Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

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

  • 421 Accesses

  • 29 Citations

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Party identification represents an enduring sense of psychological attachment to a political party that influences political perception and judgment (Campbell et al., 1960).

  2. 2.

    Dole was omitted from the original article for reasons given in Goren (2002, p629, 635). Using the same procedures and measures described in the original article, I found that among Democrats Dole’s character weakness was a lack of empathy (mean = 0.29 on 0.00–1.00 scale; second weakest trait is leadership, mean = 0.40) and that the empathy × party identification term is statistically insignificant in the Dole feeling thermometer equation (see M1 in the appendix below).

  3. 3.

    In addition, candidates often seek to trespass on the issues and traits owned by the other side, which adds further uncertainty to the trait inference process (Hayes, 2005; Petrocik, 1996).

  4. 4.

    While potential voters have seen less of sitting vice presidents than of the presidents they serve, when it comes to public visibility and recognition vice presidents are more similar to presidents than they are to non-incumbent challengers. To elaborate, by the time a vice president announces his intention to seek the presidency he has served 8 years as the second most visible politician in the US. He is better known than present and former Senators, governors, former administration officials, and so on. Candidates who have not played a prominent role on the national political scene for an extended period of time lack a record visible. Although such officials may have caught the attention of the national media and the broader public from time to time, they cannot match the exposure attained by modern vice presidents.

  5. 5.

    In 1988, strong Democrats rated Bush slightly lower on leadership than empathy (0.35 vs. 0.37; p < 0.09).

  6. 6.

    Note that the feeling thermometer items are drawn from the post-election surveys; all other variables are drawn from the pre-election surveys.

  7. 7.

    All models are weighted by the NES post-sample stratification weight.

  8. 8.

    Note that the constituent party identification variable does not represent the main or average effect of partisanship on the feeling thermometer scores, but rather, represents the impact of party identification when a trait variable equals zero. Similarly, each constituent trait coefficient represents the impact a given trait has on the thermometer scores when partisanship equals zero (see Friedrich, 1982, pp804–805).

  9. 9.

    The predictions derive from the trimmed models reported in the appendix (see M2 and M3), which better isolate the character defect × party effect by dropping the insignificant multiplicative terms.

  10. 10.

    Since few partisans give their own nominee low marks on character and high marks to the opposition nominee, the predicted values are best seen as simulated values rather than as actual data points.

  11. 11.

    Following Zaller (1992), some might posit that politically aware partisans are more prone than politically unaware partisans to pick up elite messages regarding character flaws and subsequently incorporate such information into their opinion judgments about the candidates. Others might argue that this is unlikely to be the case insofar as it is easy to link trait perceptions to candidate evaluations, which suggests that unaware partisans should prove as adept as aware partisans at linking traits to evaluations. Indeed, Zaller (1992, p48) notes that “the more simple and direct the link between a predisposition and an issue, the less important awareness is likely to be in regulating responses to political communications on that issue.” If we think of character flaws as the predisposition and evaluations as the issue, it seems likely that people do not need to be politically aware to make such links because these are already quite simple and direct. To determine whether the interaction between character weakness and partisan bias is itself conditional on political awareness, I created a third-order interaction variable (character weakness × party identification × political awareness; all necessary second-order terms are included in the model) and entered it as a predictor in the 12 candidate evaluation equations for the 1984–2004 period. This term was statistically insignificant in all 12 equations, suggesting that awareness does not condition the relationship between character weakness, partisan bias, and presidential evaluation.

References

  1. Bartels, L. M. (2002). Beyond the running tally: partisan bias in political perceptions. Political Behavior, 24, 117–150.

  2. Baumeister, R. F., & Newman, L. S. (1994). Self-regulation of cognitive inference and decision processes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 3–19.

  3. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. New York: Wiley.

  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.

  5. Friedrich, R. J. (1982). In defense of multiplicative terms in multiple regression equations. American Journal of Political Science, 26, 797–833.

  6. Funk, C. L. (1999). Bringing the candidate into models of candidate evaluation. Journal of Politics, 61, 700–720.

  7. Goren, P. (2002). Character weakness, partisan bias, and presidential evaluation. American Journal of Political Science, 46, 627–641.

  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.

  9. Hayes, D. (2005). Candidate qualities through a partisan lens: a theory of trait ownership. American Journal of Political Science, 49, 908–923.

  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.

  11. Kinder, D. R. (1986). Presidential character revisited. In: R. R. Lau, & D. O. Sears (Eds.), Political cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

  12. Klein, J. G. (1996). Negativity in impressions of presidential candidates revisited: The 1992 election. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 288–295.

  13. Klein, J. G. (1991). Negativity effects in impression formation: A test in the political arena. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 412–418.

  14. Klein, W. M., & Kunda, Z. (1992). Motivated person perception: Constructing justifications for desired beliefs. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 145–168.

  15. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480–498.

  16. Lau, R. R. (1985). Two explanations for negativity effects in political behavior. American Journal of Political Science, 29, 119–138.

  17. Lau, R., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2006). How voters decide: Information processing in election campaigns. New York: Cambridge University Press.

  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.

  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.

  20. Mutz, D. C., & Reeves, B. (2005). The new videomalaise: effects of televised incivility on political trust. American Political Science Review, 99, 1–16.

  21. Petrocik, J. R. (1996). Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 825–850.

  22. Popkin, S. (1994.) The reasoning voter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  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.

  24. Skowronski, J. J., & Carlston, D. E. (1989). Negativity and extremity biases in impression formation: a review of explanations. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 131–142.

  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.

  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.

  27. Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 755–769.

  28. Zaller, J. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Download references

Acknowledgment

I would like to thank the three anonymous reviewers and the journal editors for their comments and suggestions on earlier versions of this article.

Author information

Correspondence to Paul Goren.

Appendix

Appendix

  Supplemental candidate evaluation models, unstandardized OLS estimates

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Goren, P. Character Weakness, Partisan Bias, and Presidential Evaluation: Modifications and Extensions. Polit Behav 29, 305–325 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-006-9019-0

Download citation

Keywords

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