Candidate Authenticity: ‘To Thine Own Self Be True’

  • Dieter StiersEmail author
  • Jac Larner
  • John Kenny
  • Sofia Breitenstein
  • Florence Vallée-Dubois
  • Michael Lewis-Beck
Original Paper


In recent electoral contests, political observers and media outlets increasingly report on the level of “authenticity” of political candidates. However, even though this term has become commonplace in political commentary, it has received little attention in empirical electoral research. In this study, we identify the characteristics that we argue make a politician “authentic”. After theoretically discussing the different dimensions of this trait, we propose a survey battery aimed at measuring perceptions of the authenticity of political candidates. Testing our measure using data sets from different countries, we show that the answers to our items load on one latent concept that we call “authenticity”. Furthermore, perceptions of candidate authenticity correlate strongly with evaluations of political parties and leaders, and with vote intention, while they are empirically distinguishable from other traits. We conclude that candidate authenticity is an important trait that should be taken into account by future research.


Authenticity Candidate traits Political candidates Elections 



This study benefitted from the generous support of many people and institutions. The idea for this project originated in the 2017 edition of the Leuven-Montréal Winter School on Elections at KU Leuven which was attended by all authors. We thank Kees Aarts for the initial idea to work on this topic. We thank Roger Awan-Scully, Rune Stubager, Marc Hooghe, and Jordi Muñoz, for kindly agreeing to include our questions in their surveys. We presented this project at several occasions, including the MPSA annual conference (2018), the APSA annual meeting and exhibition (2018, 2019), and the ISPP annual meeting (2019). We thank all participants for their suggestions and feedback, and are specially grateful to Mary Stegmaier, Itumeleng Makgetla, Lasse Laustsen, Quinn Albaugh, and Ruth Dassonneville. We also thank the editors and three anonymous reviewers of the journal for their very valuable feedback. For research funding, we acknowledge the support of the Canada Research Chair in Electoral Democracy. Stiers acknowledges the financial support of the Research Foundation Flanders. Breitenstein acknowledges the support through an FPI Grant (BES-2015-072756) from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitivity and the European Social Fund, and the Projects “Political Change in Spain: Populism, Feminism and new dimensions of conflict” (CSO2017-83086-R) and “LIMCOR: Limits to political corruption” (Fundació La Caixa 2016 ACUPO177).

Supplementary material

11109_2019_9589_MOESM1_ESM.docx (126 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 125 kb)
11109_2019_9589_MOESM2_ESM.docx (61 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 61 kb)


  1. Aaldering, L., & Van Der Pas, D. (forthcoming). Political leadership in the media: Gender bias in leader stereotypes during campaign and routine times. British Journal of Political Science, accepted.Google Scholar
  2. Aarts, K., Blais, A., & Schmitt, H. (Eds.). (2013). Political leaders and democratic elections. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Akkerman, A., Mudde, C., & Zaslove, A. (2013). How populist are the people? Measuring populist attitudes in voters. Comparative Political Studies,47(9), 1324–1353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Allen, N., & Birch, S. (2011). Political conduct and misconduct: Probing public opinion. Parliamentary Affairs,64(1), 61–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Allen, N., Birch, S., & Sarmiento-Mirwaldt, K. (2018). Honesty above all else? Expectations and perceptions of political conduct in three established democracies’. Comparative European Politics,16(3), 511–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Alvarez, M., & Nagler, J. (1998). When politics and models collide: Estimating models of multiparty elections. American Journal of Political Science,42(1), 55–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bartels, L. (2002). Beyond the running tally: Partisan bias in political perceptions. Political Behavior,24(2), 117–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Benoit, W. L., & McHale, J. P. (2003). Presidential candidates’ television spots and personal qualities. Southern Communication Journal,68(4), 319–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bittner, A. (2011). Platform or personality—The role of leaders in democratic elections. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brewer, P. R., Hoffman, L. H., Harrington, R., Jones, P. E., & Lambe, J. (2014). Public perceptions regarding the authenticity of the 2012 presidential candidates. Presidential Studies Quarterly,44(4), 742–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Buendgens-Kosten, J. (2014). Authenticity. ELT Journal,68(4), 457–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Campbell, R. (2017), Authenticity. BBC analysis.
  13. Campbell, A., Converse, P., Miller, W., & Stokes, D. (1966). Elections and the political order. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  14. Caza, Arran, Bagozzi, Richard P., Wooley, Lydia, Levy, Lester, & Caza, Brianna Barker. (2010). Psychological capital and authentic leadership: Measurement, gender and cultural extension. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration,2(1), 53–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Clapp-Smith, R., Vogelgesang, G. R., & Avey, J. B. (2009). Authentic leadership and positive psychological capital: The mediating role of trust at the group level of analysis. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies,15(3), 227–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Clarke, N., Jennings, W., Moss, J., & Stoker, G. (2018). The good politician. Folk theories, political interaction, and the rise of anti-politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Clarke, H. D., Whitely, P., Sanders, D., & Stewart, M. (2004). Political choice in Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Colton, A. (2018). The trap of political authenticity. The Outline.
  19. Conger, J. A., Kanungo, R. N., & Menon, S. T. (2000). Charismatic leadership an follower effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior,21(7), 747–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Coppock, A., & McClellan, O. A. (2019). Validating the demographic, political, psychological, and experimental results obtained from a new source of online survey respondents. Research and Politics,6, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Costa Lobo, M., & Curtice, J. (Eds.). (2015). Introduction. In Personality politics? The role of leader evaluations in democratic elections (pp. 1–16). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Dalton, R. (2008). The quantity and quality of party systems: Party system polarization, its measurement, and its consequences. Comparative Political Studies,41(7), 899–920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dassonneville, R., Feitosa, F., Hooghe, M., Lau, R. R., & Stiers, D. (2019). Compulsory voting rules, reluctant voters and ideological proximity voting. Political Behavior,41(1), 209–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dassonneville, R., & Stiers, D. (2018). Electoral volatility in Belgium (2009-2014). Is there a difference between stable and volatile voters? Acta Politica,53(1), 68–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dr. Seuss (1959). Happy birthday to you. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  26. Dumitrica, D. (2014). Politics as ‘customer relations’: Social media and political authenticity in the 2010 municipal elections in Calgary, Canada. Javnost—The Public,21(1), 53–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Funk, C. (1999). Brinking the candidate into models of candidate evaluation. Journal of Politics,31(3), 700–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Garzia, D. (2017). Voter Evaluation of Candidates and Party Leaders. In K. Arzheimer, J. Evans, & M. S. Lewis-Beck (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of electoral behaviour (Vol. 2, pp. 633–653). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Goren, P. (2007). Character weakness, partisan bias, and presidential evaluation: Modifications and extensions’. Political Behavior,29(3), 305–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Grow, G., & Ward, J. (2013). The role of authenticity in electoral social media campaigns. First Monday, 18(4).
  31. Hagel, N. (2017). Truth, the self, and political critique: Authenticity and radical politics in 1960s America. Polity,49, 220–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hayes, D. (2005). Candidate qualities though a partisan lens: A theory of trait ownership. American Journal of Political Science,49(4), 908–923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hencke, D. (1996), Short Flays Blair’s ‘Dark Men’. The Guardian,
  34. Holian, D. B., & Prysby, C. L. (2015). Candidate character traits in presidential elections. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Ilies, R., Morgeson, F. P., & Nahrgang, J. D. (2005). Authentic leadership and Eudaemonic well-being: Understanding leader-follower outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly,16(3), 373–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Iyengar, S., & Krupenkin, M. (2018). The strengthening of Partisan affect. Political Psychology,39(S1), 201–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jones, B. (2016). Authenticity in political discourse. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice,19(2), 489–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kearney, R. (1994). Modern movements in European philosophy (2nd ed.). Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Kinder, D. (1986). Presidential character revisited. In R. R. Lau & D. O. Sears (Eds.), Political cognition (pp. 233–255). Hillside: Earlbaum.Google Scholar
  40. King, A. (2002). Do leaders’ personalities realy matter? In A. King (Ed.), Leaders’ personalities and the outcomes of democratic elections (pp. 1–44). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kuran, T. (2016). The authenticity deficit in modern politics. Cato Unbound.
  42. Laustsen, L., & Bor, A. (2017). The relative weight of character traits in political candidate evaluations: Warmth is more important than competence, leadership and integrity. Electoral Studies,49, 96–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Layman, G. C., Carsey, T. M., & Horowitz, J. M. (2006). Party polarization in American politics: Characteristics, causes, and consequences. Annual Review of Political Science,9, 83–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Leary, M. (2016). Psychology shows why we shouldn’t elect ‘authentic’ candidates like Donald Trump. Quartz.
  45. Lewis-Beck, M. S., & Nadeau, R. (2015). Between leadership and charisma, the importance of leaders. In M. Costa Lobo & J. Curtice (Eds.), Personality politics? The role of leader evaluations in democratic elections (pp. 169–190). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Lewis-Beck, M. S., & Tien, C. (2018). Candidates and campaigns: How they alter election forecasts. Electoral Studies,54, 302–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. McAllister, I. (2007). Personalization of politics. In R. Dalton & H.-D. Klingemann (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political behavior (pp. 571–588). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. McDermott, M. L., Schwartz, D., & Vallejo, S. (2015). Talking the talk but not walking the walk: Public reactions to hypocrisy in political Scandal. American Politics Research,43(6), 952–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Merolla, J. L., Ramos, J. M., & Zechmeister, J. M. (2007). Crisis, charisma, and consequences: Evidence from the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election. Journal of Politics,69(1), 30–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Merolla, J. L., & Zechmeister, E. J. (2011). The nature, determinants, and consequences of Chávez’s Charisma: Evidence from a study of Venezuelan Public Opinion. Comparative Political Studies,44(1), 28–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Michail, J. (2018). The authenticity of Jacinda Ardern. International Policy Digest.
  52. Miller, W. E., & Shanks, M. J. (1996). The new American voter. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Miller, A. H., Wattenberg, M. P., & Malanchuk, O. (1986). Schematic assessments of presidential candidate. American Political Science Review,80(2), 521–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Moore, C. (2017). Mrs May no longer winning the battle for authenticity—Mr Corbyn Is. The Telegraph.
  55. Mudde, C. (2004). The populist zeitgeist. Government and Opposition,39(4), 542–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Mudde, C., & Kaltwasser, C. R. (2017). Populism: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Mughan, A. (2000). Media and the presidentialization of parliamentary elections. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Müller, J.-W. (2017). What is Populism?. UK: Penguin.Google Scholar
  59. Parry-Giles, S. J. (2014). Hilary clinton in the news: Gender and authenticity in American politics. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Pew Research Center. (2019). Public Trust in Government: 1958-2019. Pew Research Center.
  61. Poguntke, T., & Webb, P. (Eds.). (2005). The presidentialization of politics. A comparative study of modern democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Potter A. (2017). What if Donald Trump is an authentic Douchebag? In Due Course.
  63. Prysby, C. (2008). Perceptions of candidate character traits and the presidential vote in 2004. PS: Political Science and Poltics,41(1), 115–122.Google Scholar
  64. Rico, G., & Anduiza, E. (2019). Economic correlates of populist attitudes: An analysis of nine European Countries in the aftermath of the great recession. Acta Politica,54(3), 371–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Shamir, Boas, & Eilam-Shamir, Galit. (2005). ‘What’s your story?’ A life-stories approach to authentic leadership development. The Leadership Quarterly,16, 395–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Simons, N. (2015). Nigel Farage Sounds ‘More Authentic’ Than Us, Warns Labour’s Margaret Hodge. Huffington Post.
  67. Sparrowe, Raymond T. (2005). Authentic leadership and the narrative self. The Leadership Quarterly,16(3), 419–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Starr, P. (2016). ‘Spare Us from Authenticity’. Cato Unbound.
  69. Stiers, D. (2019). Beyond the distinction between incumbency and opposition: Retrospective voting at the level of political parties. Party Politics, 25(6), 805–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Umbach, M., & Humphrey, M. (2018). Authenticity: The cultural history of a political concept. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. M., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J. (2008). Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of Management,34(1), 89–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Political Science Research, KU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  2. 2.School of Law and PoliticsCardiff UniversityCardiffWales, UK
  3. 3.Trinity CollegeUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
  4. 4.Departament de Ciència Política i Dret PúblicUniversitat Autònoma de BarcelonaBellaterraSpain
  5. 5.Department of Political ScienceUniversité de MontréalMontrealCanada
  6. 6.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of IowaIowa CityUSA

Personalised recommendations