Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-846f6c7c4f-fw8f9 Total loading time: 0.802 Render date: 2022-07-07T02:54:23.216Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

Politicians Appear More Competent When Using Numerical Rhetoric

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 September 2017

Rasmus T. Pedersen*
Affiliation:
Department of Business and Politics, Copenhagen Business School; email: rtp.dbp@cbs.dk

Abstract

Politically relevant numbers often have very limited effects on the policy attitudes of ordinary citizens, which make the widespread use of numbers by politicians somewhat puzzling. This paper argues that politicians’ numerical rhetoric may function as a voter heuristic and that the use of numbers by politicians therefore has a positive impact on voters’ perceptions of these politicians. A survey experiment confirms that even when numbers do little to move voters’ policy positions, numbers do have the effect of making politicians appear more competent. As a consequence, numerical rhetoric can in some cases increase electoral support for a politician.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Experimental Research Section of the American Political Science Association 2017 

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.)

References

Bartels, Larry M. 1996. “Uninformed Votes: Information Effects in Presidential Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 40 (1): 194230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 2002. “The Impact of Candidate Traits in American Presidential Elections.” In Leaders' Personalities and the Outcomes of Democratic Elections, ed. King, A.. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Berggren, Niclas, Jordahl, Henrik, and Poutvaara, Panu. 2010. “The Looks of a Winner: Beauty and Electoral Success.” Journal of Public Economics 94 (1–2): 815. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2009.11.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Rosie and Cowley, Philip. 2014. “What Voters Want: Reactions to Candidate Characteristics in a Survey Experiment.” Political Studies 62 (4): 745–65. doi: 10.1111/1467-9248.12048 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Rosie and Cowley, Philip. 2015. “Attitudes to Moonlighting Politicians: Evidence from the United Kingdom.” Journal of Experimental Political Science, FirstView 110. doi: 10.1017/XPS.2014.21 Google Scholar
Chong, Dennis and Druckman, James N.. 2007. “Framing Public Opinion in Competitive Democracies.” American Political Science Review 101 (4): 637–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Geoffrey L. 2003. “Party Over Policy: The Dominating Impact of Group Influence on Political Beliefs.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85 (5): 808–22. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.808 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cuddy, Amy J.C., Fiske, Susan T., and Glick, Peter. 2008. “Warmth and Competence as Universal Dimensions of Social Perception: The Stereotype Content Model and the BIAS Map.” In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, ed. Mark, P. Z.. (Vol. 40, pp. 61149). Academic Press.Google Scholar
Desrosiéres, Alain. 1998. The Politics of Large Numbers – A History of Statistical Reasoning. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Druckman, James N., Peterson, Erik, and Slothuus, Rune. 2013. “How Elite Partisan Polarization Affects Public Opinion Formation.” American Political Science Review 107 (1): 5779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiske, Susan T., Cuddy, Amy J.C., and Glick, Peter. 2007. “Universal Dimensions of Social Cognition: Warmth and Competence.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11 (2): 7783. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fiske, Susan T., Cuddy, Amy J.C., Glick, Peter, and Xu, Jun. 2002. “A Model of (Often Mixed) Stereotype Content: Competence and Warmth Respectively Follow from Perceived Status and Competition.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 82 (6): 878.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fridkin, Kim L. and Kenney, Patrick J.. 2011. “The Role of Candidate Traits in Campaigns.” The Journal of Politics 73 (01): 6173. doi:10.1017/S0022381610000861 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. doi: 10.2307/586509 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Funk, Carolyn L. 1997. “Implications of Political Expertise in Candidate Trait Evaluations.” Political Research Quarterly 50 (3): 675–97. doi: 10.2307/448922 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Funk, Carolyn L. 1999. “Bringing the Candidate into Models of Candidate Evaluation.” The Journal of Politics 61 (3): 700–20. doi: 10.2307/2647824 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaines, Brian J., Kuklinski, James H., Quirk, Paul J., Peyton, Buddy, and Verkuilen, Jay. 2007. “Same Facts, Different Interpretations: Partisan Motivation and Opinion on Iraq.” Journal of Politics 69 (4): 957–74. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00601.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilens, Martin. 2001. “Political Ignorance and Collective Policy Preferences.” American Political Science Review 95 (2): 379–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goffin, Richard D. and Olson, James M.. 2011. “Is It All Relative?: Comparative Judgments and the Possible Improvement of Self-Ratings and Ratings of Others.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 6 (1): 4860. doi: 10.1177/1745691610393521 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonzales, Marti Hope, Kovera, Margaret Bull, Sullivan, John L., and Chanley, Virginia. 1995. “Private Reactions to Public Transgressions: Predictors of Evaluative Responses to Allegations of Political Misconduct.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21 (2): 136–48. doi: 10.1177/0146167295212004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goren, Paul. 2002. “Character Weakness, Partisan Bias, and Presidential Evaluation.” American Journal of Political Science 46 (3): 627–41. doi: 10.2307/3088404 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Danny. 2010. “Trait Voting in U.S. Senate Elections.” American Politics Research 38 (6): 1102–29. doi: 10.1177/1532673x10371298 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herda, Daniel. 2010. “How Many Immigrants?: Foreign-Born Population Innumeracy in Europe.” Public Opinion Quarterly 74 (4): 674–95. doi: 10.1093/poq/nfq013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imai, Kosuke, Keele, Luke, and Tingley, Dustin. 2010a. “A General Approach to Causal Mediation Analysis.” Psychological Methods 15 (4): 309–34. doi: 10.1037/a0020761 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Imai, Kosuke, Keele, Luke, Tingley, Dustin, and Yamamoto, Teppei. 2010b. “Causal Mediation Analysis using R.” Advances in Social Science Research using R 196, 129–54. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4419-1764-5_8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imai, Kosuke, Keele, Luke, Tingley, Dustin, and Yamamoto, Teppei. 2011. “Unpacking the Black Box of Causality: Learning About Causal Mechanisms from Experimental and Observational Studies.” American Political Science Review 105 (04): 765–89. doi:10.1017/S0003055411000414 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imai, Kosuke, Keele, Luke, Tingley, Dustin, and Yamamoto, Teppei. 2014. “Comment on Pearl: Practical Implications of Theoretical Results for Causal Mediation Analysis.” Psychological Methods 19 (4): 482–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Imai, Kosuke and Yamamoto, Teppei. 2013. “Identification and Sensitivity Analysis for Multiple Causal Mechanisms: Revisiting Evidence from Framing Experiments.” Political Analysis 21 (2): 141171. doi:10.1093/pan/mps040 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Judd, Charles M., James-Hawkins, Laurie, Yzerbyt, Vincent, and Kashima, Yoshihisa. 2005. “Fundamental Dimensions of Social Judgment: Understanding the Relations between Judgments of Competence and Warmth.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 89 (6): 899913. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.899 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keele, Luke. 2015. “Causal Mediation Analysis: Warning! Assumptions Ahead.” American Journal of Evaluation. doi: 10.1177/1098214015594689 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kervyn, Nicolas, Yzerbyt, Vincent, and Judd, Charles M.. 2010. “Compensation between Warmth and Competence: Antecedents and Consequences of a Negative Relation between the Two Fundamental Dimensions of Social Perception.” European Review of Social Psychology 21 (1): 155187. doi: 10.1080/13546805.2010.517997 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinder, Donald R., Peters, Mark. D., Abelson, Robert P., and Fiske, Susan T.. 1980. “Presidential Prototypes.” Political Behavior 2 (4): 315–37. doi: 10.2307/586418 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koch, Thomas and Obermaier, Magdalena. 2014. “With Heart and (No) Mind? How Recipients Negatively Infer Missing Information About Politicians and How This Affects the Assessment of the Speaker.” Communication Research. doi: 10.1177/0093650214565005 Google Scholar
