Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bassili, J. N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Bassili, J. N.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 21, No. 7, 686-695 (1995)
DOI: 10.1177/0146167295217003
© 1995 Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

Response Latency and the Accessibility of Voting Intentions: What Contributes to Accessibility and How it Affects Vote Choice

John N. Bassili

University of Toronto, Scarborough Campus

Response latencies to all questions in a computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) survey of the 1990 Ontario election were recorded. Prior to the election, a random sample of respondents were asked about their voting intention, their leader preference, their party preference, and their customary party identification. After the election, respondents were called back to determine if they had voted and, if so, for what party. Models of vote choice demonstrated that the voting behavior of respondents who expressed their voting intention quickly in the preelection interview was much more predictable than the voting behavior of respondents who expressed their voting intention slowly. The accessibility of voting intentions was, in turn, related to conflict among determinants of vote choice. Moreover the accessibility of voting intentions was related to the accessibility of party identification, but only for respondents who did not experience a conflict in the election.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Pers Soc Psychol BullHome page
P. Sheeran and C. Abraham
Mediator of Moderators: Temporal Stability of Intention and the Intention-Behavior Relation
Pers Soc Psychol Bull, February 1, 2003; 29(2): 205 - 215.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Pers Soc Psychol BullHome page
A. L. Freitas, N. Liberman, P. Salovey, and E. T. Higgins
When to Begin? Regulatory Focus and Initiating Goal Pursuit
Pers Soc Psychol Bull, January 1, 2002; 28(1): 121 - 130.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Pers Soc Psychol BullHome page
P. Sheeran, S. Orbell, and D. Trafimow
Does the Temporal Stability of Behavioral Intentions Moderate Intention-Behavior and Past Behavior-Future Behavior Relations?
Pers Soc Psychol Bull, June 1, 1999; 25(6): 724 - 734.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Pers Soc Psychol BullHome page
L. R. Fabrigar, J. R. Priester, R. E. Petty, and D. T. Wegener
The Impact of Attitude Accessibility on Elaboration of Persuasive Messages
Pers Soc Psychol Bull, April 1, 1998; 24(4): 339 - 352.
[Abstract]