Implicit Representations of Political Leaders: A Multidimensional Analysis

Abstract

Implicit cognitive representations of 20 salient political personalities (10 domestic, 10 foreign) were studied in two samples (NI = 121; Nz = 129) over a 1-year interval. The aim of the study was to elaborate multidimensional models of voting preference by (a) representing the cognitive dimensions used by subjects in perceiving politicians, @) contrasting perceptions of domestic and foreign leaders, (c) evaluating the effects of 'time, and (d) assessing individual differences between subjects on political perception. Judgments were analyzed by Carroll and Chang's (1970) Individual Differences Multidimensional Scaling (INDSCAL) procedure. Results showed that three implicit dimensions, evaluation, ideology, and leadership qualities, underlied perceptions of both domestic and foreign politicians. There were greater changes in perceptions of foreign and left-of-center leaders over the year than in judgments of domestic and right-of-center leaders; and individual differences such as attitudes, personality, and cognitive style were also significantly related to cognitive representations of politicians. Results were discussed in terms of their implications for predictive models of voting behavior, and the use of these methods in large-scale political surveys and polls is suggested.One of the most important applied tasks of social psychology is to provide accurate and realistic models of the processes underlying political perception and behavior. In particular, an understanding of the factors influencing the perception and cognitive representation of political leaders, perhaps the most salient stimulus category in politics, is central to any model

Images of politics: A multidimensional analysis of implicit representations of political parties in a newly emerging democracy

“…In a subsequent study, Forgas and Menyhart (1979) showed that judgments of 20 politicians by an Australian sample were defined by three implicit dimensions (evaluation, conservatism and intelligence), and that individual patterns of using these dimensions were significantly linked to measures of conservatism, mental rigidity, alienation and intolerance of ambiguity. In a later longitudinal study, we assessed implicit representations of politicians over a one-year interval, and found that measures of attitudes, personality and cognitive style were significantly related to shifting perceptions on such implicit dimensions as ideology, evaluation and leadership (Forgas, 1980). Similar structural changes in perception were also found in studies comparing implicit representations across developing (Papua-New Guinea) and developed (Australia) nations (Forgas and O'Driscoll, 1984).…”

“…Attitudes, personality, voting preference and demographic variables have all been linked to political cognition in the past (cf. Forgas, 1980Forgas, ,1982. In the present studies, we found that gender, educational attainment and social background were all significantly related to the way the parties were cognitively represented.…”

“…This dimension is frequently reported in studies of Western electorates, where ieft-wing parties and politicians are invariably seen as more radical than right-wing groupings (Forgas, 1980). It is a remarkable feature of our results -and indeed, the prevailing political climate in Eastern Europe -that here, it is the left-wing, socialist parties that were located at the conservative and insecure end of the dimension, while the more right wing, democratic liberal parties were predominantly perceived as radical and self-confident.…”

“…In selecting the optimum number of dimensions, two main criteria were considered -(a) the interpretability and meaningfulness of the configuration, and (b) the amount of variance explained by it (cf. Forgas, 1979). Three dimensions accounted for markedly more variance than two dimensions (58 per cent versus 53 per cent), but only a small further improvement was achieved by adding a fourth dimension (58 per cent versus 59 per cent), suggesting that three dimensions were both sufficient and necessary to adequately represent the implicit structure of similarity judgments.…”

“…Subject weights for each person and on each dimension measure the importance of that dimension to that subject -in other words, the extent to which each dimension was used by each subject in his or her judgments (Carroll and Chang, 1970;Forgas, 1979).…”