Cover of book: Wie sich Wähler beim Entscheiden unterscheiden
Buy in shop
, to see if you have full access to this publication.
Book Titles No access

Wie sich Wähler beim Entscheiden unterscheiden

Wählerheterogenität bei den Bundestagswahlen 1998 bis 2009
Authors:
Publisher:
 06.12.2016

Bibliographic data

Publication year
2016
Publication date
06.12.2016
ISBN-Print
978-3-8487-3715-4
ISBN-Online
978-3-8452-8014-1
Publisher
Nomos, Baden-Baden
Series
Studien zur Wahl- und Einstellungsforschung
Volume
32
Language
German
Pages
293
Product type
Book Titles

Table of contents

ChapterPages
  1. Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis No access 1 - 16
    1. 1.1 Wählerheterogenität als ungelöstes Problem der Wahlforschung No access
    2. 1.2 Eingrenzung der Fragestellung No access
    3. 1.3 Aufbau der Arbeit No access
    1. 2.1 Zielsetzung und Vorgehensweise No access
    2. 2.2 Heterogenität und Homogenität in Modellen des Wählerverhaltens No access
    3. 2.3 Die Homogenitätsannahme als trügerischer Standard No access
      1. 2.4.1 Typen der Heterogenität No access
      2. 2.4.2 Heterogenitätsmaße No access
      3. 2.4.3 Wählertypen No access
      4. 2.4.4 Inter-personelle und intra-personelle Heterogenität No access
      5. 2.4.5 Desiderata der bisherigen Forschung No access
    5. 2.5 Ein Modell der Wahlentscheidung unter Berücksichtigung der Wählerheterogenität No access
    6. 2.6 Präzisierung und Abgrenzung der Fragestellung No access
    7. 2.7 Zusammenfassung No access
    1. 3.1 Zielsetzung und Vorgehensweise No access
    2. 3.2 Politische Versiertheit No access
      1. 3.3.1 Wichtigkeit No access
      2. 3.3.2 Unsicherheit No access
    4. 3.4 Ambivalenz No access
    5. 3.5 Cross Pressures No access
      1. 3.6.1 Determinanten intra-personeller Heterogenität No access
      2. 3.6.2 Konsequenzen intra-personeller Heterogenität No access
    7. 3.7 Zusammenfassung No access
    1. 4.1 Zielsetzung und Vorgehensweise No access
      1. 4.2.1 Daten für die Analyse der inter-personellen Heterogenität No access
      2. 4.2.2 Daten für die Analyse der intra-personellen Heterogenität No access
    3. 4.3 Definition und Messung der abhängigen Variablen No access
    4. 4.4 Operationalisierung des Modells der Wahlentscheidung No access
      1. 4.5.1 Politische Versiertheit No access
      2. 4.5.2 Einstellungsstärke No access
      3. 4.5.3 Ambivalenz No access
      4. 4.5.4 Cross Pressures No access
    6. 4.6 Zusammenfassung No access
    1. 5.1 Zielsetzung und Vorgehensweise No access
      1. 5.2.1 Analysestrategie und Methoden No access
      2. 5.2.2 Ergebnisse No access
      1. 5.3.1 Analysestrategie und Methoden No access
      2. 5.3.2 Ergebnisse No access
      1. 5.4.1 Analysestrategie und Methoden No access
      2. 5.4.2 Ergebnisse No access
      1. 5.5.1 Analysestrategie und Methoden No access
      2. 5.5.2 Ergebnisse No access
    6. 5.6 Zusammenfassung No access
    1. 6.1 Zielsetzung und Vorgehensweise No access
      1. 6.2.1 Analysestrategie und Methoden No access
      2. 6.2.2 Ergebnisse No access
      3. 6.2.3 Determinanten intra-individueller Heterogenität No access
      1. 6.3.1 Analysestrategie und Methoden No access
      2. 6.3.2 Erklärbarkeit der Wahlentscheidung No access
      3. 6.3.3 Wechselwahl No access
    4. 6.4 Zusammenfassung No access
    1. 7.1 Heterogenität als vernachlässigtes Thema der Wahlforschung No access
    2. 7.2 Wie und warum unterscheiden sich die Gewichte der No access
    3. Entscheidungskriterien zwischen Wählern (inter-individuelle No access
    4. Heterogenität)? No access
    5. 7.3 Wie verändert sich das Entscheidungskalkül auf individueller Ebene und welche Konsequenzen ergeben sich daraus (intra-individuelle No access
    6. Heterogenität)? No access
    7. 7.4 Limitationen No access
  9. Literaturverzeichnis No access 267 - 282
      1. 1. Frageformulierungen und Antwortkategorien No access
      2. 2. Rekodierungen und Berechnungen von Variablen No access
    2. B) Tabellen und Abbildungen No access

Bibliography (237)

  1. Literaturverzeichnis Open Google Scholar
  2. Abold, Roland. 2007. Hamburger Bürgerschaftswahlen 1978 bis 2004: Rückenwind oder Stimmungstief durch bundespolitische Einflüsse? Zeitschrift für Parlamentsfragen (ZParl) 38: 521-31. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/0340-1758-2007-3-521
  3. Achen, Christopher H. 1992. Social psychology, demographic variables, and linear regression: Breaking the iron triangle in voting research. Political Behavior 14: 195-211. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1007/BF00991978
  4. Adams, James F., Samuel Merrill, und Bernard Grofman. 2005. A Unified Theory of Party Competition: A Cross-National Analysis Integrating Spatial and Behavioral Factors. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614453
  5. Ai, Chunrong, und Edward C. Norton. 2003. Interaction terms in logit and probit Models. Economics Letters 80: 123-29. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1016/S0165-1765(03)00032-6
  6. Ajzen, Icek. 1991. The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50: 179-211. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
  7. Allison, Paul D. 2009. Fixed Effects Regression Models. London: SAGE Publications. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.4135/9781412993869
  8. Althaus, Scott L. 2003. Collective Preferences in Democratic politics: Opinion surveys and the Will of the People. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610042
  9. Alvarez, Michael R. 1997. Information and Elections. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press. Open Google Scholar
  10. Alvarez, Michael R., und John Brehm. 1995. American Ambivalence Towards Abortion Policy: Development of a Heteroskedastic Probit Model of Competing Values. American Journal of Political Science 39: 1055-82. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/2111669
  11. Alvarez, Michael R., und Charles H. Franklin. 1994. Uncertainty and Political Perceptions. Journal of Politics 56: 671-88. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/2132187
  12. Andersen, Robert, Anthony Heath, und Richard Sinnott. 2002. Political Knowledge and Electoral Choice. In British Elections and Parties Review: The 2001 General Election, Hg. Lynn G. Bennie, 11-47: Taylor & Francis. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1080/13689880208413067
  13. Andersen, Robert, Tilley, James; Heath, Anthony. 2005. Political Knowledge and Enlightened Preferences: Party Choice through the Electoral Cycle. British Journal of Political Science 35: 285-302. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1017/S0007123405000153
  14. Ansolabehere, Stephen, und Brian F. Schaffner. 2011. Re-Examining the Validity of Different Survey Modes for Measuring Public Opinion in the US: Findings from a 2010 Multi-Mode Comparison. Paper presented at the AAPOR Annual Conference, Phoenix, Arizona, 12. bis 15. Mai. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1868229
  15. Arceneaux, Kevin. 2005. Do Campaigns Help Voters Learn? A Cross-National Analysis. British Journal of Political Science 36: 159-73. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1017/S0007123406000081
  16. Armitage, Christopher J., und Mark Conner. 2000. Attitudinal Ambivalence: A Test of Three Key Hypotheses. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 26: 1421-32. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1177/0146167200263009
  17. Arrow, Kenneth J. 1951. Social Choice and Individual Values. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Open Google Scholar
  18. Arzheimer, Kai und Jürgen W. Falter. 2003. Wahlen und Wahlforschung. In Politikwissenschaft. Ein Grundkurs, Hg. Herfried Münkler, 553-586. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt. Open Google Scholar
  19. Arzheimer, Kai, und Annette Schmitt. 2005. Der ökonomische Ansatz. In Handbuch Wahlforschung, Hg. Jürgen W. Falter und Harald Schoen, 243-303. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Open Google Scholar
  20. Backhaus, Klaus, Bernd Erichson, Wulff Plinke, und Rolf Weiber. 2011. Multivariate Analysemethoden: eine anwendungsorientierte Einführung. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16491-0_9
  21. Baldassarri, Delia, und Hans Schadee. 2006. Voter Heuristics and Political Cognition in Italy: An empirical Typology. Electoral Studies 25: 448-66. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2005.06.015
  22. Bartels, Larry M. 1986. Issue Voting Under Uncertainty: An Empirical Test. American Journal of Political Science 30: 709-28. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/2111269
  23. –. 1996. Uninformed Votes: Information Effects in Presidential Elections. American Journal of Political Science 40: 194-230. Open Google Scholar
  24. –. 2010. The Study of Electoral Behavior. In The Oxford Handbook of American Elections and Political Behavior, Hg. Jan E. Leighley, 239-61. New York: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199235476.001.0001
  25. Bartle, John. 1997. Political awareness and heterogeneity in models of voting: Some evidence from the British election studies. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties 7: 1-22. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1080/13689889708412986
  26. –. 2000. Political Awareness, Opinion Constraint and the Stability of Ideological Positions. Political Studies 48: 467-84. Open Google Scholar
  27. –. 2005. Homogeneous Models and Heterogeneous Voters. Political Studies 53: 653-75. Open Google Scholar
  28. Bartle, John, und Samantha Laycock. 2012. Telling more than they can know? Does the most important issue really reveal what is most important to voters? Electoral Studies: 1-10. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2012.07.005
  29. Basili, John N. 1996. Meta-Judgmental versus Operative Indexes of Psychological Attributes: The Case of Measures of Attitude Strength. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71: 637-53. Open Google Scholar
  30. Basinger, Scott J., und Howard Lavine. 2005. Ambivalence, Information, and Electoral Choice. American Political Science Review 99: 169-84. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1017/S0003055405051580
  31. Bechtel, Michael M., und Jens Hainmueller. 2011. How Lasting is Voter Gratitude? An Analysis of the Short- and Long-Term Electoral Returns to Beneficial Policy. American Journal of Political Science 55: 852-68. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00533.x
  32. Behnke, Joachim. 2001. Parteineigung als Fakt oder Parteineigung durch Fakten: Der Einfluss von Issues auf das Wahlverhalten. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 53: 521-46. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1007/s11577-001-0077-3
  33. Bélanger, Éric, und Bonnie M. Meguid. 2008. Issue salience, issue ownership, and issue-based vote choice. Electoral Studies 27: 477-91. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2008.01.001
  34. Bélanger, Paul, und Munroe Eagles. 2007. Partisan Cross-Pressure and Voter Turnout: The Influence of Micro and Macro Environments. Social Science Quarterly 88: 850-67. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2007.00486.x
  35. Berelson, Bernhard D., Paul Felix Lazarsfeld, und William N. McPhee. 1954. Voting. Chicago, London: The University of Chicago Press. Open Google Scholar
  36. Best, Henning, und Christof Wolf. 2010. Logistische Regression. In Handbuch der sozialwissenschaftlichen Datenanalyse, Hg. Christof Wolf und Henning Best, 827–54. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-92038-2_31
  37. Bieber, Ina, und Evelyn Bytzek. 2012. Online-Umfragen: Eine geeignete Erhebungsmethode für die Wahlforschung? Ein Vergleich unterschiedlicher Befragungsmodi am Beispiel der Bundestagswahl 2009. Methoden - Daten - Analysen 6: 185-211. Open Google Scholar
  38. Bieber, Ina, und Sigrid Roßteutscher. 2011. Große Koalition und Wirtschaftskrise: Zur Ausgangslage der Bundestagswahl 2009. In Zwischen Langeweile und Extremen: Die Bundestagswahl 2009, Hg. Hans Rattinger, Sigrid Roßteutscher, Rüdiger Schmitt-Beck und Bernhard Weßels, 17-32. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Open Google Scholar
  39. Bizer, George Y., Jon A. Krosnick, Allyson L. Holbrook, S. Christian Wheeler, Derek D. Rucker, und Richard E. Petty. 2004. The impact of personality on cognitive, behavioral, and affective political processes: The effects of need to evaluate. Journal of Personality 72: 995-1027. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00288.x
  40. Blais, André, Pierre Martin, und Richard Nadeau. 1998. Can People Explain Their Own vote? Introspective Questions as Indicators of Salience in the 1995 Quebec Referendum on Sovereignty. Quality & Quantity 32: 355-66. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1023/A:1004301524340
  41. Blumenstiel, Jan Eric. 2011. Abstürze, Rekorde, Überhänge und andere Superlative: Das Ergebnis der Bundestagswahl 2009. In Zwischen Langeweile und Extremen: Die Bundestagswahl 2009, Hg. Hans Rattinger, Sigrid Roßteutscher, Rüdiger Schmitt-Beck und Bernhard Weßels, 59-76. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783845229782
  42. –. 2014. Voter Fragmentation and the Differentiation of Vote Functions. In Voters on the Move or on the Run?, Hg. Bernhard Weßels, Hans Rattinger, Sigrid Roßteutscher und Rüdiger Schmitt-Beck, 17-39. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199662630.001.0001
  43. Blumenstiel, Jan Eric, und Tobias Gummer. 2012. Langfrist-Panels der German Longitudinal Election Study (GLES): Konzeption, Durchführung, Aufbereitung und Archivierung. GESIS-Technical Reports 2012 (11). Open Google Scholar
  44. –. 2014. Langfrist-Panels der German Longitudinal Election Study (GLES): Methodik und Durchführung der Erhebungen im Jahr 2012 und zur Bundestagswahl 2013. GESIS-Technical Reports 2014 (15). Open Google Scholar
  45. Blumenstiel, Jan Eric, und Thomas Plischke. 2014. Changing Motivations, Time of the Voting Decision, and Short-Term Volatility: The Dynamics of Voter Heterogeneity. Electoral Studies 37: 28-40. Open Google Scholar
  46. Blumenstiel, Jan Eric, und Hans Rattinger. 2012. Warum haben Sie das getan? Subjektive Gründe der Wahlentscheidung bei der Bundestagswahl 2009. In Wählen in Deutschland. PVS Sonderheft 45, Hg. Rüdiger Schmitt-Beck, 251-75. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Open Google Scholar
  47. Boninger, David S., Jon A. Krosnick, Matthew K. Berent, und Leandre R. Fabrigar. 1995. The Causes and Consequences of Attitude Importance. In Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences, Hg. Richard E. Petty und Jon A. Krosnick, 159-89. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Open Google Scholar
  48. Bortz, Jürgen. 2005. Statistik für Sozial- und Humanwissenschaftler. Heidelberg: Springer Medizin Verlag. Open Google Scholar
  49. Brambor, Thomas, William Roberts Clark, und Matt Golder. 2006. Understanding Interaction Models: Improving Empirical Analyses. Political Analysis 14: 63-82. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpi014
  50. Butler, David, und Donald Stokes. 1969. Political Change in Britain: Forces Shaping Electoral Choice. New York: St. Martin´s Press. Open Google Scholar
  51. –. 1974. Political Change in Britain: The Evolution of Electoral Choice. London: Macmillan. Open Google Scholar
  52. Butt, Sarah. 2004. Political knowledge and routes to party choice in the British general election of 2001. British Elections and Parties Review 14: 3-17. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1080/1368988042000258754
  53. Campbell, Angus, Philip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller, und Donald E. Stokes. 1960. The American Voter. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Open Google Scholar
  54. Campbell, Angus, Gerald Gurin, und Warren E. Miller. 1954. The Voter Decides. Evanston/White Plains: Row, Peterson and Company. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0554-31
  55. Campbell, Angus, und Warren E. Miller. 1957. The Motivational Basis of Straight and Split Ticket Voting. American Political Science Review 51: 293-312. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/1952193
  56. Campbell, James E. 1983. Ambiguity in the Issue Positions of Presidential Elections: A Causal Analysis. American Journal of Political Science 27: 284-93. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/2111018
  57. Cho, Jaeho. 2005. Media, interpersonal discussion, and electoral choice. Communication Research 32: 295-322. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1177/0093650205275382
  58. Converse, Philip E. 1964. The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics. In Ideology and Discontent, Hg. David E. Apter, 206-61. New York: Free Press of Glencoe. Open Google Scholar
  59. Converse, Philip E. 1990. Popular Representation and the Distribution of Information. In Information and Democratic Processes, Hg. John A. Ferejohn and James H. Kuklinski, 369-388. Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Open Google Scholar
  60. Cutler, Fred. 2002. The Simplest Shortcut of All: Sociodemographic Characteristics and Electoral Choice. Journal of Politics 64: 466-90. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1111/1468-2508.00135
  61. Dalton, Russell J. 1984. Cognitive Mobilization and Partisan Dealignment in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Journal of Politics 46: 264-84. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/2130444
  62. –. 2008. Citizen Politics: Public Opinion and Political Parties in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Washington DC: CQ Press. Open Google Scholar
  63. Debus, Marc. 2008. Parteienwettbewerb und Koalitionsbildung in den deutschen Bundesländern. In Parteien und Parteiensysteme in den deutschen Ländern, Hg. Uwe Jun, Melanie Haas und Oskar Niedermayer. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-90912-7_3
  64. Delli Carpini, Michael X., und Scott Keeter. 1996. What Americans know about politics and why it matters. Library Journal 121: 138-38. Open Google Scholar
  65. Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1086/257897
  66. Downs, Anthony. 1968. Ökonomische Theorie der Demokratie. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr. Open Google Scholar
  67. Druckman, James N. 2004. Priming the Vote: Campaign Effects in a I.S. Senate Election. Political Psychology 25: 577-94. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00388.x
  68. Echabe, Echebarria A., Paez D. Rovira, und Valencia J. F. Garate. 1988. Testing Ajzen and Fishbein´s attitudes model: The prediction of voting. European Journal of Social Psychology 18: 181-89. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420180209
  69. Edwards, George C. III, William Mitchell, und Reed Welch. 1995. Explaining Presidential Approval: the Significance of Issue Salience. American Journal of Political Science 39: 108-34. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/2111760
  70. Enelow, James, und Melvin J. Hinich. 1981. A new approach to voter uncertainty in the Downsian spatial model. American Journal of Political Science 25: 483-93. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/2110815
  71. Ericsson, K. Anders, und Herbert A. Simon. 1980. Verbal Reports as Data. Psychological Review 87: 215-51. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.87.3.215
  72. Festinger, Leon. 1957. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Open Google Scholar
  73. Fieldhouse, Ed, Andrew Pickles, Nick Shryane, Jerry Johnson, und Kingsley Purdam. 2006. Modeling multiparty elections, preference classes and strategic voting. In CCSR Working Paper 2006-01. Manchester: The University of Manchester. Open Google Scholar
  74. Fiorina, Morris P. 1981. Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Open Google Scholar
  75. Fishbein, Martin, und Icek Ajzen. 1975. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading: Addison-Wesley. Open Google Scholar
  76. –. 1981. Attitudes and voting behaviour: An application of the theory of reasoned action. In Progress in applied social psychology, Hg. G. M. Stephenson und J. M. Davis, 95-125. London: Wiley. Open Google Scholar
  77. Founier, Patrick, André Blais, Richard Nadeau, Elisabeth Gidengil, und Neil Nevitte. 2003. Issue Importance and Performance Voting. Political Behavior 25: 51-67. Open Google Scholar
  78. Frankel, Laura Lazarus, und D. Sunshine Hillygus. 2014. Looking Beyond Demographics: Panel Attrition in the ANES and GSS. Political Analysis 22: 336-53. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpt020
  79. Franklin, Charles H. 1991. Eschewing Obfuscation? Campaigns and the Perception of U.S. Senate Incumbents. American Political Science Review 85: 1193-214. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/1963942
  80. Franklin, Mark N., Thomas T. Mackie, und Henry Valen. 1992. Electoral Change: Responses to Evolving Social and Attitudinal Structures in Western Countries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
  81. Gabler, Siegfried, Jürgen H. P. Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik, und Dagmar Krebs. 1994. Gewichtung in der Umfragepraxis. Methoden und Analyse (ZUMA) Zentrum für Umfragen. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1007/978-3-663-08044-2_1
