Cognitive Dissonance and Post‐Decision Attitude Change in Six Presidential Elections

By Ryan K. Beasley, M. Joslyn. 2001

121 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Are volatile voters erratic, whimsical or seriously picky? A panel study of 58 waves into the nature of electoral volatility (The Netherlands 2006–2010) (2015, background): “Third, several studies had to assess past behaviour through retrospective questions, despite all the substantial biases towards consistency (see Beasley and Joslyn, 2001).”
The psychological roots of populist voting: Evidence from the United States, the Netherlands and Germany (2016, background): “Voters adjust their attitudes in line with their vote choice (Beasley & Joslyn 2001) and voting for populist parties fuels political dissatisfaction (Van der Brug 2003; Rooduijn 2013) and a closer identification with the party’s operational ‘host’ ideology (Bakker et al. 2015b).”
Perceptions of Cable News Credibility (2013, methodology): “Following previous research (see, e.g., Beasley & Joslyn, 2001; Fiorina, 2005; Mutz, 2002), we computed the absolute value of the difference between these two thermometer ratings (M¼ 5.38, SD¼ 2.90) to measure polarization.”
Sour Grapes, Sweet Lemons, and the Anticipatory Rationalization of the Status Quo (2002, background): “Similarly, Beasley and Joslyn (2001) found that people whose preferred candidate lost the election subsequently elevated their evaluations of the winning (nonpreferred) candidate and derogated the losing (initially preferred) candidate.”