1 Lazarsfeld, Paul, Berelson, Bernard and Gaudet, Hazel, The People's Choice (2nd ed.; New York: Columbia University Press, 1948).Google Scholar

2 Klapper, Joseph, The Effects of Mass Communications (New York: Free Press, 1960).Google Scholar

3 See Katz, Elihu, “The Two-step Flow of Mass Communication,” Public Opinion Quarterly 21 (1957), 61–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 Robinson, John P. and Levy, Mark R., “Interpersonal Communication and News Comprehension,” Public Opinion Quarterly 50 (1986), 160–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 See, for example, Skalaban, Andrew, “Do Polls Affect Elections? Some 1980 Evidence,” Political Behaviour 10 (1988), 136–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Nadeau, Richard with Cloutier, Edouard and Guay, Jean H., “New Evidence about the Existence of a Bandwagon Effect in the Opinion Formation Process,” International Political Science Review 14 (1993), 203–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 Bartels, Larry, Presidential Primaries and the Dynamics of Public Choice (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988).Google Scholar

7 Ibid., 108–12.

8 See, for example, Converse, Phillip, “Information Flow and the Stability of Partisan Attitudes,” Public Opinion Quarterly 26 (1962), 578–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Patterson, Thomas and McClure, R. D., The Unseeing Eye: The Myth of Television Power in National Elections (New York: Putnam, 1976)Google Scholar. These works typified the research, finding little conversion.

9 Patterson, Thomas, The Mass Media Election: How Americans Choose Their President (New York: Praeger, 1980)Google Scholar. More recently, Bartels has suggested that the failure to find generalized media effects is due to the consequences of measurement error and the limitations of research design. He was able to demonstrate widespread persuasion due to media exposure. See Bartels, Larry, “Messages Received: The Political Impact of Media Exposure,” American Political Science Review 87 (1993), 267–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10 Miller, William, Clarke, Harold, Harrop, Martin, Leduc, Lawrence and Whiteley, Paul, How Voters Change: The 1987 British Election Campaign in Perspective (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990).Google Scholar

11 Page, Benjamin and Shapiro, Robert, The Rational Public: Fifty Years of Trends in Americans' Policy Preferences (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12 See Popkin, Samuel, The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991)Google Scholar; and Fan, David, Predictions of Public Opinion from the Mass Media: Computer Content Analysis and Mathematical Modelling (New York: Greenwood Press, 1991).Google Scholar

13 Ibid., 1–9.

14 Grouse, Timothy, The Boys on the Bus (New York: Random House, 1973)Google Scholar; Bogart, Leo, Press and Public (Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1981)Google Scholar; and Denton, Robert Jr., and Woodward, Gary, Political Communication in America (2nd ed.; New York: Praeger, 1990).Google Scholar

15 See MacKuen, Michael and Coombs, Steven Lane, More than News: Media Power in Public Affairs (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1981)Google Scholar; Weaver, David, Graber, Doris, McCombs, Maxwell and Eyal, Chaim, Media Agenda-setting in a Presidential Election (New York: Praeger, 1981)Google Scholar; and Semetko, Holi, Blumler, Jay, Gurevitch, Michael and Weaver, David, The Formation of Campaign Agendas: A Comparative Analysis of Party and Media Roles in Recent American and British Elections (Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1991).Google Scholar

16 Iyengar, Shanto and Kinder, Donald R., News that Matters: Television and American Opinion (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987).Google Scholar

17 The priming of personality has been demonstrated elsewhere. See Krosnick, Jon and Kinder, Donald R., “Altering the Foundations of Support for the President through Priming,” American Political Science Review 84 (1990), 497–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

18 Keeter, Scott, “The Illusion of Intimacy: Television and the Role of Candidate Personal Qualities in Voter Choice,” Public Opinion Quarterly 51 (1987), 344–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19 See the literature on cognitive shortcuts and construct accessibility. For example, Reid, Hastie, “A Primer of Information-processing Theory for the Political Scientist,” in Lau, Richard and Sears, David, eds., Political Cognition (Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1986)Google Scholar; and Conover, Pamela and Feldman, Stanley, “Candidate Perception in an Ambiguous World: Campaigns, Cues, and Inference Processes,” American Journal of Political Science 33 (1989), 912–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20 Jamieson, Kathleen Hall, Dirty Politics: Deception, Distraction, and Democracy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992)Google Scholar, and Neuman, W. Russell, Just, Marion R. and Crigler, Ann N., Common Knowledge: News and the Construction of Political Meaning (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992).Google Scholar

21 Robinson, Michael and Sheehan, Margaret A., Over the Wire and on TV (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1983).Google Scholar

