Political Behavior

, Volume 39, Issue 3, pp 609–628 | Cite as

The Role of Elite Accounts in Mitigating the Negative Effects of Repositioning

  • Joshua RobisonEmail author
Original Paper


Repositioning by political elites plays a key role in a variety of political phenomena, including legislative policymaking and campaigning. While previous studies suggest that repositioning will lead to negative evaluations, these studies have not explored the role of elite communications in structuring mass responses. We argue that this omission is problematic because elite explanations for their actions may limit the costs associated with ‘flip-flopping’ by persuading some citizens to update their attitudes so that they agree with the elite’s new stance and also by molding beliefs about the motives of the elite when repositioning. We present evidence supportive of this argument obtained from two large experiments conducted on samples of American adults. Ultimately, we show that elites offering a satisfactory justification for their change can avoid most, if not all, of the evaluative costs that would otherwise occur. This study thus has important implications not just for this particular element of elite behavior, but also related questions concerning governmental accountability and representation.


Explanation Repositioning Communication Persuasion Motives 



I thank Jamie Druckman, Thomas Leeper, Martin Bisgaard, Jennifer Jerit, Jason Barabas, participants in the Political Behavior Workshop at Aarhus University, and two anonymous reviewers for their incisive comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. This article is better for their feedback; all remaining errors remain my own. Study 1 was funded via a Graduate Research Grant from Northwestern University.

Supplementary material

11109_2016_9372_MOESM1_ESM.docx (376 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 376 kb)


  1. Adams, J., Ezrow, L., & Somer-Topcu, Z. (2011). Is Anybody listening? Evidence that voters do not respond to european parties’ policy statements during elections. American Journal of Political Science, 55(2), 370–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams, J., Ezrow, L., & Somer-Topcu, Z. (2014). Do voters respond to party manifestos or to a wider information environment? An analysis of mass-elite linkages of european integration. American Journal of Political Science, 58(4), 967–978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Adams, J., & Somer-Topcu, Z. (2009). Moderate now, win votes later: The electoral consequences of parties’ policy shifts in 25 postwar democracies. The Journal of Politics, 71(2), 678–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Allgeier, A. R., Byrne, D., Brooks, B., & Revnes, D. (1979). The waffle phenomenon: Negative evaluations of those who shift attitudinally. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 9(2), 170–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Babington, C. 2011. Romney campaign hits back after Dem ‘Flip’ charges. Associated Press.
  6. Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lenz, G. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research. Political Analysis, 20, 351–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bianco, W. T. (1994). Trust: representatives & constituents. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blackwell, M., Iacus, S., King, G., & Porro, G. (2009). Cem: Coarsened exact matching in stata. The Stata Journal, 9(4), 524–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bøggild, T., & Petersen, M. B. (2016). The evolved functions of procedural fairness: An adaptation for politics. In K. T. Shackleford & R. D. Hansen (Eds.), The evolution of morality (pp. 247–276). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bolsen, T., Druckman, J. N., & Cook, F. L. (2014). The influence of partisan motivated reasoning on public opinion. Political Behavior, 36(2), 235–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Broockman, D. E., & Butler, D.M. (2015). The causal effects of elite position-taking on voter attitudes: Field experiments with elite communication. American Journal of Political Science, 55(3), 463–477.Google Scholar
  12. Carlson, J. M., & Dolan, K. (1985). The waffle phenomenon and candidates’ image. Physiological Reports, 57(3), 795–798.Google Scholar
  13. Carmines, E. G., & Stimson, J. A. (1989). Issue evolution: race and the transformation of american politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Chanley, V., Sullivan, J. L., Gonzales, M. H., & Kovera, M. B. (1994). Lust and avarice in politics: damage control by four politicians accused of wrongdoing (Or, politics as usual). American Politics Research, 22(3), 297–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing public opinion in competitive democracies. American Political Science Review, 101(4), 637–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cillizza, C. (2015). Why it’s tough for Hillary Clinton to explain away her flip-flops. The Washington Post.
  17. Cirilli, K. (2013). Rob portman backs gay marriage after son comes out. Politico.
  18. Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. E. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and discontent. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  19. Croco, S. E. (2016). The flipside of flip-flopping: Leader inconsistency, citizen preferences, and the war in Iraq. Foreign Policy Analysis. doi: 10.1093/fpa/orw006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Croco, S. E., & Gartner, S. S. (2014). Flip-Flops and high heels: an experimental analysis of elite position change on wartime public support. International Interactions, 40(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Doherty, D. (2015). Perceived motives in the political Arena. American Politics Research, 43(3), 363–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Doherty, D., Dowling, C. M., & Miller, M. G. (2016). When is changing policy positions costly for politicians? Experimental evidence. Political Behavior, 38, 455–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. Boston: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  24. Druckman, J. N. (2001). On the limits of framing effects: Who can frame? The Journal of Politics, 63(4), 1041–1066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Druckman, J. N., & Kam, C. D. (2011). Students as Experimental Participants. In J. N. Druckman, D. P. Green, J. H. Kuklinski, & A. Lupia (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Scence (pp. 41–57). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Espino, R., & Canon, D. T. (2009). Vote switching in the U.S. house. The Journal of Politics, 71(1), 324–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fenno, R. F. (1978). Home style: House Members in their districts. Chicago: Scott Foresman & Co. Book.Google Scholar
  28. Fenno, R. F. (1986). Observation, context, and sequence in the study of politics. The American Political Science Review, 80(1), 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gangl, A. (2003). Procedural justice theory and evaluations of the lawmaking process. Political Behavior, 25(2), 119–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Green-Pedersen, C., & Stubager, R. (2010). The political conditionality of mass media influence: When do parties follow mass media attention? British Journal of Political Science, 40, 663–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Grose, C., Malhotra, N., & Van Houweling, R. P. (2015). Explaining explanations: How legislators explain their policy positions and how citizens react. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 724–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hibbing, J. R., & Alford, J. R. (2004). Accepting authoritative decisions: Humans as wary cooperators. American Journal of Political Science, 48(1), 62–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hibbing, J. R., & Theiss-Morse, E. (2002). Stealth democracy: Americans’ beleifs about how government should work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hoffman, H. S., & Carver, C. S. (1984). Political waffling: Its effects on the evaluations of observers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 14(4), 375–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Karol, D. (2009). Party position change in American politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kartik, N., & McAfee, R. P. (2007). Signaling character in electoral competition. The American Economic Review, 97(3), 852–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Leeper, T. J., & Slothuus, R. (2014). Political parties, motivated reasoning, and public opinion formation. Advances in Political Psychology, 35(1), 129–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Levendusky, M. S., & Horowitz, M. C. (2012). When backing down is the right decision: partisanship, new information, and audience costs. The Journal of Politics, 74(2), 323–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lodge, M., & Taber, C. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McGraw, K. M. (1990). Avoiding blame: An experimental investigation of political excuses and justifications. British Journal of Political Science, 20(1), 119–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McGraw, K. M. (1991). Managing blame: An experimental test of the effects of political accounts. The American Political Science Review, 85(4), 1133–1157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McGraw, K. M., Best, S., & Timpone, R. (1995). ‘What they say or what they do?’ The impact of elite explanation and policy outcomes on public opinion. American Journal of Political Science, 39(1), 53–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. McGraw, K. M., Timpone, R., & Bruck, G. (1993). Justifying controversial political decisions: Home style in the laboratory. Political Behavior, 15(3), 289–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mullinix, K. J., Leeper, T. L., Freese, J., & Druckman, J. N. (2015). The generalizability of survey experiments. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 2(2), 109–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ramirez, M. D. (2008). Procedural perceptions and support for the U.S. supreme court. Political Psychology, 29(5), 675–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Redlawsk, D. (2002). Hot cognition or cool consideration? Journal of Politics, 64(4), 1021–1044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Roselli, M. (2004). “Kerry discusses $87 billion comment.” CNN.
  48. Sigelman, L., & Sigelman, C. K. (1986). Shattered expectations: public responses to ‘out-of-character’ presidential actions. Political Behavior, 8(3), 262–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sigelman, L., Sigelman, C. K., & Walkosz, B. J. (1992). The public and the paradox of leadership: an experimental analysis. American Journal of Political Science, 36(2), 366–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sirin, C. V., & Villalobos, J. D. (2011). Where does the buck stop? Applying attribution theory to examine public appraisals of the president. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 41(2), 334–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Stokes, S. C. (1999). What do policy switches tell us about democracy? In A. Przeworski, S. C. Stokes, & B. Manin (Eds.), Democracy, accountability, and representation (pp. 98–130). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sullivan, S., & Johnson, J. (2015). GOP candidates are flip-flopping to please the base. That could hurt later on. The Washington post.
  53. Tavits, M. (2007). Principle vs. pragmatism: policy shifts and political competition. American Journal of Political Science, 51(1), 151–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tomz, M., & Van Houweling, R. P. (2012a). Candidate repositioning.
  55. Tomz, M., & Van Houweling, R. P. (2012b). Political pledges as credible commitments.
  56. Tomz, M., & Van Houweling, R. P. (2008). Candidate positioning and voter choice. The American Political Science Review, 102(3), 303–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tyler, T. R. (2011). Why people cooperate: The role of social motivations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2003). The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(4), 349–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tyler, T. R., & Degoey, P. (1996). Trust in organizational authorities: The influence of motive attributions on willingness to accept decisions. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 331–357). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Vavreck, L. (2015). “Jeb Bush, and two myths about shifting to the right.” The upshot.
  61. Wolbrecht, C. (2000). The politics of women’s rights: Parties, positions, and change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political Science and GovernmentAarhus UniversityAarhusDenmark

Personalised recommendations