Political Behavior

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 1–24 | Cite as

The impact of scandal on candidate evaluations: An experimental test of the role of candidate traits

  • Carolyn L. Funk
Article

Abstract

Correlational studies have found candidate traits to be an important determinant of vote preferences but cannot rule out reverse causality processes in explaining these findings. The present study demonstrates the independent impact of trait inferences on candidate evaluations using experimentally controlled candidate profiles of hypothetical U.S. congressmen. Using the scandal situation as a testing ground, this experiment examines whether task-relevant, competence traits actually have greater impact on political judgments than the more general, warmth-related trait qualities. Two types of scandals are considered (marital infidelity and tax evasion), both implying negative trustworthiness characteristics of the officeholder. Results demonstrate that trait inferences do have a causal impact on global evaluations. Consistent with past survey studies, competence qualities appear to be more important than warmth qualities but only for those with greater political information levels.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abramowitz, Alan I. (1988). Explaining Senate election outcomes.American Political Science Review 82: 385–403.Google Scholar
  2. Abramowitz, Alan I. (1991). Incumbency, campaign spending, and the decline of competition in U.S. House elections.Journal of Politics 53: 34–56.Google Scholar
  3. Alexander, Deborah, and Krisi Andersen (1993). Gender as a factor in the attribution of leadership traits.Political Research Quarterly 46: 527–545.Google Scholar
  4. Alford, John, Holly Teeters, Daniel S. Ward, and Rick K. Wilson (1994). Overdraft: The political cost of congressional malfeasance.Journal of Politics 56: 788–801.Google Scholar
  5. Campbell, Angus, Gerald Gurin, and Warren E. Miller (1954).The Voter Decides. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.Google Scholar
  6. Campbell, Angus, Philip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller, and Donald E. Stokes. (1960).The American Voter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  7. Carlston, D. E. (1980). The recall and use of traits and events in social inference processes.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 16: 303–328.Google Scholar
  8. CBS New/New York Times Poll, January 17–21, 1988.Google Scholar
  9. Conover, Pamela J., Donald D. Searing, and F. P. Zinni (1988). Socialization, Civic Virtue, and Civic Behavior. Paper prepared for the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
  10. Delli Carpini, Michael X., and Scott Keeter (1991). Stability and change in the U.S. public's knowledge of politics.Public Opinion Quarterly 55:583–612.Google Scholar
  11. Fenno, Richard F. Jr. (1978).Home Style: House Members in Their Districts. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  12. Fiske, Susan T., Donald R. Kinder, and W. M. Larter (1983). The novice and the expert: Knowledge-based strategies in political cognition.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 19: 381–400.Google Scholar
  13. Fiske, Susan T., Richard R. Lau, and R. A. Smith (1990). On the varieties and utilities of political expertise.Social Cognition 8: 31–48.Google Scholar
  14. Funk, Carolyn L. (forthcoming). Understanding trait inferences in candidate images. In Michael X. Delli Carpini, Leonie Huddy, and Robert Y. Shapiro (eds.),Research in Micropolitics. JAI.Google Scholar
  15. Glass, David P. (1985). Evaluating presidential candidates: Who focuses on their personal attributes?Public Opinion Quarterly 49: 517–534.Google Scholar
  16. Groseclose, Timothy, and Keith Krehbiel (1994). Golden parachutes, rubber checks, and strategic retirements from the 102d House.American Journal of Political Science 38: 75–99.Google Scholar
  17. Hamill, Ruth, and Milton Lodge (1986). Cognitive consequences of political sophistication. In R. R. Lau and D. O. Sears (eds.),Political Cognition: The 19th Annual Carnegie Symposium on Cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  18. Huddy, Leonie, and Nayda Terkildsen (1993a). The consequences of gender stereotypes for women candidates at different levels and types of office.Political Research Quarterly 46: 503–525.Google Scholar
  19. Huddy, Leonie, and Nayda Terkildsen (1993b). Gender stereotypes and the perception of male and female candidates.American Journal of Political Science 37: 119–147.Google Scholar
  20. Jacobson, Gary C., and Michael A. Dimock (1993). Checking Out: The Effects of Bank Overdrafts on the 1992 House Elections. Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, April 15–17.Google Scholar
  21. Judd, Charles M., and J. W. Downing (1990). Political expertise and development of attitude consistency.Social Cognition 8: 104–124.Google Scholar
  22. Kinder, Donald R. (1983). Presidential Traits. Report to the NES Board of Overseers. Center for Political Studies, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  23. Kinder, Donald R. (1986). Presidential character revisited. In Richard R. Lau and David O. Sears (eds.),Political Cognition: The 19th Annual Carnegie Symposium on Cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  24. Kinder, Donald R., M. D. Peters, Robert P. Abelson, and Susan T. Fiske (1980). Presidential prototypes.Political Behavior 2: 315–337.Google Scholar
