Table A1: Data points required for the functional relationship between turn out and average attitude strength | ||||
min | avg | max | asymptotic behavior | |
α_{avg} | 0 | 0.15 | 0.4 | 1000 (extreme value) |
T | 0.65 | 0.81 | 0.95 | 1.00 (extreme value) |
(1) |
Figure A1. Remaining accessibility of a persuasive message extract (PME) after some weeks. The involvement at the moment of perception is set at 0.1 (very low) |
Table A2: The numbers in the cells denote the number of partisans A, partisans B, and apartisans with a particular composition of network neighbors in the simulated electorate of 100 citizens. Reading example: 16 partisans of party B have homogeneous and concordant discussant networks | |||||
party identification of the discussants within ego-networks | |||||
no discussant | only partisans A | only partisans B | only apartisans | both partisans A and B | |
partisan A | 3 | 17 | 3 | 5 | 8 |
partisan B | 3 | 2 | 16 | 6 | 9 |
apartisan | 3 | 4 | 4 | 10 | 7 |
Table A3: Percentages of different linkage classes within the simulated citizen networks | |||||
partisan A - partisan A | partisan B - partisan B | partisan A - partisan B | apartisan - partisan A | apartisan - partisan B | apartisan - apartisan |
20% | 20% | 17% | 15% | 15% | 13% |
Table A4: Average percentage of citizens who were recently the target of somebody trying to convince them to vote for a particular party (Noelle-Neumann et al. 1991; Noelle-Neumann 1999) | |||
time before voting day | mean | sdev | N |
2 months | 15.6 | 3.6 | 5 |
1 month | 16.4 | 2.9 | 5 |
1 week | 20.2 | 5.7 | 5 |
Table A5: Relative explanatory power of information perceived from different sources for the prediction of the voting decision. Data from Schmitt-Beck (2000) | ||||
source | KPR2 | relative response weight | parameter inversely estimated | estimate |
party identification | 0.45 | 52% | maximum of the initial account accessibilities a_{0A,c} and a_{0B,c} | [0.0 .. 9.0] |
interpersonal communication | 0.245 (for CDU/CSU and SPD citizens) | 28% | the weight of interpersonal communication ..._{IPC} | [30.0 .. 40.0] |
party advertising | 0.14 (interpolated) | 16% | credibility of the strategists | [0.06 .. 0.14] |
mass media | 0.034 (for CDU/CSU and SPD citizens) | 4% | relative "activity budget" Y_{M} of the mass media: percentage of the total activity budget of both parties | [10 .. 15%] |
Table A6: Directly and inversely estimated parameters from assumptions | |
Parameter | estimate |
Total spending of the of the parties A and B with Y_{A} = Y_{B} | 365.0 |
Level of the baseline advertising activity of the parties Assumption The true level of the baseline could not be estimated from empirical studies. Even the very detailed campaign reports of the German parties (e.g. CDU 1987) do not provide sufficient data. | 0.5 |
Initial involvement of citizens Assumption 1 The initial citizen involvements are normally distributed. Data: Aggregated ALLBUS dataset 1980-1998 (GESIS 1996). Assumption 2 The initial citizen involvement varies between 0 for the least involved citizens and twice the population average for the most involved citizens. Ad hoc assumption, no data available. Assumption 3 "What has happened three weeks ago, is practically forgotten" One year before voting day, the average involvement of the citizens has to be so low that the accessibilities of PMEs with an age of three weeks falls beyond 0.5, i.e. they are only half as accessible as PMEs just perceived. Ad hoc assumption, no data available. Using the data sampling from 36000 model runs with different memory decay speeds for each run (choosing randomly between 0.0015 and 0.0055 and attaching this value to all the citizens), the assumptions 1-3 are met if in each run the initial involvements of the citizens are normally distributed around a mean of 0.125 and with s2=0.054. The average accessibility of three week old PMEs is then 0.496 with s2=0.207. | normally distributed (μ = 0.125; s^{2}=0.054) |
Threshold of accessibility β_{att} at the inflexion point of the involvement growth curve (see figure 6 in the main text). Assumption "What has happened one week ago is just like yesterday": The citizen involvements at voting day has to grow from the initial involvements so that the accessibilities of PMEs with an age of one week or less are above 0.90, i.e. they are approximately as accessible in memory as PMEs perceived just one day ago. Ad hoc assumption, no data available. This assumption is met if the accessibity threshold is varied between 60.0 and 70.0. Sampling the data from 36'000 runs (varying the memory decay speed between 0.0015 and 0.0055), these thresholds yield average citizen involvements at voting day of 0.375 (s2=0.213). These increased involvements cause the slower target rate of accessibility decay postulated in assumption 1. After 7 days, the average accessibility of a PME is 0.901 with s2=0.146). | [60.0 .. 70.0] |
Reference credibility for the mass media (given a priori just as a reference). Assumption It is assumed to be between the credibility of the parties (maximally 0.14, see above) and the credibility of a maximally involved communication partner (maximally 1.0). | 0.5 |
Qualitative differentiation between extremely smooth (max) and extremely sharp (min) threshold of attention (see figure 6 in the main text) Assumption Complete uncertainty about the "true" threshold. The range of this parameter has therefore been choosen very broad. | [-8.0 .. 0.0] |
CDU. (1987). Wahlkampfbericht der Bundesgeschäftsstelle zum Bundestagswahlkampf 1986/87.: Christlich Demokratische Union (CDU) Deutschland.