  82. Geer, John. 1991. Do Open-Ended Questions Measure „Salient“ Issues? Public Opinion Quarterly 55: 360-70. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1086/269268
  83. Gelman, Andrew, und Gary King. 1993. Why Are American Presidential Election Campaign Polls so Variable When Voters Are so Predictable? British Journal of Political Science 23: 409-51. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1017/S0007123400006682
  84. Giesselmann, Marco, und Michael Windzio. 2012. Regressionsmodelle zur Analyse von Paneldaten. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-18695-5_8
  85. Gigerenzer, Gerd, und Daniel G. Goldstein. 1996. Reasoning the fast and frugal Way: Models of Bounded Rationality. Psychological Review 103: 650-69. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.103.4.650
  86. Gigerenzer, Gerd, und Peter M. Todd. 1999. Simple Heuristics that make us Smart. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar
  87. Glantz, Alexander. 2011. Wahlentscheidungen auf der Spur: Der Einfluss individueller und situativer Faktoren auf Entscheidungsstrategien. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-93200-2_4
  88. Glasgow, Garrett. 1998. Comparing Measures of Issue Salience in a Spatial Model of Voting. Pasadena CA: California Institute of Technology. Open Google Scholar
  89. –. 2001. Mixed Logit Models for Multiparty Elections. Political Analysis 9: 116-36. Open Google Scholar
  90. Gomez, Brad T., und J. Matthew Wilson. 2001. Political sophistication and economic voting in the American electorate: A theory of heterogeneous attribution. American Journal of Political Science 45: 899-914. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/2669331
  91. Goren, Paul. 1997. Political Expertise and Issue Voting in Presidential Elections. Political Research Quarterly 50: 387-412. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1177/106591299705000207
  92. –. 2004. Political sophistication and policy reasoning: A reconsideration. American Journal of Political Science 48: 462-78. Open Google Scholar
  93. Greszki, Robert. 2011. Berufsbefragte - die Zukunft der Wahl- und Einstellungsforschung? Ein Vergleich des Antwortverhaltens von Online-Access-Panelisten und CATI-Befragten zur Bundestagswahl 2009. Vortrag auf der Jahrestagung des DVPW-Arbeitskreises „Wahlen und politische Einstellungen“, Mainz, 30.06.-01.07.2011. Open Google Scholar
  94. Greszki, Robert, Marco Meyer, und Harald Schoen. 2014. The impact of speeding on data quality in nonprobability and freshly recruited probability-based online panels. In Online Panel Research: A Data Quality Perspective, Hg. Mario Callegaro, Reg Baker, Jelke Bethlehem, Anja S. Göritz, Jon A. Krosnick, und Paul J. Lavrakas, 238-262. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1002/9781118763520.ch11
  95. Hansen, Torben, und Jan Møller Jensen. 2007. Understanding Voters' Decisions: A Theory of Planned Behavior Approach. Innovative Marketing 3: 87-94. Open Google Scholar
  96. Himmelweit, Hilde T., Patrick Humphreys, Marianne Jaeger, und Michael Katz. 1981. How Voters Decide. London: Academic Press. Open Google Scholar
  97. Hinckley, Barbara, Richard Hofstetter, und John Kessel. 1974. Information and Vote: a Comparative Election Study. American Politics Research 2: 131-58. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1177/1532673X7400200201
  98. Hinich, Melvin J., und Michael C. Munger. 1997. Analytical Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139174725.003
  99. Holbrook, Allyson L., und Jon A. Krosnick. 2005. Meta-psychological vs. operative measures of ambivalence: Differentiating the consequences of perceived intra-psychic conflict and real intra-psychic conflict. In Ambivalence and the Structure of Political Opinion, Hg. Stephen C. Craig und Michael D. Martinez, 73-103. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1057/9781403979094_5
  100. Hole, Arne Risa. 2007. Estimating mixed logit models using maximum simulated likelihood. Stata Journal vv: 1-13. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1177/1536867X0700700306
  101. Inglehart, Ronald, und Avram Hochstein. 1972. Alignment and Dealignment of the Electorate in France and the United States. Comparative Political Studies 5: 343-72. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1177/001041407200500304
  102. Iyengar, Shanto, und Donald R. Kinder. 1987. News That Matters: Television and American Opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Open Google Scholar
  103. Iyengar, Shanto, Donald R. Kinder, Mark D. Peters, und Jon A. Krosnick. 1984. The evening news and presidential evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46: 778-87. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.4.778
  104. Jackson, John E. 1979. Statistical Estimation of Possible Response Bias in Close-Ended Issue Questions. Political Methodology 6: 393-423. Open Google Scholar
  105. –. 1992. Estimation of Models with Variable Coefficients. Political Analysis 4: 27-49. Open Google Scholar
  106. Kahneman, Daniel, und Amos Tversky. 1972. Subjective Probability: A Judgment of Representativeness. Cognitive Psychology 3: 430-54. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(72)90016-3
  107. Kaplan, Kalman J. 1972. On the Ambivalence-Indifference Problem in Attitude Theory and Measurement. Psychological Bulletin 77: 361-72. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1037/h0032590
  108. Kellermann, Charlotte. 2008. Trends and Constellations: klassische Bestimmungsfaktoren des Wahlverhaltens bei den Bundestagswahlen 1990-2005. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Open Google Scholar
  109. Kellermann, Charlotte und Hans Rattinger. 2005. „Round up the usual suspects”: Die Bedeutung klassischer Bestimmungsfaktoren der Wahlentscheidung bei den Bundestagswahlen 1994 bis 2002. In Wahlen und Wähler: Analysen aus Anlass der Bundestagswahl 2002, Hg. Jürgen W. Falter, Oscar W. Gabriel und Bernhard Weßels, 189-212. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-80516-4_8
  110. Kelley, Stanley Jr. 1983. Interpreting Elections. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Open Google Scholar
  111. Key, Vladimer O. 1966. The Responsible Electorate: Rationality in Presidential Voting. Harvard: Harvard University Press. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674497764
  112. Konerding, Uwe, Maike Brüggmann, Matthias Brüggmann, Thomas Klepper, und Manfred Richter. 1995. Kompetenzzuschreibungen, Themenbewertungen und Wahlverhalten: Eine Weiterentwicklung der Theorie des vernünftigen Handelns. Zeitschrift für Politische Psychologie 3: 253-73. Open Google Scholar
  113. Krosnick, Jon A. 1988. The Role of Attitude Importance in Social Evaluation - a Study of Policy Preferences, Presidential Candidate Evaluations, and Voting-Behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 55: 196-210. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.55.2.196
  114. –. 1991. The Stability of Political Preferences: Comparisons of Symbolic and Nonsymbolic Attitudes. American Journal of Political Science 35: 547-76. Open Google Scholar
  115. Krosnick, Jon A., David S. Boninger, Yao C. Chuang, Matthew K. Berent, und Catherine G. Carnot. 1993. Attitude Strength: One Construct or Many Related Constructs? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65: 1132-51. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.6.1132
  116. Krosnick, Jon A., Sowmya Narayan, und Wendy R. Smith. 1996. Satisficing in surveys: Initial evidence. New Directions for Evaluation 70: 29-44. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1002/ev.1033
  117. Krosnick, Jon A., und Richard E. Petty. 1995. Attitude strength: An overview. In Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences. Ohio State University series on attitudes and persuasion, Hg. Richard E. Petty und Jon A. Krosnick, 1-24. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Open Google Scholar
  118. Kühnel, Steffen, und Anja Mays. 2009. Das Michigan-Modell des Wahlverhaltens und die subjektive Sicht der Wähler: Zur Korrespondenz der Effekte von Parteineigung, Kandidatenbewertungen und Urteilen zu politischen Sachthemen mit der subjektiven Begründung von Wahlentscheidungen. In Wähler in Deutschland, Hg. Steffen Kühnel, Oskar Niedermayer und Bettina Westle, 313-28. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-91661-3_10
  119. Laakso, Markku, und Rein Taagepera. 1979. Effective Number of Parties - Measure with Application to West Europe. Comparative Political Studies 12: 3-27. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1177/001041407901200101