Kuklinski, James H., Quirk, Paul J., Jerit, Jennifer, Schwieder, David, and Rich, Robert F.. 2000. “Misinformation and the Currency of Democratic Citizenship.” Journal of Politics 62 (3): 790816. doi: 10.1111/0022-3816.00033 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lau, Richard R. and Redlawsk, David P.. 2001. “Advantages and Disadvantages of Cognitive Heuristics in Political Decision Making.” American Journal of Political Science 45 (4): 951–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lau, Richard R. and Redlawsk, David P.. 2006. “How Voters Decide.” New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, Eric D. and Sides, John. 2014. “The Consequences of Political Innumeracy.” Research & Politics 1 (2). doi: 10.1177/2053168014545414 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Arthur H., Wattenberg, Martin P., and Malanchuk, Oksana. 1986. “Schematic Assessments of Presidential Candidates.” American Political Science Review 80 (02): 521540. doi: 10.2307/1958272 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montgomery, Jacob M., Nyhan, Brendan, and Torres, Michelle. 2016. “How Conditioning on Post-treatment Variables can Ruin Your Experiment and What to do About it.” Presented at Annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, April 2016.Google Scholar
Nadeau, Richard, Niemi, Richard G., and Levine, Jeffrey. 1993. “Innumeracy About Minority Populations.” Public Opinion Quarterly 57 (3): 332–47. doi: 10.1086/269379 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohr, Dieter and Oscarsson, Henrik. 2013. “Leader Traits, Leader Image and Vote Choice. In Political Leaders and Democratic Elections, eds. Arts, K., Blais, A., & Schmitt, H.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pedersen, Rasmus T. 2016. “Ratio Bias and Policy Preferences: How Equivalency Framing of Numbers Can Affect Attitudes.” Political Psychology. doi: 10.1111/pops.12362 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popkin, Samuel L. 1991. The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Elections. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Porter, Theodore M. 1986. The Rise of Statistical Thinking 1820–1900. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Prévost, Jean-Guy and Beaud, Jean-Pierre. 2012. Statistics, Public Debate and the State, 1800–1945. London: Pickering & Chatto.Google Scholar
Schneider, Monica C. and Bos, Angela L.. 2014. “Measuring Stereotypes of Female Politicians.” Political Psychology 35 (2): 245266. doi: 10.1111/pops.12040 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schueler, Beth E. and West, Martin R.. 2016. “Sticker Shock: How Information Affects Citizen Support for Public School Funding.” Public Opinion Quarterly 80 (1): 90113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sigelman, Lee and Niemi, Richard G.. 2001. “Innumeracy about Minority Populations.” Public Opinion Quarterly 65 (1): 8694.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sniderman, Paul M. and Theriault, Sean M.. 2004. The Structure of Political Argument and the Logic of Issue Framing. In Studies in Public Opinion: Attitudes, Nonattitudes, Measurement Error, and Change, eds. Saris, Willem E. and Sniderman, Paul M.. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Tingley, Dustin, Yamamoto, Teppei, Hirose, Kentaro, Keele, Luke, and Imai, Kosuke. 2014. “Mediation: R Package for Causal Mediation Analysis.” Journal of Statistical Software 59 (5): 138. doi: 10.18637/jss.v059.i05 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Utych, Stephen M. and Kam, Cindy D.. 2014. Viability, Information Seeking, and Vote Choice.” The Journal of Politics 76 (01): 152166. doi:10.1017/S0022381613001126 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wong, Cara J. 2007. ““Little” and “Big” Pictures in Our Heads: Race, Local Context, and Innumeracy About Racial Groups in the United States.” Public Opinion Quarterly 71 (3): 392412. doi: 10.1093/poq/nfm023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Ying Charles and Schwarz, Norbert. 2013. “The Power of Precise Numbers: A Conversational Logic Analysis.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 49 (5): 944946. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.04.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7
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.

Politicians Appear More Competent When Using Numerical Rhetoric
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.

Politicians Appear More Competent When Using Numerical Rhetoric
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.

Politicians Appear More Competent When Using Numerical Rhetoric
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? *