<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	
	xmlns:adano="http://adambrown.info/p/xmlns/adano#" 
>

<channel>
	<title>Abstract Politics &#187; low-information rationality</title>
	<atom:link href="http://abstractpolitics.com/tag/low-information-rationality/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://abstractpolitics.com</link>
	<description>Notes on political science research</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Oct 2011 20:23:28 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>The Party Faithful: Partisan Images, Candidate Religion, and the Electoral Impact of Party Identification</title>
		<link>http://abstractpolitics.com/2011/05/the-party-faithful-partisan-images-candidate-religion-and-the-electoral-impact-of-party-identification/</link>
		<comments>http://abstractpolitics.com/2011/05/the-party-faithful-partisan-images-candidate-religion-and-the-electoral-impact-of-party-identification/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 May 2011 16:50:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[American Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[american journal of political science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[congressional elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[descriptive representation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[experiment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[framing effects]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[low-information rationality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[partisanship]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[political behavior]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public opinion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[voter information]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[voting and elections]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://abstractpolitics.com/?p=411</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[American voters tend to vote for their party&#8217;s candidate. That&#8217;s not news. The question is, why? Political science has usually relied on three answers. The psychological approach says that voters support their party because of a deep, emotional, psychological attachment to it (see The American Voter). The rational approach characterized partisanship as a &#8220;running tally&#8221; [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://abstractpolitics.com/2011/05/the-party-faithful-partisan-images-candidate-religion-and-the-electoral-impact-of-party-identification/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Campaign Communications in U.S. Congressional Elections</title>
		<link>http://abstractpolitics.com/2009/09/campaign-communications-in-u-s-congressional-elections/</link>
		<comments>http://abstractpolitics.com/2009/09/campaign-communications-in-u-s-congressional-elections/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:13:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[American Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[american political science review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[campaign advertising]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[congressional elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[incumbency advantage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[low-information rationality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[media and politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[minimal effects]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[partisanship]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public opinion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[voting and elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[websites blogs and new media]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://abstractpolitics.com/?p=121</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[We&#8217;ve long known that most voters pay little attention to campaign rhetoric; they pay far more attention to partisanship, incumbency, and other easily accessible considerations (although rhetoric certainly has its place). Still, candidates work hard to develop arguments that, they hope, will sway voters to their side. The question: How do candidates decide what to [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://abstractpolitics.com/2009/09/campaign-communications-in-u-s-congressional-elections/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Challenger Entry and Voter Learning</title>
		<link>http://abstractpolitics.com/2008/04/challenger-entry-and-voter-learning/</link>
		<comments>http://abstractpolitics.com/2008/04/challenger-entry-and-voter-learning/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:59:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[American Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[american political science review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[challenger entry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[congressional elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[low-information rationality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[voting and elections]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://abstractpolitics.com/?p=9</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Previous research has indicated that experienced, high-quality candidates are more likely to challenge Congressional incumbents when there is evidence that the incumbent is vulnerable. This makes sense; running for office is costly, both in terms of time, money, and reputation, so why should a potential candidate incur these costs if the odds of success are [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://abstractpolitics.com/2008/04/challenger-entry-and-voter-learning/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