  120. Lachat, Romain. 2007. A Heterogeneous Electorate: Political sophistication, predisposition strength, and the voting decision process. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783845204895
  121. –. 2010. Electoral Competetiveness and Issue Voting. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, 22.-25. April 2010. Open Google Scholar
  122. Lau, Richard R. 1989. Construct Accessibility and Electoral Choice. Political Behavior 11: 5-32. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1007/BF00993365
  123. –. 2003. Models of Decision-Making. In Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology, Hg. David O. Sears, Leonie Huddy und Robert Jervis, 19-59. New York: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar
  124. Lau, Richard R., und Ralph Erber. 1985. Political Sophistication: An Information Processing Perspective. In Mass Media and Political Thought: An Information Processing Approach, Hg. Sidney Kraus und Richard M. Perloff, 37-64. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. Open Google Scholar
  125. Lau, Richard R., und David P. Redlawsk. 1997. Voting correctly. American Political Science Review 91: 585-98. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/2952076
  126. –. 2001. Advantages and Disadvantages of Cognitive Heuristics in Political Decision Making. American Journal of Political Science 45: 951-71. Open Google Scholar
  127. –. 2006. How Voters Decide: Information Processing in Election Campaigns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
  128. Lavine, Howard. 2001. The Electoral Consequences of Ambivalence toward Presidential Candidates. American Journal of Political Science 45: 915-29. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/2669332
  129. Lavine, Howard, Cynthia J. Thomsen, Mark P. Zanna, und Eugene Borgida. 1998. On the primacy of affect in the determination of political attitudes and behavior: The moderating influence of affective- cognitive ambivalence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 34: 398-421. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1998.1357
  130. Lazarsfeld, Paul F., Bernard Berelson, und Hazel Gaudet. 1944. The People's Choice: How the Voter Makes Up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Open Google Scholar
  131. Lewis-Beck, Michael S., William G. Jacoby, Helmut Norpoth, und Herbert F. Weisberg. 2008. The American Voter Revisited. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.3998/mpub.92266
  132. Little, Roderick J. A. 1988. A Test of Missing Completely at Random for Multivariate Data with missing Values. Journal of the American Statistical Association 83: 1198-202. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1988.10478722
  133. Lodge, Milton, Kathleen M. McGraw, und Patrick Stroh. 1989. An Impression-Driven Model of Candidate Evaluation. American Political Science Review 83: 399-419. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/1962397
  134. Lodge, Milton, Marco R. Steenbergen, und Shawn Brau. 1995. The Responsive Voter - Campaign Information and the Dynamics of Candidate Evaluation. American Political Science Review 89: 309-26. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/2082427
  135. Lodge, Milton, und Kathleen M. McGraw. 1995. Political Judgment: Structure and Process. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.3998/mpub.13933
  136. Long, J. Scott, und Jeremy Freese. 2014. Regression Models for Categorical Dependent Variables using Stata. College Station: Stata Press. Open Google Scholar
  137. Luhmann, Niklas. 2009. Zur Komplexität von Entscheidungssituationen. Soziale Systeme 15: 3-35. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1515/sosys-2009-0102
  138. Lupia, Arthur. 1994. Shortcuts Versus Encyclopedias: Information and Voting Behavior in California Insurance Reform Election. American Political Science Review 88: 63-76. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/2944882
  139. Lupia, Arthur, Mathew D. McCubbins, und Samuel L. Popkin. 2000. Elements of Reason: Cognition, Choice, and the Bounds of Rationality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511805813.014
  140. Luskin, Robert C. 1987. Measuring Political Sophistication. American Journal of Political Science 31: 856-99. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/2111227
  141. –. 1990. Explaining Political Sophistication. Political Behavior 12: 331-61. Open Google Scholar
  142. Macdonald, Stuart E., George Rabinowitz, und Ola Listhaug. 1995. Political Sophistication and Models of Issue Voting. British Journal of Political Science 25: 453-83. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1017/S0007123400007316
  143. Maier, Jürgen, Alexander Glantz, und Severin Bathelt. 2009. Was wissen Bürger über Politik? Zur Erforschung der politischen Kenntnisse in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 1949 bis 2008. Zeitschrift für Parlamentsfragen 40: 561-79. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/0340-1758-2009-3-561
  144. Martinez, Michael D., Stephen C. Craig, und James G. Kane. 2005a. Pros and Cons: Ambivalence and Public Opinion. In Ambivalence and the Structure of Political Opinion, Hg. Stephen C. Craig und Michael D. Martinez, 1-14. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Open Google Scholar
  145. Martinez, Michael D., Stephen C. Craig, James G. Kane, und Jason Gainous. 2005b. Ambivalence and Value Conflict: A Test of Two Issues. In Ambivalence, Politics, and Public Policy, Hg. Stephen C. Craig und Michael D. Martinez. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Open Google Scholar
  146. McClure, John. 1983. Telling More than They can Know: The Positivist Account of Verbal Reports and Mental Processes. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 213: 111-28. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.1983.tb00466.x
  147. McFadden, Daniel. 1974. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In Frontier or Econometrics, Hg. Paul Zarembka. New York: Academic Press. Open Google Scholar
  148. McFadden, Daniel, und Kenneth E. Train. 2000. Mixed MNL models for discrete response. Journal of Applied Econometrics 15: 447-70 Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1002/1099-1255(200009/10)15:5<447::AID-JAE570>3.0.CO;2-1
  149. Meffert, Michael F., Michael Guge, und Milton Lodge. 2004. Good, Bad, and Ambivalent: The Consequences of Multidimensional Political Attitudes. In Studies in Public Opinion: Attitudes, Nonattitudes, Measurement Error, and Change, Hg. Willem E. Saris und Paul M. Sniderman, 63-92. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Open Google Scholar
  150. Mendelsohn, Matthew. 1996. The Media and Interpersonal Communications: The Priming of Issues, Leaders, and Party Identification. Journal of Politics 58: 112-25. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/2960351
  151. Miller, Arthur H., und Warren E. Miller. 1976. Ideology in the 1972 Election: Myth or Reality - a Rejoinder. American Political Science Review 70: 832-49. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1017/S0003055400174271
  152. Miller, Joanne M., und David A. M. Peterson. 2004. Theoretical and empirical implications of attitude strength. Journal of Politics 66: 847-67. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2004.00279.x
  153. Miller, Warren E., und J. Merrill Shanks. 1996. The New American Voter. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Open Google Scholar
  154. Mulligan, Kenneth. 2011. Partisan Ambivalence, Split-Ticket Voting, and Divided Government. Political Psychology 32: 505-30. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2011.00830.x
  155. Murr, Andreas E. 2012. A Tournament of Voters' Decision Making Rules. Comparing Four Models of Citizen Forecasting. Paper presented at the Elections, Public Opinion and Parties Conference, Oxford, 7th to 9th September 2012. Open Google Scholar
  156. Mutz, Diana C. 2002. The Consequences of Cross-Cutting Networks for Political Participation. American Journal of Political Science 46: 838-55. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/3088437
  157. Neuman, W. Russell. 1986. The Paradox of Mass Politics: Knowledge and Opinion in the American Electorate. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Open Google Scholar
  158. Niemi, Richard G., und Larry M. Bartels. 1985. New Measures of Issue Salience: An Evaluation. Journal of Politics 47: 1212-20. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/2130815
  159. Nir, Lilach. 2005. Ambivalent Social Networks and Their Consequences for Participation. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 17: 422-42. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edh069
