Political Behavior

, Volume 29, Issue 3, pp 305–325

Character Weakness, Partisan Bias, and Presidential Evaluation: Modifications and Extensions

Original Paper

Abstract

In a recent article Goren (American Journal of Political Science, 46, 627–641, 2002) draws upon theories of negativity bias, partisan bias, and motivated reasoning to posit that the more strongly people identify with the opposition party of a presidential candidate, the more heavily they will rely on character weakness impressions to construct global candidate evaluations. This paper modifies the theoretical framework by positing that (1) partisans will judge opposition nominees most critically on the traits owned by the former’s party and (2) partisan bias promotes negativity bias in the evaluation of incumbent presidents seeking reelection and incumbent vice presidents seeking the presidency. Analysis of data from the 2000 and 2004 NES surveys, along with a reconsideration of the results from the 1984 to 1996 period covered in the original piece, yields strong empirical support for these expectations.

Keywords

Party identification Presidential character Candidate evaluation Negativity bias Trait ownership Motivated reasoning 

References

  1. Bartels, L. M. (2002). Beyond the running tally: partisan bias in political perceptions. Political Behavior, 24, 117–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baumeister, R. F., & Newman, L. S. (1994). Self-regulation of cognitive inference and decision processes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  4. De Bruin, E. N. M., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2000). What people look for in others: influences of the perceiver and the perceived on information selection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 206–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Friedrich, R. J. (1982). In defense of multiplicative terms in multiple regression equations. American Journal of Political Science, 26, 797–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Funk, C. L. (1999). Bringing the candidate into models of candidate evaluation. Journal of Politics, 61, 700–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Goren, P. (2002). Character weakness, partisan bias, and presidential evaluation. American Journal of Political Science, 46, 627–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Green, D., Palmquist, B., & Schickler, E. (2002). Partisan hearts and minds: Political parties and the social identities of voters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Hayes, D. (2005). Candidate qualities through a partisan lens: a theory of trait ownership. American Journal of Political Science, 49, 908–923.Google Scholar
  10. Just, M. R., Crigler, A. N., Alger, D. E., Cook, T. E., Kern, M., & West, D. M. (1996). Crosstalk: Citizens, candidates, and the media in a presidential campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  11. Kinder, D. R. (1986). Presidential character revisited. In: R. R. Lau, & D. O. Sears (Eds.), Political cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  12. Klein, J. G. (1996). Negativity in impressions of presidential candidates revisited: The 1992 election. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 288–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Klein, J. G. (1991). Negativity effects in impression formation: A test in the political arena. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 412–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Klein, W. M., & Kunda, Z. (1992). Motivated person perception: Constructing justifications for desired beliefs. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 145–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lau, R. R. (1985). Two explanations for negativity effects in political behavior. American Journal of Political Science, 29, 119–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lau, R., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2006). How voters decide: Information processing in election campaigns. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Lodge, M., & Charles T. (2000). Three steps toward a theory of motivated political reasoning. In: A. Lupia, M. D. McCubbins, & S. L. Popkin (Eds.), Elements of reason: Cognition, choice, and the bounds of rationality. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Martijn, C., Spears, R., Van Der Pligt, J., & Jakobs, E. (1992). Negativity and positivity effects in person perception: ability versus morality. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 453–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mutz, D. C., & Reeves, B. (2005). The new videomalaise: effects of televised incivility on political trust. American Political Science Review, 99, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Petrocik, J. R. (1996). Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 825–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Popkin, S. (1994.) The reasoning voter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  23. Pyszczynski, T., & Greenberg, J. (1987). Toward an integration of cognitive and motivational perspectives on social inference: a biased hypothesis testing model. In: L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Volume 20). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  24. Skowronski, J. J., & Carlston, D. E. (1989). Negativity and extremity biases in impression formation: a review of explanations. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 131–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Stokes, D. E. (1966). Party Loyalty and the Likelihood of Deviating Elections. In: A. Campbell, P. E. Converse, W. E. Miller, & D. E. Stokes (Eds.), Elections and the Political Order. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  26. Sweeney, P. D., & Gruber, K. L. (1984). Selective exposure: voter information preferences and the Watergate affair. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 1208–1221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 755–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Zaller, J. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations