Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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.
Austen-Smith, David (1992). Explaining the vote: Constituency constraints on sophisticated voting.American Journal of Political Science 31: 68–95.
Austin, John L. (1956). A plea for excuses.Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 57: 1–30.
Bennett, W. Lance (1980). The paradox of public discourse: A framework for the analysis of political accounts.Journal of Politics 42: 792–817.
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E. (1960).The American Voter. New York: Wiley.
Cooper, W. H. (1981). Ubiquitous halo.Psychological Bulletin 90: 218–244.
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.
Denzau, Arthur, Riker, William H., and Shepsle, Kenneth (1985). Farguharson and Fenno: Sophisticated voting and homestyle.American Political Science Review 79: 1117–1134.
Downs, Anthony (1975).An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
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.
Feldman, Stanley (1989). Moral values and social order: The roots of social conservatism. Unpublished manuscript, SUNY at Stony Brook.
Fenno, Richard (1978).Home Style: House Members in their Districts. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
Fiorina, Morris P. (1977).Congress: Keystone of the Washington Establishment. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Iyengar, Shanto (1987). Television news and citizens' explanations for national affairs.American Political Science Review 81: 815–832.
Jacobson, Gary C., and Kernell, Samuel (1983).Strategy and Choice in Congressional Elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
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.
Kahneman, Daniel, and Tversky, Amos (1984). Choice, values and frames.American Psychologist 3: 341–350.
Kessel, John H. (1972). Comment: The issues in issue voting.American Political Science Review 66: 459–465.
Kinder, Donald R. (1986a). Presidential character revisited. In Richard R. Lau and David O. Sears (eds.),Political Cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kinder, Donald R. 1986b. The continuing American dilemma: White resistance to racial change 40 years after Myrdal.Journal of Social Issues 42: 151–172.
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.
Kingdon, John W. (1981).Congressman's Voting Decisions, 2nd ed. New York: Harper and Row.
Lau, Richard R. (1985). Two explanations for negativity effects in political perceptions.American Journal of Political Science 29: 119–138.
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.
Mayhew, David (1974).Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
McGraw, Kathleen M. (1990). Avoiding blame: An experimental investigation of political excuses and justifications.British Journal of Political Science 20: 119–142.
McGraw, Kathleen M. (1991). Managing blame: An experimental investigation into the effectiveness of political accounts.American Political Science Review 85: 1133–1158.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Miller, Arthur H., Wattenberg, Martin P., and Malanchuk, Oksana (1986). Schematic assessments of presidential candidates.American Political Science Review 80: 521–540.
Page, Benjamin I. (1978).Choice and Echoes in Presidential Elections. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
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.
Sigelman, Lee, and Sigelman, Carol K. (1986). Shattered expectations: Public responses to “out-of-character” presidential actions.Political Behavior 8: 262–286.
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.
Sigelman, Lee, and Walkosz, Barbara (1991). Accounting for “racism”: The King Holiday predicament in Arizona. Unpublished manuscript, The George Washington University.
Stokes, Donald E., and Miller, Warren E. (1962). Party government and the saliency of Congress.Public Opinion Quarterly 26: 531–546.
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.
Tversky, Amos, and Kahneman, Daniel (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice.Science 211: 453–458.
Tyler, Tom R. (1982). Personalization in attributing responsibility for national problems to the president.Political Behavior 4: 379–399.
Weaver, R. Kent (1986). The politics of blame avoidance.Journal of Public Policy 6: 371–398.
Weaver, R. Kent (1988).Automatic Government: The Politics of Indexation. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
McGraw, K.M., Timpone, R. & Bruck, G. Justifying controversial political decisions:Home style in the laboratory. Polit Behav 15, 289–308 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00993439
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00993439