  160. Nisbett, Richard E., und Timothy D. Wilson. 1977. Telling More Than We Can Know: Verbal Reports on Mental Processes. Psychological Review 84: 231-59. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.3.231
  161. Norris, Pippa, und David Sanders. 2003. Message or Medium? Campaign Learning During the 2001 British General Election. Political Communication 20: 233-62. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1080/10584600390218878
  162. Oberndörfer, Dieter. 1978. Politische Meinungsforschung und Politik, In Politische Wählerverhalten in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland: Studien zu ausgewählten Problemen der Wahlforschung aus Anlaß der Bundestagswahl 1976, Hg. Dieter Oberndörfer, 13-38. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. Open Google Scholar
  163. Ohr, Dieter, und Markus Quandt. 2012. Parteiidentifikation in Deutschland: Eine empirische Fundierung des Konzepts auf Basis der Theorie Sozialer Identität. In Wählen in Deutschland: PVS Sonderheft 45, Hg. Rüdiger Schmitt-Beck. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Open Google Scholar
  164. Partheymüller, Julia, Rüdiger Schmitt-Beck, und Christian Hoops. 2013. Kampagnendynamik bei der Bundestagswahl 2013: Die Rolling Cross-Section-Studie im Rahmen der „German Longitudinal Election Study“ 2013. Arbeitspapiere des Mannheimer Zentrums für Europäische Sozialforschung 154: 7-30. Open Google Scholar
  165. Pattie, Charles J., und Johnston Ron J. 2001. Routes to party choice: Ideology, economic evaluations and voting at the 1997 British General Election. European Journal of Political Research 39: 373-89. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.00581
  166. Pedersen, Mogens N. 1979. The Dynamics of European Party Systems: Changing Patterns Of Electoral Volatility. European Journal of Political Research 7: 1-26. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.1979.tb01267.x
  167. Peterson, David A. M. 2004. Certainty or Accessibility: Attitude Strength in Candidate Evaluations. American Journal of Political Science 48: 513-20. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1111/j.0092-5853.2004.00084.x
  168. –. 2005. Heterogeneity and Certainty in Candidate Evaluations. Political Behavior 27: 1-24. Open Google Scholar
  169. –. 2009. Campaign Learning and Vote Determinants. American Journal of Political Science 53: 445-60. Open Google Scholar
  170. Petrocik, John R. 1996. Issue Ownership in Presidential Elections, with a 1980 Case Study. American Journal of Political Science 40: 825-850. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/2111797
  171. Plischke, Thomas. 2014. Wann Wähler entscheiden: Abläufe von Entscheidungsprozessen und der Zeitpunkt der Wahlentscheidung. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Open Google Scholar
  172. Poguntke, Thomas, und Paul Webb. 2005. The Presidentialization of Politics: A Comparative Study of Modern Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1093/0199252017.001.0001
  173. Popkin, Samuel L. 1991. The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Open Google Scholar
  174. Rabinowitz, George, James W. Prothro und William Jacoby. 1982. Salience as a Factor in the Impact of Issues on Candidate Evaluation. Journal of Politics 44: 41-63. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/2130283
  175. Raftery, Adrian E. 1995. Bayesian Model Selection in Social Research. Sociological Methodology 25: 111-63. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/271063
  176. Rahn, Wendy M., Jon A. Krosnick, und Marijke Breuning. 1994. Rationalization and Derivation Processes in Survey Studies of Political Candidate Evaluation. American Journal of Political Science 38: 582-600. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/2111598
  177. Rattinger, Hans, und Jürgen Maier. 1998. Der Einfluss der Wirtschaftslage auf die Wahlentscheidung bei den Bundestagswahlen 1994 und 1998. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte 52: 45-54. Open Google Scholar
  178. Rattinger, Hans, und Markus Steinbrecher. 2011. Economic Voting in Times of Economic Crisis. German Politics 20: 128-45. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1080/09644008.2011.554111
  179. RePass, David E. 1971. Issue Salience and Party Choice. American Political Science Review 65: 389-400. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/1954456
  180. Rich, Marvina C. 1979. Verbal Reports on Mental Processes: Issues of Accuracy and Awareness. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 9: 29-37. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.1979.tb00412.x
  181. Rivers, Douglas. 1988. Heterogeneity in Models of Electoral Choice. American Journal of Political Science 32: 737-57. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/2111244
  182. Roy, Jason. 2009. Voter Heterogeneity: Informational Differences and Voting. Canadian Journal of Political Science 42: 117-37. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1017/S0008423909090052
  183. –. 2011. Information Heterogeneity, Complexity and the Vote Calculus. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties 21: 29-56. Open Google Scholar
  184. Rudi, Tatjana, und Harald Schoen. 2005. Ein Vergleich von Theorien zur Erklärung des Wählerverhaltens. In Handbuch Wahlforschung, Hg. Jürgen W. Falter und Harald Schoen, 305-23. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Open Google Scholar
  185. –. 2013. Verwählt? Eine Analyse des Konzepts „korrektes Wählen“ bei der Bundestagswahl 2009. In Wahlen und Wähler, Hg. Bernhard Weßels, Harald Schoen und Oscar W. Gabriel, 407-25. Wiesbaden: Springer. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-01328-8_1
  186. Rudolph, Thomas J. 2011. The Dynamics of Ambivalence. American Journal of Political Science 55: 561-73. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00505.x
  187. Sanders, David, Harold D. Clarke, Marianne C. Stewart, und Paul Whiteley. 2007. Does Mode Matter For Modeling Political Choice? Evidence From the 2005 British Election Study. Political Analysis 15: 257-85. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpl010
  188. Särlvik, Bo, und Ivor Crewe. 1983. Decade of Dealignment: The Conservative Victory of 1979 and Electoral Trends in the 1970s. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
  189. Schäfer, Anne, und Rüdiger Schmitt-Beck. 2014. Parteibindungen. In Zwischen Fragmentierung und Konzentration: Die Bundestagswahl 2013, Hg. Rüdiger Schmitt-Beck, Hans Rattinger, Sigrid Roßteutscher, Bernhard Weßels und Christof Wolf, 203-2011. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783845250090-203
  190. Schmitt-Beck, Rüdiger. 2000. Politische Kommunikation und Wählerverhalten. Ein internationaler Vergleich. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-80381-8
  191. Schmitt-Beck, Rüdiger, und Julia Partheymüller. 2012. Why Voters Decide Late: A Simultaneous Test of Old and New Hypotheses at the 2005 and 2009 German Federal Elections. German Politics 21: 299-316. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1080/09644008.2012.716042
  192. Schoen, Harald. 1998. Stimmensplitting bei Bundestagswahlen: eine Form taktischer Wahlentscheidung? Zeitschrift für Parlamentsfragen 29: 223-44. Open Google Scholar
  193. –. 2003. Wählerwandel und Wechselwahl. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag. Open Google Scholar
  194. –. 2005. Ist Wissen auch an der Wahlurne Macht? Politische Kompetenz und Wahlverhalten. In Persönlichkeit. Eine vergessene Größe der empirischen Sozialforschung, Hg. Siegfried Schumann und Harald Schoen, 137-55. Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-95689-7_8
  195. –. 2006. Der demokratische Musterbürger als Normalfall? Kognitionspsychologische Einblicke in die black box politischer Meinungsbildung. Politische Vierteljahresschrift 47: 89-101. Open Google Scholar
  196. –. 2007. Campaigns, Candidate Evaluations, and Vote Choice: Evidence from German Federal Election Campaigns, 1980–2002. Electoral Studies 26: 324-37. Open Google Scholar
  197. –. 2010. Gute Seiten, schlechte Seiten. Eine Analyse zur Wirkung von Ambivalenz auf die politische Urteilsbildung in Deutschland. Österreichische Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft 39: 105-22. Open Google Scholar
  198. Schwarz, Gideon. 1978. Estimating the Dimension of a Model. The Annals of Statistics 6: 461-64. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1214/aos/1176344136
  199. Scott, William A. 1968. Attitude Measurement. In The Handbook of Social Psychology, Hg. Gardner Lindzey und Elliot Aronson, 204-73. Reading: Addison-Wesley. Open Google Scholar
