Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-59b7f5684b-z9m8x Total loading time: 0.441 Render date: 2022-09-25T06:16:10.476Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": false, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

Corruption Information and Vote Share: A Meta-Analysis and Lessons for Experimental Design

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2020

TREVOR INCERTI*
Affiliation:
Yale University
*
Trevor Incerti, PhD Candidate, Department of Political Science, Yale University. trevor.incerti@yale.edu.

Abstract

Debate persists on whether voters hold politicians accountable for corruption. Numerous experiments have examined whether informing voters about corrupt acts of politicians decreases their vote share. Meta-analysis demonstrates that corrupt candidates are punished by zero percentage points across field experiments, but approximately 32 points in survey experiments. I argue this discrepancy arises due to methodological differences. Small effects in field experiments may stem partially from weak treatments and noncompliance, and large effects in survey experiments are likely from social desirability bias and the lower and hypothetical nature of costs. Conjoint experiments introduce hypothetical costly trade-offs, but it may be best to interpret results in terms of realistic sets of characteristics rather than marginal effects of particular characteristics. These results suggest that survey experiments may provide point estimates that are not representative of real-world voting behavior. However, field experimental estimates may also not recover the “true” effects due to design decisions and limitations.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© American Political Science Association 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

I am extremely grateful to Peter Aronow, Alexander Coppock, Angèle Delevoye, Devin Incerti, Joshua Kalla, Daniel Mattingly, Gautam Nair, Susan Rose-Ackerman, Frances Rosenbluth, Radha Sarkar, Tomoya Sasaki, and Fredrik Sävje; participants of the 2019 APSA Corruption and Electoral Behavior Panel; participants at the Yale ISPS Experiments Workshop; the Yale Casual [sic] Inference Lab; and three anonymous reviewers for invaluable feedback and suggestions. Any and all errors are my own. Replication files are available at the American Political Science Review Dataverse: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/HD7UUU.

References

Abramson, Scott F., Koçak, Korhan, and Magazinnik, Asya. 2019. “What Do We Learn about Voter Preferences from Conjoint Experiments?Working paper. https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/kkocak/files/conjoint_draft.pdfGoogle Scholar
Adida, Claire, Gottlieb, Jessica, Kramon, Eric, and McClendon, Gwyneth. 2019. “Under What Conditions Does Performance Information Influence Voting Behavior? Lessons from Benin.” In Information, Accountability, and Cumulative Learning: Lessons from Metaketa I, eds. Dunning, Thad, Grossman, Guy, Humphreys, Macartan, Hyde, Susan D, McIntosh, Craig, and Nellis, Gareth, 81116. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Agerberg, Mattias. 2020. “The Lesser Evil? Corruption Voting and the Importance of Clean Alternatives.” Comparative Political Studies 53 (2): 253–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anduiza, Eva, Gallego, Aina, and Muñoz, Jordi. 2013. “Turning a Blind Eye: Experimental Evidence of Partisan Bias in Attitudes toward Corruption.” Comparative Political Studies 46 (12): 1664–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arias, Eric, Larreguy, Horacio, Marshall, John, and Querubin, Pablo. 2018. Priors Rule: When Do Malfeasance Revelations Help or Hurt Incumbent Parties? Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/papers/w24888CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arias, Eric, Balán, Pablo, Larreguy, Horacio, Marshall, John, and Querubín, Pablo. 2019. “Information Provision, Voter Coordination, and Electoral Accountability: Evidence from Mexican Social Networks.” American Political Science Review 113 (2): 475–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arvate, Paulo, and Mittlaender, Sergio. 2017. “Condemning Corruption While Condoning Inefficiency: An Experimental Investigation into Voting Behavior.” Public Choice 172 (3–4): 399419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avenburg, Alejandro. 2019. “Public Costs versus Private Gain: Assessing the Effect of Different Types of Information about Corruption Incidents on Electoral Accountability.” Journal of Politics in Latin America 11 (1): 71108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Azfar, Omar, and Nelson, William Robert. 2007. “Transparency, Wages, and the Separation of Powers: An Experimental Analysis of Corruption.” Public Choice 130 (3–4): 471493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banerjee, Abhijit, Green, Donald, Green, Jennifer, and Pande, Rohini. 2010. Can Voters Be Primed to Choose Better Legislators? Experimental Evidence from Rural India. In Presented and the Political Economics Seminar, Stanford University. Citeseer. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a204/eb3e92d382dd312790f47df9aefde657fd13.pdfGoogle Scholar
Banerjee, Abhijit, Green, Donald P., McManus, Jeffery, and Pande, Rohini. 2014. “Are Poor Voters Indifferent to Whether Elected Leaders Are Criminal or Corrupt? A Vignette Experiment in Rural India.” Political Communication 31 (3): 391407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banerjee, Abhijit, Kumar, Selvan, Pande, Rohini, and Felix, Su. 2011. “Do Informed Voters Make Better Choices? Experimental Evidence from Urban India.” Unpublished manuscript. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/45aa/1e275e770103f7a7d7b02ba86fb46afa89c0.pdfGoogle Scholar
Blair, Graeme, Coppock, Alexander, and Moor, Margaret. 2018. “When to Worry about Sensitivity Bias: Evidence from 30 Years of List Experiments.” Working Paper. https://alexandercoppock.com/papers/BCM_list.pdfGoogle Scholar
Boas, Taylor C., Daniel Hidalgo, F., and Melo, Marcus André. 2019. “Norms versus Action: Why Voters Fail to Sanction Malfeasance in Brazil.” American Journal of Political Science 63 (2): 385400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Botero, Sandra, Cornejo, Rodrigo Castro, Gamboa, Laura, Pavao, Nara, and Nickerson, David W.. 2015. “Says Who? An Experiment on Allegations of Corruption and Credibility of Sources.” Political Research Quarterly 68 (3): 493504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breitenstein, Sofia. 2019. “Choosing the Crook: A Conjoint Experiment on Voting for Corrupt Politicians.” Research & Politics 6 (1): 18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buntaine, Mark T., Jablonski, Ryan, Nielson, Daniel L., and Pickering, Paula M.. 2018. “SMS Texts on Corruption Help Ugandan Voters Hold Elected Councillors Accountable at the Polls.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115 (26): 6668–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Camerer, Colin. 2011. “The Promise and Success of Lab-field Generalizability in Experimental Economics: A Critical Reply to Levitt and List.” SSRN (Social Sciences Research Network) 1977749. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1977749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, Evan C., Schönbrodt, Felix D., Gervais, Will M., and Hilgard, Joseph. 2019. “Correcting For Bias in Psychology: A Comparison of Meta-Analytic Methods.” Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science 2 (2): 115–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, Eric C. C., Golden, Miriam A., and Hill, Seth J.. 2010. “Legislative Malfeasance and Political Accountability.” World Politics 62 (2): 177220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chauchard, Simon, Klašnja, Marko, and Harish, S.P.. 2019. “Getting Rich Too Fast? Voters’ Reactions to Politicians’ Wealth Accumulation.” The Journal of Politics 81 (4): 1197–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chong, Alberto, De La O, Ana L., Karlan, Dean, and Wantchekon, Leonard. 2014. “Does Corruption Information Inspire the Fight or Quash the Hope? A Field Experiment in Mexico on Voter Turnout, Choice, and Party Identification.” The Journal of Politics 77 (1): 5571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coppock, Alexander, and Green, Donald P.. 2015. “Assessing the Correspondence between Experimental Results Obtained in the Lab and field: A Review of Recent Social Science Research.” Political Science Research and Methods 3 (1): 113–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Figueiredo, Miguel F. P., F.Hidalgo, Daniel, and Kasahara, Yuri. 2011. “When Do Voters Punish Corrupt Politicians? Experimental Evidence from Brazil.” Working Paper. https://law.utexas.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/25/figueiredo_when_do_voters_punish.pdfGoogle Scholar
