SHATTERED EXPECTATIONS: PUBLIC RESPONSES TO OUT-OF-CHARACTER PRESIDENTIAL ACTIONS

In: Political behavior, Volume 8, Issue 3, p. 262-286

Abstract

SIX ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESES ABOUT PUBLIC RESPONSES TO "OUT-OF-CHARACTER" PRESIDENTIAL ACTIONS WERE TESTED IN AN EXPERIMENT THAT MANIPULATED BOTH THE PRESIDENT'S PREEXISTING POLICY POSITION AND THE NATURE OF HIS ACTION IN AN INTERNATIONAL CRISIS. IN ADDITION, SUBJECTS THEMSELVES WERE CLASSIFIED AS HAWKS OR DOVES. APPROVAL OF THE PRESIDENT AND OF HIS RESPONSE TO THE CRISIS WAS A COMPLEX FUNCTION OF THE POLICY VIEWS OF THE SUBJECT AND THE CONSISTENCY OF THE PRESIDENT'S ACTION WITH HIS PAST RECORD. DOVES SUPPORTED PRESIDENTS AND ACTIONS THAT WERE COMPATIBLE WITH THEIR OWN DOVISH LEANINGS BUT RESENTED A DOVISH PRESIDENT WHO BEHAVE HAWKISHLY, GENERALLY CONFIRMING THE VIEW THAT SIMILARITY BREEDS ATTRACTION. BY CONTRAST, HAWKS WERE WILLING TO TOLERATE DOVISH BEHAVIOR IF IT WAS UNDERTAKEN BY A HAWK, SUPPORTING THE EXPECTATION THAT OUT-OF-CHARACTER ACTIONS ARE UNIQUELY CAPABLE OF DISARMING WOULD-BE OPPONENTS. FOR NEITHER HAWKISH NOR DOVISH PRESIDENTS WERE THESE FINDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THE "WAFFLING" INTERPRETATION, WHICH HOLDS THAT INCONSISTENCY PER SE IS DOWNGRADED. COMPARED TO PRESIDENTS WHOSE ACTIONS WERE CONSISTENT WITH THEIR PREVIOUS BELIEFS, OUT-OF-CHARACTER PRESIDENTS WERE PERCEIVED AS MORE CHANGEABLE, IN BOTH POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE SENSES; WERE BELIEVED TO HAVE DISLIKED DOING WHAT THEY HAD DONE; AND WERE JUDGED TO HAVE BEEN RELATIVELY UNINFLUENCED BY INTERNAL CAUSES.