  200. Shapiro, Michael J. 1969. Rational Political Man: A Synthesis of Economic and Social-Psychological Perspectives. American Political Science Review 63: 1106-19. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/1955074
  201. Shepsle, Kenneth A. 1972. The Strategy of Ambiguity: Uncertainty and Electoral Competition. American Political Science Review 66: 555-68. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/1957799
  202. Shryane, Nick, Ed Fieldhouse, und Andrew Pickles. 2006. Abstainers are not all the same: A Latent Class Analysis of heterogeneity in the British electorate in 2005. CCSR Working papers 2006-3. Open Google Scholar
  203. Simon, Herbert A. 1955. A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 69: 99-118. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/1884852
  204. –. 1957. Models of Man: Social and Rational. New York: Wiley. Open Google Scholar
  205. –. 1978. Rationality as Process and Product of Thought. American Economic Review: Proceedings 68: 1-16. Open Google Scholar
  206. Skrondal, Anders, und Sophia Rabe-Hesketh. 2003. Multilevel Logistic Regression for Polytomous Data and Rankings. Psychometrika 68: 267-87. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1007/BF02294801
  207. Smith, Elliot R., Frederick D. Miller. 1978. Limits on Perception of Cognitive Processes: A Reply to Nisbett and Wilson. Psychological Review 85: 355-62. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.85.4.355
  208. Sniderman, Paul M., Richard A. Brody, und Philip E. Tetlock. 1991. Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511720468
  209. Steinbrecher, Markus. 2014. Are Alienation and Indifference the New Features of Elections? In Voters on the Move or on the Run?, Hg. Bernhard Weßels, Hans Rattinger, Sigrid Roßteutscher und Rüdiger Schmitt-Beck, 263-86. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199662630.003.0012
  210. Steinbrecher, Markus, Joss Roßmann, und Michael Bergmann. 2013. The Short-Term Campaign Panel of the German Longitudinal Election Study 2009. GESIS-Technical Reports 2013 (20). Open Google Scholar
  211. Stevens, Daniel, Susan Banducci, Jeffrey A. Karp, und Jack Vowles. 2011. Priming Time for Blair? Media Priming, Iraq, and Leadership Evaluations in Britain. Electoral Studies 30: 546-60. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2011.04.001
  212. Stokes, Donald E., Angus Campbell, und Warren E. Miller. 1958. Components of Electoral Decision. American Political Science Review 52: 367-87. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/1952322
  213. Sturgis, Patrick, und James Tilley. 2004. Political sophistication and issue voting: An intra-individual level analysis. Paper presented at the ESRC Research Methods Programme Working Paper No15, Manchester. Open Google Scholar
  214. Therriault, Andrew, Joshua Aaron Tucker, und Ted Brader. 2011. Cross-Pressures and Political Participation. Paper presented at the 1st Annual European Political Science Association Conference, Dublin. Open Google Scholar
  215. Thompson, Megan M., Mark P. Zanna, und Dale W. Griffin. 1995. Let's Not Be Indifferent About (Attitudinal) Ambivalence. In Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences. Ohio State University Series on Attitudes and Persuasion, Hg. Richard E. Petty und Jon A. Krosnick, 361-86. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1995.tb00810.x
  216. Thurner, Paul W.. 2009. Die simultane Modellierung von Wahlbeteiligung und Wahlentscheidung. In Parteienwettbewerb, Wählerverhalten und Koalitionsbildung, Hg. Christian Henning, Eric Linhart, und Susumu Shikano, 47-56. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783845216065-47
  217. Tourangeau, Roger, Lance J. Rips, und Kenneth Rasinski. 2000. The Psychology of Survey Response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511819322.001
  218. Train, Kenneth E. 2003. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. New York: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511753930.001
  219. Tversky, Amos, und Daniel Kahneman. 1973. Availability: A Heuristic for Judging Frequency and Probability. Cognitive Psychology 5: 207-32. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9
  220. Urban, Dieter. 1993. Logit-Analyse. Statistisches Verfahren zur Analyse von Modellen mit qualitativen Response-Variablen. Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1515/9783110510041
  221. van der Eijk, Cees, und Mark N. Franklin. 2009. Elections and Voters. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-01363-7_2
  222. Visser, Penny S., Jon A. Krosnick, und Joseph P. Simmons. 2003. Distinguishing the cognitive and behavioral consequences of attitude importance and certainty: A new approach to testing the common-factor hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 39: 118-41. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00522-X
  223. Wagner, Aiko. 2014. Party-Specific Vote Functions. In Voters on the Move or on the Run?, Hg. Bernhard Weßels, Hans Rattinger, Sigrid Roßteutscher und Rüdiger Schmitt-Beck, 40-64. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199662630.003.0003
  224. Wasmer, Martina, Evi Scholz, Michael Blohm, Jessica Walter, und Regina Jutz. 2012. Konzeption und Durchführung der „Allgemeinen Bevölkerungsumfrage der Sozialwissenschaften“ (ALLBUS) 2010. GESIS-Technical Reports 12: 7-76. Open Google Scholar
  225. Weßels, Bernhard. 2004. Sachfragen, generalisierte politische Positionen und Leistungsbewertungen: Zur Konditionierung präferenzorientierten Wählens. In Die Bundestagswahl 2002. Analysen der Wahlergebnisse und des Wahlkampfs, Hg. Frank Brettschneider, Jan van Deth und Edeltraud Roller, 143-66. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-80998-8_7
  226. –. 2007. Re-Mobilisierung, „Floating“ oder Abwanderung? Wechselwähler 2002 und 2005 im Vergleich. In Die Bundestagswahl 2005. Analysen des Wahlkampfes und der Wahlergebnisse, Hg. Frank Brettschneider, Oskar Niedermayer und Bernhard Weßels, 395-417. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-90536-5_1
  227. –. 2014. Voters' Motivations: How and Why Short-Term Factors Grow in Importance. In Voters on the Move or on the Run?, Hg. Bernhard Weßels, Hans Rattinger, Sigrid Roßteutscher und Rüdiger Schmitt-Beck, 238-62. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199662630.003.0011
  228. Weßels, Bernhard, Hans Rattinger, Sigrid Roßteutscher, und Rüdiger Schmitt-Beck. 2014. The Changing Context and Outlook of Voting. In Voters on the Move or on the Run?, Hg. Bernhard Weßels, Hans Rattinger, Sigrid Roßteutscher und Rüdiger Schmitt-Beck, 3-16. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199662630.003.0001
  229. Westle, Bettina. 2009. Politisches Wissen als Grundlage der Entscheidung bei der Bundestagswahl 2005. In Wähler in Deutschland. Sozialer und politischer Wandel, Gender und Wahlverhalten, Hg. Steffen Kühnel, Oskar Niedermayer und Bettina Westle, 366-98. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-91661-3_12
  230. White, Peter A. 1987. Causal Report Accuracy: Retrospect and Prospect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 23: 311-15. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(87)90043-6
  231. –. 1988. Knowing more about what we can tell: 'introspective access' and causal report accuracy 10 years later. British Journal of Psychology 79: 13-45. Open Google Scholar
  232. Willmann, Johanna E. 2011. Cross-Pressured Partisans: How Voters Make up Their Minds when Parties and Issues Diverge. Paper presented at the ECPR General Conference, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, 25-27 August 2011. Open Google Scholar
  233. Windzio, Michael. 2013. Regressionsmodelle für Zustände und Ereignisse. Wiesbaden: Springer. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-18852-2
  234. Yeager, David S., Jon A. Krosnick, Linchiat Chang, Harold S. Javitz, Matthew S. Levendusky, Alberto Simpser, und Rui Wang. 2011. Comparing the Accuracy of RDD Telephone Surveys and Internet Surveys Conducted with Probability and Non-Probability Samples. Public Opinion Quarterly 75: 709-47. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfr020
  235. Zaller, John. 1991. Information, Values, and Opinion. American Political Science Review 85: 1215-37. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/1963943
  236. –. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
  237. Zaller, John, und Stanley Feldman. 1992. A Simple Theory of the Survey Response: Answering Questions versus Revealing Preferences. American Journal of Political Science 36: 579-616. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/2111583

Similar publications

from the topics "Party Research & Electoral Research"
Cover of book: Jahrbuch Extremismus & Demokratie (E & D)
Edited Book No access
Uwe Backes, Alexander Gallus, Eckhard Jesse, Tom Thieme
Jahrbuch Extremismus & Demokratie (E & D)
Cover of book: Haltung zeigen – Demokratie stärken
Edited Book Full access
Anika C. Albert, Alexander Brink, Bettina Hollstein, Marc C. Hübscher
Haltung zeigen – Demokratie stärken
Cover of book: Datenhandbuch zur Geschichte des Deutschen Bundestages 1990 bis 2022
Book Titles No access
Michael F. Feldkamp
Datenhandbuch zur Geschichte des Deutschen Bundestages 1990 bis 2022
Cover of book: Sahra Wagenknecht
Book Titles No access
Jürgen P. Lang
Sahra Wagenknecht
Cover of book: Sachunmittelbare Demokratie im interdisziplinären und internationalen Kontext 2014/2015
Edited Book No access
Peter Neumann
Sachunmittelbare Demokratie im interdisziplinären und internationalen Kontext 2014/2015

Notice

This work is protected by copyright and may only be used in accordance with the provisions of the Terms of Use and License Agreement. Any use of the work beyond this is expressly prohibited and will be prosecuted.

Give feedback

We welcome your feedback on content and features. Your message helps us to continuously improve our service.

Rating
Attach images
or drag and drop
PNG or JPG (max. 3 MB)

Welcome to Inlibra – Your Platform for Digital Professional Information

Nomos, C.H.Beck, VDI and over 100 other publishers combine their content here to create one of the largest platforms for digital professional information.

Research efficiently, cite long-term, use reliably – all united in one place.

Login

Forgotten your password?
Login via Open Athens
Don't have an account yet?
Register now

Cite publication

Download: RIS BibTex