Suchergebnisse

Politicians' moral behaviors affect how voters evaluate them. But existing empirical research on the effects of politicians' violations of moral standards pays little attention to the heterogeneous moral foundations of voters in assessing responses to violations. It also pays little attention to the ways partisan preferences shape responses. We examine voters' heterogeneous evaluative and emotional responses to presumably immoral behaviors by politicians. We make use of moral foundation theory's argument that people vary in the extent to which they endorse, value, and use the five universally available moral intuitions: care, fairness, loyalty, authority and sanctity. We report on a 5 × 3 between‐subjects experiment asking a random sample of 2,026 U.S. respondents to respond to politicians' violations of different moral foundations. We randomly vary which of the five foundations is violated and the partisanship of the actor (Republic/Democrat/Nonpartisan). Results suggest that partisanship rather than moral foundations drives most of U.S. voters' responses to moral foundations violations by politicians. These foundations seem malleable when partisan actors are involved. While Democrats in this sample show stronger negative emotional response to moral violations than Republicans, partisans of both parties express significantly greater negativity when a politician of the other party violates a moral foundation.

Politicians' moral behaviors affect how voters evaluate them. But existing empirical research on the effects of politicians' violations of moral standards pays little attention to the heterogeneous moral foundations of voters in assessing responses to violations. It also pays little attention to the ways partisan preferences shape responses. We examine voters' heterogeneous evaluative and emotional responses to presumably immoral behaviors by politicians. We make use of moral foundation theory's argument that people vary in the extent to which they endorse, value, and use the five universally available moral intuitions: care, fairness, loyalty, authority and sanctity. We report on a 5 × 3 between‐subjects experiment asking a random sample of 2,026 U.S. respondents to respond to politicians' violations of different moral foundations. We randomly vary which of the five foundations is violated and the partisanship of the actor (Republic/Democrat/Nonpartisan). Results suggest that partisanship rather than moral foundations drives most of U.S. voters' responses to moral foundations violations by politicians. These foundations seem malleable when partisan actors are involved. While Democrats in this sample show stronger negative emotional response to moral violations than Republicans, partisans of both parties express significantly greater negativity when a politician of the other party violates a moral foundation.

Political campaigns are much more attack-filled in some countries than in others. What accounts for it? One answer hinges on the country's party system. We propose that two-party systems encourage more negativity than multiparty systems because parties in a multiparty system (1) must maintain good relationships with parties with which they may want to enter into coalition and (2) run the risk of supporters of the attacked party moving to support a third party. We test the relationship between party system and attack behaviour in New Zealand, which in 1996 changed from a single-member district, first-past-the-post system to a mixed-member proportional system. The result was a more fragmented party system, resulting in coalition and minority governments. Analysing over 250 adverts and party election broadcasts aired from 1969 to 2011, we find that advertising has become more positive since 1996, suggesting that party systems affect the tone of election campaigns.

This study examines effects of negative campaigning by political parties on citizens' electoral preferences in the 2015 General Election in England. We do so by using a large Internet panel study and an operationalisation of (perceived) negative campaigning that avoids social desirability. Our study acknowledges England's multiparty system by distinguishing between the campaign tones of all parties. Potential problems of endogeneity are addressed by leveraging the panel structure of the data and by extensive controls. We find that electoral preferences are weakened for parties engaging in negative campaigning and that this backlash effect gets stronger over the course of the campaign. We also find support for a second-preferences boost hypothesis: preferences for one's second-most preferred party are strengthened if its campaign is more positive than that of one's most-preferred party.

This study examines effects of negative campaigning by political parties on citizens' electoral preferences in the 2015 General Election in England. We do so by using a large Internet panel study and an operationalisation of (perceived) negative campaigning that avoids social desirability. Our study acknowledges England's multiparty system by distinguishing between the campaign tones of all parties. Potential problems of endogeneity are addressed by leveraging the panel structure of the data and by extensive controls. We find that electoral preferences are weakened for parties engaging in negative campaigning and that this backlash effect gets stronger over the course of the campaign. We also find support for a second-preferences boost hypothesis: preferences for one's second-most preferred party are strengthened if its campaign is more positive than that of one's most-preferred party.

AbstractPolitical candidates choose to highlight morality in their campaign speeches in various ways. In particular, we expect presidential candidates to highlight moral principles in introducing themselves to voters early in the campaign. However, usage may not be the same across candidates. Existing research suggests that, in general, women focus on different moral values than men. The question is whether such findings in the mass public translate into rhetorical differences between men and women presidential candidates. We know little about whether such gender differences exist, and if so, how they might influence voters. We examine a unique data set of presidential candidate speeches given in Iowa in the 2016 and 2020 nomination campaigns, developing and testing hypotheses about gender, the use of moral language, and its effects on vote outcomes. Using automated text analysis, we find that all else equal, while women candidates do not use more moral language overall, they do emphasize care and fairness more than men, and in doing so, they may be disadvantaging themselves, especially when using language related to fairness.

How does an anti-corruption policy shape bureaucrats' intentions to whistle-blow? Anti-corruption research suggests that civil servants with certain characteristics are more or less likely to blow the whistle, due to a discrepancy in perceptions of expected outcomes within the organizational hierarchy. We test this logic by examining how civil servants' gender, age, and civil service rank shape changes in their whistle-blowing intentions, leveraging the recent implementation of an anti-corruption policy in South Korea. By analyzing original survey data on over 5,000 civil servants, matching pre- and post-implementation groups, we find that male, older, and high-ranking civil servants, respectively, are more willing to whistle-blow than female, younger, and low-ranking civil servants when the anti-corruption policy is implemented. The implication of this finding is that the greater power and prestige granted to the former groups within the organizational hierarchy may make them more willing to do so.

"This edited volume affords conceptual and analytical convergence in the study of political incivility by bringing together theoretical and empirical work of scholars from various (sub)disciplines studying political incivility within European countries and the USA. It addresses the needs and challenges of comparative research, adding to a more generic theory on political incivility. Recent years have witnessed growing attention to issues of political incivility in the parliamentary, electoral and media arenas, with rudeness, hostility and vulgarity being highly prevalent in interactions between politicians, journalists and citizens. This book analyses what constitutes this political incivility, its occurrence, causes and effects in these various arenas, using several country-specific contexts, and presenting a cohesive edifice of knowledge on political incivility. This book will be of key interest to scholars and students of parliamentary studies, political behaviour, political communication and political psychology, as well as more broadly to political science, communication science, media studies, psychology, sociology and to (non-) governmental institutions and those that are concerned about the quality of democracy or public debate"--