Fluent Essays

1. For the article you select, first, give a short 1-3 sentence summary of the main findings of that article. Be sure to put the summary in your own words; do not quote verbatim from the article or my recorded lecture. Second, articulate a question you would like answered that would extend that work. For example, if you select the Kam and Zechmeister paper, you might want to know if there are conditions that enhance the magnitude of the mere exposure effect. For instance, might the mere exposure effect be larger when people are under cognitive load? Cognitive load tends to enhance reliance on heuristic cues. So, if mere exposure is a heuristic type cue, perhaps its impact on candidate choice would be greater when under load. 2. After give the response, I will give one of others response, you need to reply it. Just be sure to meaningfully address the prompt and, when replying to a classmate, meaningfully extend their remark.Name Recognition and Candidate Support Author(s): Cindy D. Kam and Elizabeth J. Zechmeister Source: American Journal of Political Science , October 2013, Vol. 57, No. 4 (October 2013), pp. 971-986 Published by: Midwest Political Science Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.com/stable/23496668 JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected] Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms Midwest Political Science Association and Wiley are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Journal of Political Science This content downloaded from �������������184.54.114.89 on Sat, 27 Jun 2020 18:50:32 UTC������������� All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms http://www.jstor.com/stable/23496668 Name Recognition and Candidate Support Cindy D. Kam Vanderbilt University Elizabeth J. Zechmeister Vanderbilt University The mass media devote a great deal of attention to high-profile elections, but in American political life such elections are the exception, not the rule. The majority of electoral contests feature candidates who are relative unknowns. In such situations, does name recognition breed contempt, indifference, or affection? Existing work presents modest theory and mixed evidence. Using three laboratory experiments, we provide conclusive evidence that name recognition can affect candidate support, and we offer strong evidence that a key mechanism underlying this relationship is inferences about candidate viability. We further show that the name-recognition effect dissipates in the face of a more germane cue, incumbency. We conclude with afield study that demonstrates the robustness of the name-recognition effect to a real-world political context, that of yard signs and a county election. ... there is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about and that is not being talked about. — Oscar Wilde ( The Picture of Dorian Gray) X olitical candidates dedicate significant resources to attempts to imprint their names on the public. .A. They post yard signs, send mailers, print bumper stickers, distribute flyers, and make media appearances, among other things. Many of these messages contain only the candidates name, and they likely draw very little con scious consideration by citizens. Such messages aim to increase the candidates name recognition, but there is no academic consensus on whether mere name recognition actually affects candidate support. On the one hand, some researchers see the wisdom in promoting a candidates name, thus subscribing to Stokes an