22 Graber, Doris, Mass Media and American Politics (Washington: Congressional Quarterly Press, 1980).Google Scholar

23 Diamond, Edwin, Good News, Bad News (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1978).Google Scholar

24 Nimmo, Dan and Coombs, James E., Mediated Political Realities (White Plains: Longman, 1983), 16.Google Scholar

25 Clarke, P. and Fredin, E., “Newspapers, Television, and Political Reasoning,” Public Opinion Quarterly 42 (1978), 143–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar; McLeod, J. M., Glynn, C. J. and McDonald, D. A., “Issues and Images: The Influence of Media Reliance in Voting Decisions,” Communications Research 10 (1983), 37–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Miller, Arthur and Asp, Kent, “Learning about Politics from the Media: A Comparative Study of Sweden and the United States,” in Kraus, Sidney and Perloff, Richard, eds., Mass Media and Political Thought: An Information Processing Approach (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1985).Google Scholar

26 Hart, Roderick, The Sound of Leadership: Political Communication in the Modern Age (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), chap. 6.Google Scholar

27 Robinson, John and Levy, Mark, The Main Source: Learning from Television News (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1986).Google Scholar

28 Hofstetter, Richard, Bias in the News (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1976)Google Scholar; and Patterson, , The Mass Media Election.Google Scholar

29 Frank, Robert, Message Dimensions of Television News (Lexington: Lexington Books, 1973).Google Scholar

30 Owens, J., Bower, G. H. and Black, J. B., “The ‘Soap Opera’ Effect in Story Recall,” Memory and Cognition 7 (1979), 185–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

31 Korballa, T. R. Jr., “Persuading Teachers to Reexamine the Innovative Elementary Science Program of Yesterday: The Effect of Anecdotal versus Data-Summary Communications,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 23 (1986), 437–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

32 Wagner, Joseph, “Media Do Make a Difference: The Differential Impact of Mass Media in the 1976 Presidential Race,” American Journal of Political Science 27 (1983), 407–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

33 Morgan, Michael and Shanahan, James, “Television Viewing and Voting, 1972–1989,” Electoral Studies 11 (1992), 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

34 This has already been done for the 1988 election. See Johnston, Richard, Blais, André, Brady, Henry and Crête, Jean, Letting the People Decide: Dynamics of a Canadian Election (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1992).Google Scholar

35 For more detailed information, see ibid., Appendices.

36 Our focus is restricted to Liberal and Conservative voters. We subtract the Conservative vote share from the Liberal vote share. New Democratic party voters and undecided voters are excluded. We do so for the sake of simplicity. A comparison between Liberal and Conservative voters is the easiest possible; it is unclear what comparisons we could make if we included all voters. Moreover, as the election proceeded, most of the shifts occurred between the Liberals and the Conservatives; the NDP was relegated to its traditional constituency. In addition, during the postdebate period, the media clearly presented the election as a contest between the two traditional parties.

37 In earlier runs we controlled for various socio-economic and attitudinal variables. For example, in one run we restricted the analysis to those who were interested in politics, highly educated and had seen a leaders' debate. Even restricting the sample in this way, when we compared the high- and low-exposure groups, the differences identified above were still found.

38 One qualification should be made. The pattern of movement in 1988 was one in which many individuals changed their vote intention (or at least became undecided) in the middle periods of the campaign, but returned to their original vote intention by the end of the campaign. Those who said they would vote Conservative during the first wave, at some later point became undecided or switched parties and then later returned, and responded in the postcampaign wave that they had voted Conservative, would be labelled as “stable.” We are not able to capture this movement and indecision in our measures in this section. What went on between these two surveys is not considered, and it is for this reason that the results in this section must be looked at in conjunction with the results of the previous section.

39 Though the coefficients are highest for the comparative trustworthiness assessment, it is actually the least significant of the three.

40 See Schiller, Herbert (Culture Inc.: The Corporate Takeover of Public Expression [New York: Oxford University Press, 1989])Google Scholar on the “televisionization” of all aspects of culture, including newspapers.

41 One might also suggest that the differences observed between exposure groups are due to their different socio-economic make-ups. It is for this reason that we controlled for political sophistication. In earlier runs we controlled for other socioeconomics variables. These runs produced similar results.

42 It must be remembered that opinion on the FTA and party identification were very closely related to the comparative leadership assessment, and it is impossible to distinguish completely these variables from each other. This is why, despite results that are not very robust, we are confident that the media did have an effect: as exposure to the media went up, voters were less likely to base their vote decisions on party identification and more likely to base them on the FTA and leaders. These were the two objects which became fused in the media. Because of the presence of the FTA, finding evidence for the priming of leadership may be more difficult in the 1988 election than in other elections. Nonetheless, that there was even some priming of leadership in an election described as a “referendum on free trade” suggests that we are on the right track and that future elections may demonstrate more clearly the priming of leadership.