50 mean that you don't feel favorable toward them and that you don't care too much for them. If you don't feel particularly w arm or cold with these candidates, you would rate them at the 50 degree mark. Cool/Unfavorable 0 -------------------50 -------------------100 Warm/Favorable Candidate A: _______ degrees Candidate B: _______ degrees 7. What is your age? ___________ years. 8. Wha t is your gender? Male Female 9. What is your ethnicity? Caucasian/White African American Hispanic/Latino Native American

PAGE 79

7 9 Asian Pacific Islander Middle Eastern Other 10. Which of the following best represents your political beliefs ? ndependent or other 11. What do you think was the purpose of this study?

PAGE 80

80 LIST OF REFERENCES Ainslie, G. (1975). Specious reward: Behavioral theory of impulsiveness and impulse control. Psychological Bulletin 82 (4), 463 496. Ah luwalia, R., Burnkrant, R. E., & Unnava, H. R. (2000). Consumer response to negative publicity: The moderating role of commitment. Journal of Marketing Research 37 (2), 203 214. Andrews, J. C., & Shimp, T. A. (2006). Effects of involvement, argument stren gth, and source characteristics on central and peripheral processing of advertising. Psychology & Marketing 7 (3), 195 214. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1964). The American voter: An abridgment. NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc Celsi, R. L., & Olson, J. C. (1988). The role of involvement in attention and comprehension processes. Journal of Consumer Research 15 ( 2 ), 210 224. CNN. (2008). Election Center 2008: Exit polls. Retrieved November 2008 from http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION /2008/results/polls/#val=USP00p1 Dholakia, U. M. (2001).A motivational process model of product involvement and consumer risk perception. European Journal of Marketing 35 (11/12), 1340 1362. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1995). Attitude strength, attitude structure, and resistance to change. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences ( pp. 413 432). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Federal Election Commission. (2009) Candidate registration. Retrieved Au gust 2009 from http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/candregis.shtml Frederick, S., Loewenstein, G., & O'Donoghue, T. (2002). Time discounting and time preference: A critical review. Journal of Economic Literature 40 (2), 351 401. Kim, H., Rao, A. R., & Lee A. Y. (2009). It's time to vote: The effect of matching message orientation and temporal frame on political persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research 35 ( 6 ), 877 889. Kiousis, S., Bantimaroudis, P ., & Ban, H. (1999). Candidate image attributes: E xperimen ts on the substantive dimension of second level agenda setting. Communication Research, 26 414 428. Krosnick, J. A., Boninger, D. S., Chuang, Y. C., Berent, M. K., & Carot, C. G. (1993). Attitude strength: One construct or many related constructs? Journa l of Personality and Social Psychology 65 (6), 1132 1151.

PAGE 81

81 Krugman, H. E. (1967). The measurement of advertising involvement. Public Opinion Quarterly 30 (4), 583 596. Krugman, H. E. (2000). Memory without recall, exposure without perception. Journal of Advertising Research 40 (6), 49 54. Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2008). The psychology of transcending the here and now. Science 322 (5905), 1201 1205. Loewenstein, G. F., & Prelec, D. (1992). Anomalies of intertemporal choice: Evidence and interpretation. In G. Loewenstein & J. Elster (Eds.), Choice over time (pp. 119 145). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Millar, M. G., & Tesser, A. (1986). Thought induced attitude change: The effects of schema structure and commitment. Journal of Personality and Socia l Psychology 51 (2), 259 269. Metcalfe, J., & Mischel, W. (1999). A hot/cool system analysis of delay of gratification: Dynamics of willpower. Psychological Review 106 (1), 3 19. Newman, B. I., & Perloff, R. M. (2004). Political marketing: Theory, resear ch, and applications. In L. L. Kaid (Ed.), Handbook of political communication research (pp. 17 43) Mahwah, NJ: Lawerence Erlbaum Associates. O'Donoghue, T., & Rabin, M. (2000). The economics of immediate gratification. Journal of Behavioral Decision M aking 13 (2), 233 250. Pearson, R., & Long, R. (2007, February 10). Obama: I'm running for president. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved August 2009 from www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi 070210obama pearson1 story,0,3768114.story Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J. T.(1979). Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message relevant cognitive responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37 (10), 1915 1926. Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J. T.(1984).The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46 (1), 69 81. Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schuman n D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research 10 (2), 135 146. Petty, R. E., & Krosnick, J. A. (1995). Att itude strength: Antecedents and consequences Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

PAGE 82

82 Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1999). The elaboration likelihood model: Current status and controversies. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual process theories in social psychology (pp. 41 72). New York : Guilford Read, D., & Loewenstein, G. (2000). Time and decision: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 13 (2), 141 144. Read, D., Loewenstein, G., & Kalyanaraman, S. (1999). Mixing virtue and vice: Combining the immediacy effect and the div ersification heuristic. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 12 (4), 257 273. Rothschild, M. L., & Ray, M. L. (1974). Involvement and political advertising effect: An exploratory experiment. Communication Research 1 (3), 264 285. Schelling, T. C. (1984) Self command in practice, in policy, and in a theory of rational choice. American Economic Review 74 (2), 1 11. Smith, B. (2008). When he started running. Retrieved August 14, 2009 from http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0408/When_he_started_running .html Tesser. A. (1978). Self generated attitude change.In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (pp. 289 338), Vol.11. New York: Random House. Tesser, A., & Conlee, M. C. (1975). Some effects of time and thought on attitude pola rization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 31 (2), 262 270. Tetlock, P. E., & Boettger, R. (1989). Accountability: A social magnifier of the dilution effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57 (3), 388 398. Tormala, Z. L., & Ruck er, D.D. (2007). Attitude certainty: A review of past findings and emerging perspectives. Social and Personality Psychology Compass 1 (1), 469 492. Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal. Psychological Review 110 (3), 403 421. Trope, Y. Liberman, N., & Wakslak, C. (2007). Construal levels and psychological distance: Effects on representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology 17 (2), 83 95. Wilson, T. D., Dunn, D. S., Bybee, J. A., Hyman, D. B., & Rot ondo, J. A. (1984). Effects of analyzing reasons on attitude behavior consistency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 47(1), 5 16.

PAGE 83

83 Wilson, T. D., Kraft, D., & Dunn, D. S. (1989). The disruptive effects of explaining attitudes: The moderating ef fect of knowledge about the attitude object. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 25 (5), 379 400. Wilson, T. D., Lisle, D. J., & Kraft, D. (1990). Effects of self reflection on attitudes and consumer decisions. Advances in Consumer Research 17 (1), 79 85. Wilson, T. D., & Schooler, J. W. (1991). Thinking too much: Introspection can reduce the quality of preferences and decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 60 (2), 181 192. Zaichkowsk, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement const ruct. Journal of Consumer Research 12 (3), 341 352.

PAGE 84

84 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Juliana de Brum Fernandes was born and raised in Sao Leopoldo, Brazil. She graduated from Unisi nos University, Brazil, in 2003 j ournalism. In 2004 she moved to the United States where later she would be admit ted ommunication at the University of Florida. Recently she co mpleted her doctoral degree in mass c ommunication at the University of Florida. Juliana is currentl y applying for faculty positions in mass c ommunication at universities across the country.