Political Behavior

, Volume 34, Issue 3, pp 411–423 | Cite as

The Consequences of Political Cynicism: How Cynicism Shapes Citizens’ Reactions to Political Scandals

  • Logan DanceyEmail author
Original Paper


This paper argues cynicism toward elected officials colors how individuals in the mass public interpret information about political scandals. Specifically, citizens rely on prior levels of cynicism toward elected officials when assessing new information about potential political malfeasance. Drawing on panel data surrounding two prominent political scandals, this paper demonstrates prior levels of cynicism shape individuals’ interpretations of information about scandals, but cynicism does not affect the amount of attention individuals pay to scandals. Ultimately, the results shed light on individual-level variation in response to scandals, and suggest expressed cynicism toward politicians is a politically consequential individual-level attitude that affects whether or not political leaders can survive ethical transgressions.


Scandals Cynicism 


  1. Barber, B. (1983). The logic and limits of trust. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Blais, A., Everitt, J., Fournier, P., Gidengil, E., & Nevitte, N. (2005). The political psychology of voters’ reactions to a corruption scandal. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  3. Blais, A., Gidengil, E., Fournier, P., Everitt, J., Nevitte, N., & Kim, J. (2010). Political judgments, perceptions of facts, and partisan effects. Electoral Studies, 29, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bowler, S., & Karp, J. A. (2004). Politicians, scandals, and trust in government. Political Behavior, 26(3), 271–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Capella, J. N., & Jamieson, K. H. (1997). Spiral of cynicism: the press and the public good. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Chanley, V. A., Rudolph, T. J., & Rahn, W. M. (2000). The origins and consequences of public trust in government: A time series analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64(3), 239–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Citrin, J. (1974). Comment: The political relevance of trust in government. American Political Science Review, 68, 973–988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Citrin, J., & Green, D. P. (1986). Presidential leadership and the resurgence of trust in government. British Journal of Political Science, 16(4), 431–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Citrin, J., & Muste, C. (1999). Trust in government. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of political attitudes. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  10. Cook, T., & Gronke, P. (2005). The skeptical American: Revisiting the meaning of trust in government and confidence in institutions. The Journal of Politics, 67(3), 784–803.Google Scholar
  11. CQ Weekly. (April 18, 1992). Overdrafts listed from most to least according to house ethics committee, pp. 1006–1007.
  12. CQ Weekly. (January 23, 2006). Three decades of lobbying scandal and repercussion, p. 239.
  13. Craig, S. C., Niemi, R. G., & Silver, G. E. (1990). Political efficacy and trust: A report on the NES pilot study items. Political Behavior, 12(3), 289–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dimock, M. A., & Jacobson, G. C. (1995). Checks and choices: The house bank scandal’s impact on voters in 1992. The Journal of Politics, 57(4), 1143–1159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eisinger, R. M. (2000). Questioning cynicism. Society, 37(5), 55–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fischle, M. (2000). Mass response to the lewinsky scandal: motivated reasoning or bayesian updating? Political Psychology, 21(1), 135–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Funk, C. L. (1996). The impact of scandal on candidate evaluations: An experimental test of the role of candidate traits. Political Behavior, 18(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gaines, B. J., Kuklinski, J. H., Quirk, P. J., Peyton, B., & Verkuilen, J. (2007). Same facts, different interpretations: Partisan motivation and opinion on Iraq. The Journal of Politics, 69(4), 957–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hetherington, M. J. (2005). Why trust matter: Declining political trust and the demise of American liberalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Hibbing, J. R., & Theiss-Morse, E. (2002). Stealth democracy: Americans’ beliefs about how government should work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hibbing, J. R., & Welch, S. (1997). The effects of charges of corruption on voting behavior in congressional elections, 1982–1990. The Journal of Politics, 59(1), 226–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Holm, J. D., Bochner, A. P. and Kraus, S. (1976) Watergate hearings panel survey. [Computer file]. Cleveland, OH: J D. Holm, Cleveland State University, Department of Political Science [producer], 1974. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]. doi: 10.3886/ICPSR07352.
  23. Holm, J., Kraus, S., & Bochner, A. (1974). Communication and opinion formation: Issues generated by the watergate hearings. Communication Research, 1(4), 368–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Johnston, D. (1992). Investigator finds evidence of crimes in house bank use. New York Times, 17 December.Google Scholar
  25. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kunda, Z. (1999). Social cognition: Making sense of people. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. Long, J. S. (1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  28. Long, J. S., & Freese, J. (2006). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables using stata. College Station, TX: Stata Press.Google Scholar
  29. McGraw, Kathleen., Lodge, M., & Jones, J. M. (2002). The pandering politicians of suspicious minds. The Journal of Politics, 64(2), 362–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Robinson, M. J. (1974). The impact of the televised watergate hearings. Journal of Communication, 24(2), 17–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rudolph, T. J., & Evans, J. (2005). Political trust, ideology, and public support for government spending. American Journal of Political Science, 49(3), 660–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Saad, L. (2009). Honesty and ethics poll finds congress’ image tarnished.
  33. Sanitioso, R., Kunda, Z., & Fong, G. T. (1990). Motivated recruitment of autobiographical memories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(2), 229–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stoker, L. (1993). Judging presidential character: The demise of gary hart. Political Behavior, 15(2), 193–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sweeney, P. D., & Gruber, K. L. (1984). Selective exposure: Voter information preferences and the watergate affair. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (46), 1208–1221.Google Scholar
  36. Taber, C., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in political information processing. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Weatherford, M. S. (1992). Measuring political legitimacy. American Political Science Review, 86(1), 149–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations