Political Behavior

, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 289–308 | Cite as

Justifying controversial political decisions:Home style in the laboratory

  • Kathleen M. McGraw
  • Richard Timpone
  • Gabor Bruck


Elected officials are not passive bystanders in the electoral process. Rather, they try to influence their constituents' perceptions of events through a variety of strategies, including explanations. Fenno's case studies reported inHome Style (1978) have yielded important insights into the explanations representatives provide to their constituents to account for unpopular or controversial decisions. This paper reports an experimental analysis of the effectiveness of two principled justifications taken from Fenno'sHome Style interviews: individualistic and communitarian appeals to conscience. We also present a theoretical framework for the anlaysis of political accounts, conceptualizing them as a type of persuasive communication. The impact of the two justifications on a number of important judgments is examined within this framework, including reactions to controversial policies, attributions of responsibility, perceptions of political character, and evaluations of public officials.


Experimental Analysis Public Official Political Decision Electoral Process Political Psychology 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abramowitz, Alan I., Lanoue, David, and Ramesh, Subha (1988). Economic conditions, causal attributions, and political evaluations in the 1984 presidential election.Journal of Politics 50: 848–863.Google Scholar
  2. Austen-Smith, David (1992). Explaining the vote: Constituency constraints on sophisticated voting.American Journal of Political Science 31: 68–95.Google Scholar
  3. Austin, John L. (1956). A plea for excuses.Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 57: 1–30.Google Scholar
  4. Bennett, W. Lance (1980). The paradox of public discourse: A framework for the analysis of political accounts.Journal of Politics 42: 792–817.Google Scholar
  5. Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E. (1960).The American Voter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  6. Cooper, W. H. (1981). Ubiquitous halo.Psychological Bulletin 90: 218–244.Google Scholar
  7. Craig, Stephen C., Niemi, Richard G., and Silver, Glenn E. (1990). Political efficacy and trust: A report on the NES pilot study items.Political Behavior. 12: 289–314.Google Scholar
  8. Denzau, Arthur, Riker, William H., and Shepsle, Kenneth (1985). Farguharson and Fenno: Sophisticated voting and homestyle.American Political Science Review 79: 1117–1134.Google Scholar
  9. Downs, Anthony (1975).An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  10. Feldman, Stanley (1985). Economic self-interest and the vote: Evidence and meaning. In Heinz Eulau and Michael Lewis-Beck (eds.),Economic Conditions and Electoral Outcomes: The United States and Western Europe. New York: Agathon Press.Google Scholar
  11. Feldman, Stanley (1989). Moral values and social order: The roots of social conservatism. Unpublished manuscript, SUNY at Stony Brook.Google Scholar
  12. Fenno, Richard (1978).Home Style: House Members in their Districts. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  13. Fiorina, Morris P. (1977).Congress: Keystone of the Washington Establishment. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Iyengar, Shanto (1987). Television news and citizens' explanations for national affairs.American Political Science Review 81: 815–832.Google Scholar
  15. Jacobson, Gary C., and Kernell, Samuel (1983).Strategy and Choice in Congressional Elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Jewell, Malcolm E. (1985). Legislators and constituents in the representative process. In Gerhard Lowewenberg, Samuel C. Patterson, and Malcolm E. Jewell (eds.),Handbook of Legislative Research. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Kahneman, Daniel, and Tversky, Amos (1984). Choice, values and frames.American Psychologist 3: 341–350.Google Scholar
  18. Kessel, John H. (1972). Comment: The issues in issue voting.American Political Science Review 66: 459–465.Google Scholar
  19. Kinder, Donald R. (1986a). Presidential character revisited. In Richard R. Lau and David O. Sears (eds.),Political Cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  20. Kinder, Donald R. 1986b. The continuing American dilemma: White resistance to racial change 40 years after Myrdal.Journal of Social Issues 42: 151–172.Google Scholar
  21. Kinder, Donald R., and Sears, David O. (1985). Public opinion and political action. In Gardner Lindzey and Eliot Aronson (eds.),Handbook of Social Psychology. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  22. Kingdon, John W. (1981).Congressman's Voting Decisions, 2nd ed. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  23. Lau, Richard R. (1985). Two explanations for negativity effects in political perceptions.American Journal of Political Science 29: 119–138.Google Scholar
  24. Lau, Richard R. (1986). Political schemata, candidate evaluations, and voting behavior. In Richard R. Lau and David O. Sears (eds.),Political Cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  25. Mayhew, David (1974).Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  26. McGraw, Kathleen M. (1990). Avoiding blame: An experimental investigation of political excuses and justifications.British Journal of Political Science 20: 119–142.Google Scholar
  27. McGraw, Kathleen M. (1991). Managing blame: An experimental investigation into the effectiveness of political accounts.American Political Science Review 85: 1133–1158.Google Scholar
  28. McGraw, Kathleen M., Best, Samuel, and Timpone, Richard (1993). Blame management strategies: Effectiveness in the context of negative-sum and zero-sum policy outcomes. SUNY at Stony Brook. Manuscript in preparation.Google Scholar
  29. McGraw, Kathleen M., and Hoekstra, Valerie (in press). Experimentation in political science: Historical trends and future directions. In M. X. DelliCarpini, L. Huddy, and R. Shapiro (eds.),Research in Micropolitics. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  30. McGraw, Kathleen M., Timpone, Richard, and Bruck, Gabor (1991). Managing blame with a cushion of support. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  31. McGuire, William J. (1985). Attitudes and attitude change. In Gardner Lindzey and Eliot Aronson (eds.),The Handbook of Social Psychology, vol. 2. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  32. Miller, Arthur H., Wattenberg, Martin P., and Malanchuk, Oksana (1986). Schematic assessments of presidential candidates.American Political Science Review 80: 521–540.Google Scholar
  33. Page, Benjamin I. (1978).Choice and Echoes in Presidential Elections. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  34. Rahn Wendy, Aldrich, John H., Borgida, Eugene, and Sullivan, John L. (1991). A social-cognitive model of candidate appraisal. In John A. Ferejohn and James H. Kuklinski (eds.),Information and Democratic Processes. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  35. Sigelman, Lee, and Sigelman, Carol K. (1986). Shattered expectations: Public responses to “out-of-character” presidential actions.Political Behavior 8: 262–286.Google Scholar
  36. Sigelman, Lee, Sigelman, Carol K., and Walkosz, Barbara (1992). The public and the paradox of leadership: An experimental analysis.American Journal of Political Science 36: 366–385.Google Scholar
  37. Sigelman, Lee, and Walkosz, Barbara (1991). Accounting for “racism”: The King Holiday predicament in Arizona. Unpublished manuscript, The George Washington University.Google Scholar
  38. Stokes, Donald E., and Miller, Warren E. (1962). Party government and the saliency of Congress.Public Opinion Quarterly 26: 531–546.Google Scholar
  39. Sullivan, John L., Aldrich, John H., Borgida, Eugene, Rahn, Wendy (1990). Candidate appraisal and human nature: Man and superman in the 1984 election.Political Psychology 11: 459–484.Google Scholar
  40. Tversky, Amos, and Kahneman, Daniel (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice.Science 211: 453–458.Google Scholar
  41. Tyler, Tom R. (1982). Personalization in attributing responsibility for national problems to the president.Political Behavior 4: 379–399.Google Scholar
  42. Weaver, R. Kent (1986). The politics of blame avoidance.Journal of Public Policy 6: 371–398.Google Scholar
  43. Weaver, R. Kent (1988).Automatic Government: The Politics of Indexation. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kathleen M. McGraw
    • 1
  • Richard Timpone
    • 1
  • Gabor Bruck
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceState University of New YorkStony Brook

Personalised recommendations