CHAFFEE, S. H., and Mutz, D. C. (1988). Comparing Mediated and Interpersonal Communication Data. In R. Hawkins and J. Wiemann and S. Pingree (Eds.), Advancing Communication Science: Merging Mass and Interpersonal Processes (pp. 19-43). Newbury Park: Sage.
EATON, H. (1989). Agenda-setting with biweekly data on content of three national media. Journalism Quarterly, 66, 942-949.
FALTER, J. W., Schoen, H., and Caballero, C. (2000). Dreissig Jahre danach: Zur Validierung des Konzepts 'Parteiindentifikation' in der Bundesrepublik. In M. Klein and W. Jagodzinski and E. Mochmann and D. Ohr (Eds.), 50 Jahre Empirische Wahlforschung in Deutschland. Entwicklung, Befunde, Perspektiven, Daten. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.
FINKEL, S. E., and Schrott, P. (1995). Campaign Effects on Voter Choice in the 1990 German Bundestag Elections. British Journal of Political Science, 25(July), 349-377.
LENART, S. (1994). Shaping Political Attitudes. The Impact of Interpersonal Communication and Mass Media. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
NOELLE-NEUMANN, E. (1999). Die Wiederentdeckung der Meinungsführer und die Wirkung der persönlichen Kommunikation im Wahlkampf. In E. Noelle-Neumann and H. M. Kepplinger and W. Donsbach (Eds.), Kampa. Meinungsklima und Medienwirkung im Bundestagswahlkampf 1998 (pp. 181-214). Alber, S.: Freiburg, München.
NOELLE-NEUMANN, E., and Reitzle, M. (1991). Was man aus der Budestagswahl von 1987 lernen kann. In H.-J. Veen and E. Noelle-Neumann (Eds.), Wählerverhalten im Wandel (Vol. 16). Paderborn (etc.): Ferdinand Schöningh.
SCHENK, M. (1995). Soziale Netzwerke und Massenmedien. Tübingen: Mohr.
SCHMITT-BECK, R. (2000). Politische Kommunikation und Wählerverhalten. Ein internationaler Vergleich. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.
SCHMITT-BECK, R., and Schrott, P. (1994). Dealignment durch Massenmedien? Zur These der Abschwächung von Parteibindungen als Folge der Medienexpansion. In H.-D. Klingemann and M. Kaase (Eds.), Wahlen und Wähler - Analysen aus Anlaß der Bundestagswahl 1990 (pp. 543-572). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
SCHULZ, W., and Blumler, J. G. (1994). Die Bedeutung von Kampagnen für das Europa-Engagement der Bürger. Eine Mehr-Ebenen-Analyse. In O. Niedermayer and H. Schmitt (Eds.), Wahlen und europäische Einigung (pp. 199-223). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
SEMETKO, H., and Schönbach, K. (1994). Germany's 'unity election'. Voters and the media. Cresskill: Hampton Press.
SHAW, D. R., and Roberts, B. E. (2000). Campaign events, the media and the prospects of victory: The 1992 and 1996 US presidential elections. British Journal of Political Science, 30(April), 259-289.
WATT, J. H., Mazza, M., and Snyder, L. (1993). Agenda-Setting Effects of Television News Coverage and the Effects Decay Curve. Communications Research, 20(3), 408-435.
WEST, M., and Harrison, J. (1997). Bayesian Forecasting and Dynamic Models. New York (etc.): Springer.
ZEH, R., and Hagen, L., M. (1999). "Nun zum Sport..." und andere kurzfristige Effekte von Fernsehnachrichten auf die Wahlabsicht im Bundestagswahlkampf 1998. In C. Holtz-Bacha (Ed.), Wahlkampf in den Medien - Wahlkampf mit den Medien (pp. 188-217). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
ZIELSKE, H. A., and Henry, W. A. (1980). Remembering and Forgetting Television Ads. Journal of Advertising Research, 20(2), 7-13.
Return to Contents of this issue
© Copyright Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, [2004]