  25. Kraemer, Helena Chmura, and Sue Thiemann (1987).How Many Subjects? Statistical Power Analysis in Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  26. Krosnick, Jon A. (1990). Lessons learned: A review and integration of our findings.Social Cognition 8: 154–158.Google Scholar
  27. Krosnick, Jon A., and Donald R. Kinder (1990). Altering the foundations of support for the president through priming.American Political Science Review 84: 497–512.Google Scholar
  28. Lang, Gladys E., and Kurt Lang (1983).The Battle for Public Opinion: The President, the Press, and the Polls During Watergate. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Lodge, Milton, Kathleen M. McGraw, and Patrick Stroh (1989). An impression-driven model of candidate evalution.American Political Science Review 83: 399–419.Google Scholar
  30. Markus, Gregory (1982). Political attitudes during an election year: A report on the 1980 NES panel study.American Political Science Review 76: 538–560.Google Scholar
  31. McGraw, Kathleen M., and Neil Pinney (1990). The effects of general and domainspecific expertise on political memory and judgment.Social Cognition 8: 9–30.Google Scholar
  32. Miller, Arthur H. (1990). Public judgments of Senate and House candidates.Legislative Studies Quarterly 25: 525–542.Google Scholar
  33. Miller, Arthur H., and Warren E. Miller (1976). Ideology in the 1972 election: Myth or reality—A rejoinder.American Political Science Review 70: 832–849.Google Scholar
  34. Miller, Arthur H., Martin P. Wattenberg, and O. Malanchuk (1986). Schematic assessments of presidential candidates.American Political Science Review 80: 521–540.Google Scholar
  35. Mondak, Jeffrey J. (1994). Competence, Integrity, and the Electoral Success of Congressional Incumbents. Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, April 14–16.Google Scholar
  36. Newman, Leonard S., and James S. Uleman (1990).Choices and Echoes in Presidential Elections: Rational Man and Electoral Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  37. Peters, John G., and Susan Welch (1978). Political corruption in America: A search for definitions and a theory, or if political corruption is in the mainstream of American politics why is it not in the mainstream of American politics research.American Political Science Review 72: 974–984.Google Scholar
  38. Peters, John G., and Susan Welch (1980). The effects of charges of corruption on voting behavior in congressional elections.American Political Science Review 74: 697–708.Google Scholar
  39. Pierce, Patrick A. (1994). Political sophistication and the use of candidate traits in candidate evaluation.Political Psychology 14: 21–35.Google Scholar
  40. Popkin, Samuel L. 1991.The Reasoning Voter. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  41. Rahn, Wendy M., John H. Aldrich, Eugene Borgida, and John L. Sullivan (1990). 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
  42. Rahn, Wendy M., John H. Aldrich, and Eugene Borgida (1994). Individual and contextual variations in political candidate appraisal.American Political Science Review 88: 193–200.Google Scholar
  43. Rosenberg, Seymour, and Andrea Sedlak (1972). Structural representations of implicit personality theory. In L. Berkowitz (ed.),Advances in Social Psychology, vol. 6. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  44. Rubin, Zick (1973).Liking and Loving: An Invitation to Social Psychology. New York: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  45. Rundquist, Barry, Gerald D. Strom, and John G. Peters (1977). Corrupt politicians and their electoral support: Some experimental observations.American Political Science Review 71: 954–963.Google Scholar
  46. Sanbonmatsu, David M., Steven J. Sherman and David L. Hamilton (1987). Illusory correlation in the perception of individuals and groups.Social Cognition 5: 1–25.Google Scholar
  47. Schudson, Michael (1992).Watergate in American Memory. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  48. Stein, Robert M. (1990). Economic voting for govenor and U.S. senator: The electoral consequences of federalism.Journal of Politics 52: 29–53.Google Scholar
  49. Stoker, Laura (1993). Judging presidential character: The demise of Gary Hart.Political Behavior 15: 193–223.Google Scholar
  50. Weisman, S. R. (1984). Can the magic prevail?New York Times Magazine, April 29, pp. 38–56.Google Scholar
  51. Wilson, J. Q., and E. C. Banfield (1964). Public-regardingness as a value premise in voting behavior.American Political Science Review 58: 876–887.Google Scholar
  52. Wilson, J. Q., and E. C. Banfield (1971). Political ethos revisited.American Political Science Review 65: 1048–1062.Google Scholar
  53. Wyer, Robert S., Jr., Thomas K. Srull, and S. E. Gordon (1984). The effects of predicting a person's behavior on subsequent trait judgments.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 20: 29–46.Google Scholar
  54. Wyer, Robert S., Jr., Thomas Lee Budesheim, Sharon Shavitt, Ellen D. Riggle, R. Jeffrey Melton, and James H. Kuklinski (1991). Image, issues, and ideology: The processing of information about political candidates.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 61: 533–545.Google Scholar
  55. Zaller, John (1990). Political awareness, elite opinion leadership, and the mass survey response.Social Cognition 8: 125–153.Google Scholar
  56. Zaller, John R. (1992).The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carolyn L. Funk
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceRice UniversityHouston

Personalised recommendations