De la Cuesta, Brandon, Egami, Naoki, and Imai, Kosuke. 2019. “Improving the External Validity of Conjoint Analysis: The Essential Role of Profile Distribution.” Working Paper. https://imai.fas.harvard.edu/research/files/conjoint.pdfGoogle Scholar
De Vries, Catherine E., and Solaz, Hector. 2017. “The Electoral Consequences of Corruption.” Annual Review of Political Science 20: 391408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunning, Thad, Grossman, Guy, Humphreys, Macartan, Hyde, Susan D., McIntosh, Craig, and Nellis, Gareth. 2019. Information, Accountability, and Cumulative Learning: Lessons from Metaketa I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duval, Sue, and Tweedie, Richard. 2000. “A Nonparametric “Trim and fill” Method of Accounting for Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 95 (449): 8998.Google Scholar
Eggers, Andrew C., Vivyan, Nick, and Wagner, Markus. 2018. “Corruption, Accountability, and Gender: Do Female Politicians Face Higher Standards in Public Life?The Journal of Politics 80 (1): 321–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferraz, Claudio, and Finan, Frederico. 2008. “Exposing Corrupt Politicians: The Effects of Brazil’s Publicly Released Audits on Electoral Outcomes.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 123 (2): 703–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franchino, Fabio, and Zucchini, Francesco. 2015. “Voting in a Multi-Dimensional Space: A Conjoint Analysis Employing Valence and Ideology Attributes of Candidates.” Political Science Research and Methods 3 (2): 221–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Donald P., and Gerber, Alan S.. 2019. Get out the Vote: How to Increase Voter Turnout. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Hainmueller, Jens, Hopkins, Daniel J., and Yamamoto, Teppei. 2014. “Causal Inference in Conjoint Analysis: Understanding Multidimensional Choices via Stated Preference Experiments.” Political Analysis 22 (1): 130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hainmueller, Jens, Hangartner, Dominik, and Yamamoto, Teppei. 2015. “Validating Vignette and Conjoint Survey Experiments against Real-World Behavior.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112 (8): 23952400.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Horiuchi, Yusaku, Markovich, Zachary D., and Yamamoto, Teppei. 2018. “Can Conjoint Analysis Mitigate Social Desirability Bias?MIT Political Science Department Research Paper. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3219323Google Scholar
Kalla, Joshua L., and Broockman, David E.. 2018. “The Minimal Persuasive Effects of Campaign Contact in General Elections: Evidence from 49 Field Experiments.” American Political Science Review 112 (1): 148–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klašnja, Marko, and Tucker, Joshua A.. 2013. “The Economy, Corruption, and the Vote: Evidence from Experiments in Sweden and Moldova.” Electoral Studies 32 (3): 536–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klašnja, Marko, Lupu, Noam, and Tucker, Joshua A.. 2017. “When Do Voters Sanction Corrupt Politicians?” Working paper. http://noamlupu.com/corruption_sanction.pdfGoogle Scholar
Kolstad, Ivar, and Wiig, Arne. 2009. “Is Transparency the Key to Reducing Corruption in Resource-Rich Countries?World Development 37 (3): 521532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Konstantinidis, Iannis, and Xezonakis, Georgios. 2013. “Sources of Tolerance towards Corrupted Politicians in Greece: The Role of Trade Offs and Individual Benefits.” Crime, Law and Social Change 60 (5): 549563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leeper, Thomas J., Hobolt, Sara B., and Tilley, James. 2019. “Measuring Subgroup Preferences in Conjoint Experiments.” Political Analysis. Published online first August 2019. doi:10.1017/pan.2019.30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loomis, John. 2011. “What’s To Know about Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation Studies?Journal of Economic Surveys 25 (2): 363–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mares, Isabela, and Visconti, Giancarlo. 2019. “Voting For the Lesser Evil: Evidence from a Conjoint Experiment in Romania.” Political Science Research and Methods 6: 114. doi: 10.1177/2053168019832230Google Scholar
McDonald, Jared. 2019. “Avoiding the Hypothetical: Why “Mirror Experiments” Are an Essential Part of Survey Research.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research: edz027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muñoz, Jordi, Anduiza, Eva, and Gallego, Aina. 2012. Why Do Voters Forgive Corrupt Politicians? Cynicism, Noise and Implicit Exchange. In International Political Science Association Conference, Madrid, Spain. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Eva_Anduiza/publication/268056601_Why_do_voters_forgive_corrupt_politicians_Cynicism_noise_and_implicit_exchange/links/54677eb30cf2f5eb18036b4d.pdfGoogle Scholar
Peters, Jaime L., Sutton, Alex J., Jones, David R., Abrams, Keith R., and Rushton, Lesley. 2007. “Performance of the Trim and Fill Method in the Presence of Publication Bias and Between-Study Heterogeneity.” Statistics in Medicine 26 (25): 4544–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Philp, Mark, and David-Barrett, Elizabeth. 2015. “Realism about Political Corruption.” Annual Review of Political Science 18: 387402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, W. Robert, Florax, Raymond J. G. M., and Poot, Jacques. 2015. “A Monte Carlo Analysis of Alternative Meta-Analysis Estimators in the Presence of Publication Bias.” Economics 9: 140.Google Scholar
