Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-6c8bd87754-clkrv Total loading time: 0.275 Render date: 2022-01-20T19:57:23.634Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

“I Didn’t Lie, I Misspoke”: Voters’ Responses to Questionable Campaign Claims

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 July 2019

Elizabeth N. Simas*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Houston, 3551 Cullen Blvd., Houston, TX77204-3011, USA, Twitter: @beth_simas; e-mail: dmurdoch@uh.edu
Doug Murdoch
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Houston, 3551 Cullen Blvd., Houston, TX77204-3011, USA, Twitter: @beth_simas; e-mail: dmurdoch@uh.edu
*
*Corresponding author. Email: ensimas@uh.edu

Abstract

Lies and half-truths are commonplace in US politics. While there is a growing literature examining questionable statements, relatively little attention has been given to the consequences that befall the sources. We address this gap by looking at how a candidate’s sex shapes citizens’ reactions to a factually dubious statement. We argue and show that subjects from the opposing party display a greater desire and tendency to punish a female candidate. Subjects from the candidate’s same party, however, appear to be more forgiving when the candidate is portrayed as a woman versus a man. In total, our findings suggest that gender and partisan biases may operate in tandem to both help and harm female political candidates who “misspeak.”

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© The Experimental Research Section of the American Political Science Association 2019

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

The authors thank the Associate Editor, the anonymous reviewers, and the participants in the University of Houston Political Misperceptions Conference held February 8–10, 2018. All mistakes are our own. There are no conflicts of interest to report. The data, code, and any additional materials required to replicate all analyses in this article are available at the Journal of Experimental Political Science Dataverse within the Harvard Dataverse Network, at: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/GE3E8R.

References

Abramowitz, Alan I. and Webster, Steven. 2016. The Rise of Negative Partisanship and the Nationalization of U.S. Elections in the 21st Century. Electoral Studies 41: 1222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arechar, Antonio A., Gächter, Simon, and Molleman, Lucas. 2018. Conducting Interactive Experiments Online. Experimental Economics 21(1): 99131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barnes, Tiffany D. and Beaulieu, Emily. 2014. Gender Stereotypes and Corruption: How Candidates Affect Perceptions of Election Fraud. Politics and Gender 10(3): 365–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, Tiffany D. and Beaulieu, Emily. 2018. Women Politicians, Institutions, and Perceptions of Corruption. Comparative Political Studies 52(1): 134–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basinger, Scott J. 2013. Scandals and Congressional Elections in the Post-Watergate Era. Political Research Quarterly 66(2): 385–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Nichole M. 2017. The Effects of Counterstereotypic Gender Strategies on Candidate Evaluations. Political Psychology 38(2): 279–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beaulieu, Emily. 2014. From Voter ID to Party ID: How Political Parties Affect Perceptions of Election Fraud in the U.S. Electoral Studies 35: 2432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, Thorsten, Behr, Patrick, and Guettler, Andre. 2013. Gender and Banking: Are Women Better Loan Officers?Review of Finance 17(4): 1277–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bishin, Benjamin G., Stevens, Daniel, and Wilson, Christian. 2006. Character Counts?: Honesty and Fairness in Election 2000. Public Opinion Quarterly 70(2): 235–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchan, Nancy R., Croson, Rachel T. A., and Solnick, Sara. 2008. Trust and Gender: An Examination of Behavior and Beliefs in the Investment Game. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 68(3–4): 466–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clifford, Scott, Jewell, Ryan M., and Waggoner, Philip D.. 2015. Are Samples Drawn from Mechanical Turk Valid for Research on Political Ideology? Research and Politics 2(4): 19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doherty, David, Dowling, Conor M., and Miller, Michael G.. 2011. Are Financial or Moral Scandals Worse? It Depends. PS: Political Science and Politics 44(4): 749–57.Google Scholar
Doherty, David, Dowling, Conor M., and Miller, Michael G.. 2014. Does Time Heal All Wounds? Sex Scandals, Tax Evasion, and the Passage of Time. PS:Political Science and Politics 47(2): 357–66.Google Scholar
Dolan, Kathleen A. 2018. Voting for Women: How the Public Evaluates Women Candidates. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle 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): 321–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frederick, Brian and Streb, Matthew J.. 2008. Women Running for Judge: The Impact of Sex on Candidate Success in State Intermediate Appellate Court Elections. Social Science Quarterly 89(4): 937–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Funk, Carolyn L. 1996. The Impact of Scandal on Candidate Evaluations: An Experimental Test of the Role of Candidate Traits. Political Behavior 18(1): 124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Funk, Carolyn L. 1999. Bringing the Candidate into Models of Candidate Evaluation. The Journal of Politics 61(3): 700–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goren, Paul. 2007. Character Weakness, Partisan Bias, and Presidential Evaluation: Modifications and Extensions. Political Behavior 29(3): 305–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holman, Mirya R., Merolla, Jennifer L., and Zechmeister, Elizabeth J.. 2016. Terrorist Threat, Male Stereotypes, and Candidate Evaluations. Political Research Quarterly 69(1): 134–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddy, Leonie and Terkildsen, Nayda. 1993. Gender Stereotypes and the Perception of Male and Female Candidates. American Journal of Political Science 37(1): 119–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanthak, Kristin and Woon, Jonathan. 2015. Women Don’t Run? Election Aversion and Candidate Entry. American Journal of Political Science 59(3): 595612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinder, Donald R., Peters, Mark D., Abelson, Robert P., and Fiske, Susan T.. 1980. Presidential Prototypes. Political Behavior 2(4): 315–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, David C. and Matland, Richard E.. 2003. Sex and the Grand Old Party: An Experimental Investigation of the Effect of Candidate Sex on Support for a Republican Candidate. American Politics Research 31(6): 595612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kosfeld, Michael, Heinrichs, Markus, Zak, Paul J, Fischbacher, Urs and Fehr, Ernst. 2005. Oxytocin Increases Trust in Humans. Nature 435: 673–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krupnikov, Yanna and Bauer, Nichole M.. 2014. The Relationship Between Campaign Negativity, Gender and Campaign Context. Political Behavior 36(1): 167–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krupnikov, Yanna, Piston, Spencer, and Bauer, Nichole M.. 2016. Saving Face: Identifying Voter Responses to Black Candidates and Female Candidates. Political Psychology 37(2): 253–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kundra, Ziva and Sinclair, Lisa. 1999. Motivated Reasoning With Stereotypes: Activation, Application, and Inhibition. Psychological Inquiry 10(1): 1222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, Dona Gene. 2014. Here Today, Gone Tomorrow? Assessing How Timing and Repetition of Scandal Information Affects Candidate Evaluations. Political Psychology 35(5): 679701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mullinix, Kevin J., Leeper, Thomas J., Druckman, James N, Freese, Jeremy. 2015. The Generalizability of Survey Experiments. Journal of Experimental Political Science 2(2):109–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, Eryn J., Garry, Maryanne, Bernstein, Daniel M, Kantner, Justin, and Lindsay, D. Stephen. 2012. Nonprobative Photographs (or Words) Inflate Truthiness. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 19(5): 969–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ono, Yoshikuni and Burden, Barry C.. 2018. The Contingent Effects of Candidate Sex on Voter Choice. Political Behavior 125.Google Scholar
Piston, Spencer, Krupnikov, Yanna, Milita, Kerri, and Ryan, John Barry. 2018. Clear as Black and White: The Effects of Ambiguous Rhetoric Depend on Candidate Race. The Journal of Politics 80(2) 662–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanbonmatsu, Kira and Dolan, K.. 2009. Do Gender Stereotypes Transcend Party?Political Research Quarterly 62(3): 485–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Monica C. and Bos, Angela L.. 2014. Measuring Stereotypes of Female Politicians. Political Psychology 35(2): 245–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simas, Elizabeth and Murdoch, Doug. 2019, “I Didn’t Lie, I Misspoke”: Voters’ Responses to Questionable Campaign Claims, https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/GE3E8R, Harvard Dataverse, DRAFT VERSION, UNF:6:3KiF6oJeFV9LEuf/lvN/SQ== [fileUNF]Google Scholar
Smith, Elizabeth S., Smith Powers, Ashleigh, and Suarez, Gustavo A.. 2005. If Bill Clinton Were a Woman: The Effectiveness of Male and Female Politicians’ Account Strategies Following Alleged Transgressions. Political Psychology 26(1): 115–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, Dennis D., Rose, Roger P., Rosales, Felixia M., Rudney, Philip D., Lehner, Tasha A., Miltich, Gemma, Snyder, Cassie, and Sadecki, Brianna. 2013. The Value of Outside Support for Male and Female Politicians Involved in a Political Sex Scandal. The Journal of Social Psychology 153(3): 375–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wei, Haiying, and Ran, Yaxuan. 2019. Male Versus Female: How the Gender of Apologizers Influences Consumer Forgiveness. Journal of Business Ethics 154(2): 371–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Simas and Murdoch Dataset

Link
Supplementary material: File

Simas and Murdoch supplementary material

Simas and Murdoch supplementary material
Download Simas and Murdoch supplementary material(File)
File 136 KB
1
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@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 sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent 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.

“I Didn’t Lie, I Misspoke”: Voters’ Responses to Questionable Campaign Claims
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send 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 use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

“I Didn’t Lie, I Misspoke”: Voters’ Responses to Questionable Campaign Claims
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send 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 use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

“I Didn’t Lie, I Misspoke”: Voters’ Responses to Questionable Campaign Claims
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? *