Advertisement

“An Inherited Money Dude from Queens County”: How Unseen Candidate Characteristics Affect Voter Perceptions

  • Jared McDonaldEmail author
  • David Karol
  • Lilliana Mason
Original Paper

Abstract

We examine the effect of biographical knowledge on voters’ assessments of leaders. Prior research has shown that voters infer traits from candidate characteristics such as race, gender and incumbency, which are visible to even poorly-informed voters. Given voters’ limited knowledge, we argue that less-visible attributes may be easily misperceived, possibly affecting overall assessments of candidates. Focusing on President Trump, we find via a national survey that many Americans are unaware that he was born into great wealth. This misperception increases support for Trump, mediated through beliefs that he is both empathetic and good at business. We supplement our observational analysis with an experiment treating respondents with information regarding the role Trump’s father played in his career. This information leads respondents to rate the president more negatively on both empathy and business ability. These findings suggest that correcting information about candidate characteristics can change the minds of even loyal partisans.

Keywords

Political knowledge Character traits Presidential approval Experiments 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to Shibley Telhami and Stella Rouse, the Directors of the University of Maryland Critical Issues Poll, for providing the survey resources necessary to execute this research. We would also like to extend thanks to Frances Lee for providing helpful feedback on previous versions of this article, as well as Michael Hanmer and Zachary Scott for their guidance.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

It was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Supplementary material

11109_2019_9527_MOESM1_ESM.docx (43 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 42 kb)