Rogers, Todd, and Nickerson, David. 2013. “Can Inaccurate Beliefs about Incumbents Be Changed? And Can Reframing Change Votes?” HKS Working Paper No. RWP13-018. https://research.hks.harvard.edu/publications/getFile.aspx?Id=941CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose-Ackerman, Susan, and Palifka, Bonnie J.. 2016. Corruption and Government: Causes, Consequences, and Reform. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rundquist, Barry S., Strom, Gerald S., and Peters, John G.. 1977. “Corrupt Politicians and Their Electoral Support: Some Experimental Observations.” American Political Science Review 71 (3): 954–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonsohn, Uri, Simmons, Joseph P., and Nelson, Leif D.. 2015. “Better P-Curves: Making P-Curve Analysis More Robust to Errors, Fraud, and Ambitious P-Hacking, a Reply to Ulrich and Miller (2015).” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 144 (6): 1146–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonsohn, Uri, Nelson, Leif D., and Simmons, Joseph P.. 2014a. “P-Curve: A Key to the File-Drawer.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 143 (2): 534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonsohn, Uri, Nelson, Leif D., and Simmons, Joseph P.. 2014b. “P-Curve and Effect Size: Correcting for Publication Bias Using Only Significant Results.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 9 (6): 666681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solaz, Hector, De Vries, Catherine E., and de Geus, Roosmarijn A.. 2019. “In-Group Loyalty and the Punishment of Corruption.” Comparative Political Studies 52 (6): 896926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley, Tom D., and Doucouliagos, Hristos. 2014. “Meta-Regression Approximations to Reduce Publication Selection Bias.” Research Synthesis Methods 5 (1): 6078.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stanley, Tom D., and Doucouliagos, Hristos. 2017. “Neither Fixed Nor Random: Weighted Least Squares Meta-Regression.” Research Synthesis Methods 8 (1): 1942.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sterne, Jonathan A. C., Egger, Matthias, and Smith, George Davey. 2001. “Investigating and Dealing with Publication and other Biases in Meta-Analysis.” BMJ 323 (7304): 101–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stokes, Susan C., Dunning, Thad, Nazareno, Marcelo, and Brusco, Valeria. 2013. Brokers, Voters, and Clientelism: The Puzzle of Distributive Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sulitzeanu-Kenan, Raanan, Dotan, Yoav, and Yair, Omer. Forthcoming. “Can Institutions Make Voters Care about Corruption?” The Journal of Politics.Google Scholar
Teele, Dawn Langan, Kalla, Joshua, and Rosenbluth, Frances. 2018. “The Ties That Double Bind: Social Roles and Women’s Underrepresentation in Politics.” American Political Science Review 112 (3): 525541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terrin, Norma, Schmid, Christopher H., Lau, Joseph, and Olkin, Ingram. 2003. “Adjusting for Publication Bias in the Presence of Heterogeneity.” Statistics in Medicine 22 (13): 2113–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Valentine, Jeffrey C., Pigott, Therese D., and Rothstein, Hannah R.. 2010. “How Many Studies Do You Need? A Primer on Statistical Power for Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 35 (2): 215247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Aert, Robbie C. M., Wicherts, Jelte M., and van Assen, Marcel A. L. M.. 2016. “Conducting Meta-Analyses Based on P Values: Reservations and Recommendations For Applying P-Uniform and P-Curve.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 11 (5): 713–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Aert, Robbie C. M., Wicherts, Jelte M., and van Assen, Marcel A. L. M.. 2019. “Publication Bias Examined in Meta-Analyses from Psychology and Medicine: A Meta-Meta-Analysis.” PloS One 14 (4): e0215052.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vera, Sofia B. 2019. “Accepting or Resisting? Citizen Responses to Corruption across Varying Levels of Competence and Corruption Prevalence.” Political Studies. Published online first 19 August 2019. doi:10.1177/0032321719868210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weitz-Shapiro, Rebecca, and Winters, Matthew S.. 2017. “Can Citizens Discern? Information Credibility, Political Sophistication, and the Punishment of Corruption in Brazil.” The Journal of Politics 79 (1): 6074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weschle, Simon. 2016. “Punishing Personal and Electoral Corruption: Experimental Evidence from India.” Research & Politics 3 (2): 16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winters, Matthew S., and Weitz-Shapiro, Rebecca. 2013. “Lacking Information or Condoning Corruption: When Do Voters Support Corrupt Politicians?Comparative Politics 45 (4): 418–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winters, Matthew S., and Weitz-Shapiro, Rebecca. 2015. “Political Corruption and Partisan Engagement: Evidence from Brazil.” Journal of Politics in Latin America 7 (1): 4581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winters, Matthew S., and Weitz-Shapiro, Rebecca. 2016. “Who’s in Charge Here? Direct and Indirect Accusations and Voter Punishment of Corruption.” Political Research Quarterly 69 (2): 207–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winters, Matthew S., and Weitz-Shapiro, Rebecca. 2020. “Information Credibility and Responses to Corruption: A Replication and Extension in Argentina.” Political Science Research and Methods 8 (1): 169–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Incerti Dataset

Link
Supplementary material: PDF

Incerti supplementary material

Incerti supplementary material

Download Incerti supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 656 KB
11
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Corruption Information and Vote Share: A Meta-Analysis and Lessons for Experimental Design
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Corruption Information and Vote Share: A Meta-Analysis and Lessons for Experimental Design
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Corruption Information and Vote Share: A Meta-Analysis and Lessons for Experimental Design
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *