Political Behavior

, Volume 31, Issue 2, pp 231–260

Has Television Personalized Voting Behavior?

Original Paper


Scholars and political observers have suggested that television has “personalized” voting behavior in American presidential elections by encouraging citizens to cast ballots on the basis of candidate image and personality. Though an oft-heard assertion, little solid evidence exists that this is true, and the reinvigoration of partisanship and the persistence of ideological conflict suggest personalization may be less pervasive than supposed. In this paper, I use National Election Studies data to examine whether voters are more concerned with candidates’ personal characteristics now than they were at the outset of the television era. I find, however, that voters are no more likely today to mention candidate personality as a reason for their vote choice than they were in the 1950s and 1960s. Moreover, while personality affects voting behavior, its influence on candidate choice is not significantly larger than it was a half-century ago. The results are not contingent on exposure to television or political awareness and are insensitive to different measures of perceptions of candidate image. The findings are consistent with the resurgence of partisan voting in American elections and suggest that some concerns about TV’s effects on political judgment are exaggerated.


Voting Presidential elections Mass media Candidate personality Candidate traits Candidate image 


  1. Abramowitz, A. I. (1988). Explaining senate election outcomes. The American Political Science Review, 82, 385–403. doi:10.2307/1957392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abramowitz, A. I., & Saunders, K. L. (1998). Ideological realignment in the US electorate. The Journal of Politics, 60, 634–652. doi:10.2307/2647642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Adatto, K. (1993). Picture perfect: The art and artifice of public image making. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  4. Aldrich, J. H. (1995). Why parties? The origin and transformation of political parties in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  5. Barrett, A. W., & Barrington, L. W. (2005). Is a picture worth a thousand words? Newspaper photographs and voter evaluations of political candidates. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 10, 98–113. doi:10.1177/1081180X05281392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bartels, L. M. (2000). Partisanship and voting behavior, 1952–1996. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 35–50. doi:10.2307/2669291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bartels, L. M. (2002a). The impact of candidate traits in American presidential elections. In A. King (Ed.), Leaders’ personalities and the outcomes of democratic elections (pp. 44–69). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bartels, L. M. (2002b). Beyond the running tally: Partisan bias in political perceptions. Political Behavior, 24, 117–150. doi:10.1023/A:1021226224601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Baum, M. A. (2005). Talking the vote: Why presidential candidates hit the talk show circuit. American Journal of Political Science, 49, 213–234. doi:10.1111/j.0092-5853.2005.t01-1-00119.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Beck, P. A. (1992). Encouraging defection: The role of personal discussion networks in partisan desertions to the opposition party and Perot votes in 1992. Political Behavior, 24, 309–338. doi:10.1023/A:1022549726887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bennett, W. L. (2009). News: The politics of illusion (8th ed.). New York: Pearson Longman.Google Scholar
  12. Berelson, B. R., Lazarsfeld, P. F., & McPhee, W. N. (1954). Voting: A study of opinion formation in a presidential campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  13. Bishin, B. G., Stevens, D., & Wilson, C. (2006). Character counts? Honesty and fairness in election 2000. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70, 235–248. doi:10.1093/poq/nfj016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Blais, A., Martin, P., & Nadeau, R. (1998). Can people explain their own vote? Introspective questions as indicators of salience in the 1995 Quebec referendum on sovereignty. Quality & Quantity, 32, 355–366. doi:10.1023/A:1004301524340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brambor, T., Clark, W. R., & Golder, M. (2006). Understanding interaction models: Improving empirical analyses. Political Analysis, 14, 63–82. doi:10.1093/pan/mpi014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Burnham, W. D. (1970). Critical elections and the mainsprings of American politics. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  17. Campbell, A., Converse, P., Miller, W., & Stokes, D. (1960). The American voter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  18. Carmines, E. G., & Stimson, J. A. (1980). The two faces of issue voting. The American Political Science Review, 74, 78–91. doi:10.2307/1955648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Carsey, T. M., & Layman, G. C. (2006). Changing sides or changing minds? Party identification and policy preferences in the American electorate. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 464–477. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00196.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. E. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and discontent (pp. 206–261). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  21. Druckman, J. N. (2003). The power of television images: The first Kennedy-Nixon debate revisited. The Journal of Politics, 65, 559–571.Google Scholar
  22. Druckman, J. N. (2004). Priming the vote. Political Psychology, 25, 577–594. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00388.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Druckman, J. N., Jacobs, L. R., & Ostermeier, E. (2004). Candidate strategies to prime issues and image. The Journal of Politics, 66, 1180–1202. doi:10.1111/j.0022-3816.2004.00295.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Enelow, J. M., & Hinich, M. J. (1984). The spatial theory of voting: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Farnsworth, S. J., & Lichter, S. R. (2006). The nightly news nightmare: Network television’s coverage of U.S. presidential elections, 1988–2004 (2nd ed.). New York: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  26. Fiorina, M. P. (1981). Retrospective voting in American national elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Fiorina, M. P., Abrams, S. J., & Pope, J. C. (2006). Culture war? The myth of a polarized America. New York: Pearson Longman.Google Scholar
  28. Freedman, P., Franz, M., & Goldstein, K. (2004). Campaign advertising and democratic citizenship. American Journal of Political Science, 48, 723–741. doi:10.1111/j.0092-5853.2004.00098.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Funk, C. L. (1999). Bringing the candidate into models of candidate evaluation. The Journal of Politics, 61, 700–720. doi:10.2307/2647824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Geer, J. G. (2006). In defense of negativity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  31. Gilens, M., Vavreck, L., & Cohen, M. (2007). The mass media and the public’s assessment of presidential candidates, 1952–2000. The Journal of Politics, 69, 1160–1175. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00615.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Glass, D. P. (1985). Evaluating presidential candidates: Who focuses on their personal attributes? Public Opinion Quarterly, 49, 517–534. doi:10.1086/268948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Glasser, T., & Salmon, C. T. (1995). Public opinion and the communication of consent. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  34. Gould, J. (1972). The x of the campaign: TV ‘personality’. In J. F. Fixx (Ed.), The mass media and politics. New York: Arno Press.Google Scholar
  35. Graber, D. A. (2001). Processing politics: Learning from television in the Internet age. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  36. Graber, D. A. (2006). Mass media and American politics (7th ed.). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
  37. Hart, R. P. (1999). Seducing America: How television charms the modern voter (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Hastie, R., & Park, B. (1986). The relationship between memory and judgment depends on whether the task is memory-based or on-line. Psychological Review, 93(1), 258–268. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.93.3.258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hayes, D. (2005). Candidate qualities through a partisan lens: A theory of trait ownership. American Journal of Political Science, 49, 908–923. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2005.00163.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hershey, M. R. (2001). The campaign and the media. In G. Pomper (Ed.), The election of 2000 (pp. 46–72). Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.Google Scholar
  41. Hetherington, M. J. (1996). The media’s role in forming voters’ national economic evaluations in 1992. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 372–395. doi:10.2307/2111629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hetherington, M. J. (2001). Resurgent mass partisanship: The role of elite polarization. The American Political Science Review, 95, 619–631. doi:10.1017/S0003055401003045.Google Scholar
  43. Iyengar, S., & Kinder, D. R. (1987). News that matters. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  44. Jacobs, L. R., & Shapiro, R. Y. (1994). Issues, candidate image, and priming. The American Political Science Review, 88, 527–540. doi:10.2307/2944793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Jamieson, K. H. (1996). Packaging the presidency: A history and criticism of presidential campaign advertising. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Jamieson, K. H., & Waldman, P. (2003). The press effect: Politicians, journalists, and the stories that shape the political world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Johnston, R., Hagen, M. G., & Jamieson, K. H. (2004). The 2000 presidential election and the foundations of party politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Keeter, S. (1987). The illusion of intimacy: Television and the role of candidate personal qualities in voter choice. Public Opinion Quarterly, 51, 344–358. doi:10.1086/269040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kelley, S., Jr. (1983). Interpreting elections. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Kelley, S., Jr., & Mirer, T. W. (1974). The simple act of voting. The American Political Science Review, 68, 572–591. doi:10.2307/1959506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Key, V. O. (1966). The responsible electorate: Rationality in presidential voting, 1936–1960. Cambridge: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
  52. Kinder, D. R., Peters, M. D., Abelson, R. P., & Fiske, S. T. (1980). Presidential prototypes. Political Behavior, 2, 315–337. doi:10.1007/BF00990172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lang, K., & Lang, G. E. (2002). Television and politics. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  54. Lau, R. R. (1989). Construct accessibility and electoral choice. Political Behavior, 11, 5–32. doi:10.1007/BF00993365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2006). How voters decide: Information processing in election campaigns. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Lenz, G. (2008). Learning and opinion change, not priming: Reconsidering the evidence for the priming hypothesis. Typescript, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  57. Lodge, M. (1995). Toward a procedural model of candidate evaluation. In M. Lodge & K. McGraw (Eds.), Political judgment: Structure and process (pp. 111–139). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  58. Lodge, M., McGraw, K., & Stroh, P. (1989). An impression-driven model of candidate evaluation. The American Political Science Review, 83, 399–419. doi:10.2307/1962397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. McAllister, I. (2007). The personalization of politics. In R. J. Dalton & H. D. Klingemann (Eds.), Oxford handbook of political behavior. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  60. McCarty, N., Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (2006). Polarized America: The dance of ideology and unequal riches. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  61. McGraw, K. M., Hasecke, E., & Conger, K. (2003). Ambivalence, uncertainty, and processes of candidate evaluation. Political Psychology, 24, 421–448. doi:10.1111/0162-895X.00335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. McGuire, W. J. (1968). Personality and attitude change: An information processing theory. In A. C. Greenwald, T. C. Brock & T. M. Ostrom (Eds.), Psychological foundations of attitudes (pp. 171–196). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  63. Mendelsohn, M. (1994). The media’s persuasive effects: The priming of leadership in the 1988 Canadian election. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 27, 81–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Miller, J. M., & Krosnick, J. A. (2000). News media impact on the ingredients of presidential evaluations: Politically knowledgeable citizens are guided by a trusted source. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 301–315. doi:10.2307/2669312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Miller, A., Wattenberg, M. P., & Malanchuk, O. (1986). Schematic assessments of presidential candidates. The American Political Science Review, 80, 521–540. doi:10.2307/1958272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Mutz, D. C. (2007). The effects of ‘in-your-face’ television discourse on perceptions of a legitimate opposition. The American Political Science Review, 101, 621–635. doi:10.1017/S000305540707044X.Google Scholar
  67. Owen, D. (1991). Media messages in American presidential elections. New York: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  68. Patterson, T. E. (1994). Out of order. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  69. Petrocik, J. R. (1996). Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 825–850. doi:10.2307/2111797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Price, V., & Zaller, J. (1993). Who gets the news? Alternative measures of news reception and their implications for research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 57, 133–164. doi:10.1086/269363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Prior, M. (2005). Warning: Use of media exposure measures may cause serious side effects, or: The pitfalls of self-reported news exposure. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  72. Prior, M. (2007). Post-broadcast democracy: How media choice increases inequality in political involvement and polarizes elections. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Rahn, W. M., Krosnick, J. A., & Breuning, M. (1994). Rationalization and derivation processes in survey studies of political candidate evaluation. American Journal of Political Science, 38, 582–600. doi:10.2307/2111598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Redlawsk, D. P. (2001). You must remember this: A test of the on-line model of voting. The Journal of Politics, 63, 29–58. doi:10.1111/0022-3816.00058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Rosenberg, S. W., Bohan, L., McCafferty, P., & Harris, K. (1986). The image and the vote: The effect of candidate presentation on voter preference. American Journal of Political Science, 30, 108–127. doi:10.2307/2111296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Sigelman, L., & Bullock, D. (1991). Candidates, issues, horse race, and hoopla. American Politics Research, 19, 5–32. doi:10.1177/1532673X9101900101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Smith, E. R. A. N. (1989). The unchanging American voter. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  78. Stokes, D. E. (1966). Some dynamic elements of contests for the presidency. The American Political Science Review, 60, 19–28. doi:10.2307/1953803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Stonecash, J. M. (2006). Political parties matter: Realignment and the return of partisan voting. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.Google Scholar
  80. Sullivan, D. G., & Masters, R. D. (1988). ‘Happy warriors’: Leaders’ facial displays, viewers’ emotions, and political support. American Journal of Political Science, 32, 345–368. doi:10.2307/2111127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Taylor, S. E., & Fiske, S. G. (1978). Salience, attention, and attribution: Top of the head phenomena. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 250–288). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  82. Todorov, A., Mandisodza, A. N., Goren, A., & Hall, C. C. (2005). Inferences of competence from faces predict election outcomes. Science, 308, 1623–1626. doi:10.1126/science.1110589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Tomz, M., Wittenberg, J., & King, G. (2001). CLARIFY: Software for interpreting and presenting statistical results. Version 2.0. Cambridge: Harvard University.Google Scholar
  84. Wattenberg, M. P. (1991). The rise of candidate-centered politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  85. Wattenberg, M. P. (1998). The decline of American political parties, 1952–1996. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  86. Welch, S., & Hibbing, J. R. (1997). The effects of charges of corruption on voting behavior in congressional elections, 1982–1990. The Journal of Politics, 59, 226–239. doi:10.2307/2998224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. West, D. M. (2001). Air wars: Television advertising in election campaigns, 1952–2000 (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  88. Witcover, J. (1999). No way to pick a president: How money and hired guns have debased American elections. New York: Farrar Straus & Giroux.Google Scholar
  89. Zaller, J. (1985). Analysis of information items in the 1985 NES Pilot Study. Report to the National Election Studies Board of Overseers.Google Scholar
  90. Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  91. Zaller, J., & Feldman, S. (1992). A simple theory of the survey response: Answering questions or revealing preferences? American Journal of Political Science, 36, 579–616. doi:10.2307/2111583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political Science, Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public AffairsSyracuse UniversitySyracuseUSA

Personalised recommendations