References

  1. Aaldering, L., & Vliegenthart, R. (2016). Political leaders and the media. Can we measure political leadership images in newspapers using computer-assisted content analysis? Quality & Quantity, 50, 1871–1905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Achen, C. H., & Bartels, L. M. (2016). Democracy for realists: Why elections do not produce responsive government. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anson, I. G. (2018). Partisanship, political knowledge, and the dunning‐kruger effect. Political Psychology Online First.Google Scholar
  4. Barrett, W. (2016). Trump: The greatest show on earth. The deals, the downfall, the reinvention. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  5. Berinsky, A. J. (2017). Rumors and health care reform: Experiments in political misinformation. British Journal of Political Science, 47(2), 241–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berinsky, A. J., & Mendelberg, T. (2005). The indirect effects of discredited stereotypes in judgments of jewish leaders. American Journal of Political Science., 49(4), 845–864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blair, G. (2000). The trumps: Three generations that built an empire. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  8. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  9. Campbell, R., & Cowley, P. (2014). What voters want: Reaction to candidate characteristics in a survey experiment. Political Studies., 62(4), 745–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Campbell, D. E., Green, J. C., & Layman, G. C. (2011). The party faithful: Partisan images, candidate religion, and the electoral impact of party identification. American Journal of Political Science., 55(1), 42–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carnes, N., & Sadin, M. L. (2014). The “Mill Worker’s Son” heuristic: How voters perceive politicians from working-class families— and how they really behave in office. The Journal of Politics, 77(1), 285–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Converse, P. E. (2006). The nature of belief systems in mass publics (1964). Critical Review, 18(1–3), 1–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cook, T. E. (1998). Governing with the news: The news media as a political institution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  14. Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Dolan, K. (2004). Voting for women: How the public evaluates women candidates. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  16. Dolan, K. (2014). Gender stereotypes, candidate evauations and voting for women candidates: What really matters? Political Research Quarterly., 67(1), 96–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fox, R. L., & Oxley, Z. M. (2003). Gender stereotyping in state executive elections. Journal of Politics., 65(3), 833–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Funk, C. L. (1999). Bringing the candidate into models of candidate evaluation. Journal of Politics, 61(3), 700–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gans, H. (1979). Deciding what’s news: A study of CBS evening news, NBC nightly news, newsweek and time. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  21. Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., & Kahneman, D. (2002). Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goren, P. (2002). Character weakness, partisan bias, and presidential evaluation. American Journal of Political Science, 46, 627–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Graber, D. (1988). Processing in the news: How people tame the information tide. New York: Addison-Wesley Longman.Google Scholar
  24. Green, D. P., Palmquist, B., & Schickler, E. (2002). Partisan hearts and minds: Political parties and the social identities of voters. New Haven, CT: Yale UP.Google Scholar
  25. Greene, S. (2001). The role of character assessments in presidential approval. American Politics Research, 29(2), 196–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Guess, A. & Coppock, A. (2018). Does counter-attitudinal information cause backlash? Results from three large survey experiments. British Journal of Political Science, in print online.Google Scholar
  27. Hayes, D. (2005). Candidate qualities through a Partisan lens: A theory of trait ownership. American Journal of Political Science, 49(October), 908–923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hayes, D. (2011). When gender and party collide: Stereotyping in candidate trait attribution. Politics & Gender, 7(2), 133–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Healy, A., & Malhotra, N. (2009). Myopic voters and natural disaster policy. American Political Science Review, 103(3), 387–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Holian, D. B., & Prysby, C. L. (2015). Candidate character traits in presidential elections. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Huddy, L., & Terkildsen, N. (1993). Gender stereotypes and the perception of male and female candidates. American Journal of Political Science., 37(1), 119–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Imai, K., Keele, L., & Tingley, D. (2010). A general approach to causal mediation analysis. Psychological Methods, 15(4), 309–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73(1), 405–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jerit, J., Barabas, J., & Bolsen, T. (2006). Citizens, knowledge, and the information environment. American Journal of Political Science, 50(2), 266–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Johnston, R., Hagen, M. G., & Jamieson, K. H. (2004). The 2000 Presidential election and the foundations of party politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jones, P. E. (2014). Revisiting stereotypes of non-white politicians’ ideological and Partisan orientations. American Politics Research, 42(2), 283–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Karl, K. L., & Ryan, T. J. (2016). When are stereotypes about black candidates applied? An experimental test. Journal of Race, Ethnicity and Politics., 1(2), 253–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kendall, K. E. (2000). Communication in the Presidential primaries: Candidates and the media, 1912–2000. Santa Barbara: Praeger Publishing.Google Scholar
  39. Kinder, D. R. (1986). Presidential character revisited. In R. R. Lau & D. O. Sears (Eds.), Political cognition (pp. 233–255). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  40. Kinder, D. R., & Kalmoe, N. P. (2017). Neither liberal nor conservative: Ideological innocence in the American public. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  41. Koch, J. W. (2000). Do citizens apply gender stereotypes to infer candidates’ ideological orientations? The Journal of Politics., 62(2), 414–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kuklinski, J. H., Quirk, P. J., Jerit, J., & Rich, R. F. (2001). The political environment and citizen competence. American Journal of Political Science, 45(2), 410–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lavine, H. G., Johnston, C. D., & Steenbergen, M. R. (2012). The ambivalent Partisan: How critical loyalty promote democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lawless, J. L. (2004). Women, war and winning elections: gender stereotyping in the post-September 11th Era. Political Research Quarterly., 57(3), 479–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lenz, G. S. (2012). Follow the leader? How voters respond to politicians’ performance and policies. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lupia, A. (1994). Shortcuts versus encyclopedias: Information and voting behavior in California Insurance reform elections. American Political Science Review, 88(1), 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mason, L. (2018). Uncivil agreement: How politics became our identity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. McCann, J. A. (1990). Changing electoral contexts and changing candidate images during the 1984 Presidential Campaign. American Politics Quarterly, 18(April), 123–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. McConnaughy, C. M., White, I. K., Leal, D. L., & Casellas, J. P. (2010). A latino on the ballot: Explaining coethnic voting among latinos and the response of White Americans. The Journal of Politics, 72(4), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. McDermott, M. L. (1998). Race and gender cues in low-information elections. Political Research Quarterly., 51(4), 895–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. McDermott, M. L. (2005). Candidate occupations and voter information shortcuts. The Journal of Politics., 67(1), 201–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. McDermott, M. L., & Panagopoulos, C. (2015). Be all that can be: The electoral impact of military service as an information cue. Political Research Quarterly, 68(2), 293–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Miller, W. E., & Shanks, J. M. (1996). The new American voter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Mutz, D. (2006). Hearing the other side. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Nyhan, B., Porter, E., Reifler, J., & Wood, T. (2017). Taking corrections literally but not seriously? The effects of information on factual beliefs and candidate favorability. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  57. Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32(2), 303–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Piston, S. (2010). How explicit racial Prejudice Hurt Obama in the 2008 election. Political Behavior, 34(2), 431–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Popkin, S. L. (1994). The reasoning voter: Communication and Persuasion in presidential campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  60. Putnam, R. D., & Campbell, D. E. (2010). American grace: How religion divides and unites US. New York: Simon and Schuester.Google Scholar
  61. Redlawsk, D. P. (2002). Hot cognition or cool consideration? Testing the effects of motivated reasoning on political decision making. Journal of Politics, 64(4), 1021–1044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sanbonmatsu, K. (2002). Gender stereotypes and vote choice. American Journal of Political Science, 46(1), 20–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Schaffner, B. F., & Luks, S. (2018). Misinformation or expressive responding? What an inauguration crowd can tell us about the source of political misinformation in surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly., 82(1), 135–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sigelman, C. K., Sigelman, L., Walkosz, B. J., & Nitz, M. (1995). Black candidates, white voters: Understanding racial bias in political perceptions. American Journal of Political Science., 39(1), 243–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Teigen, J. M. (2013). Military experience in elections and perceptions of issue competence: An experimental study with television ads. Armed Forces and Society., 39(3), 415–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Terkildsen, N. (1993). When white voters evaluate black candidates: The processing implications of candidate skin color, prejudice, and self-monitoring. American Journal of Political Science, 37(4), 1032–1053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MarylandCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations