candidate perception communication and voting choice (rome 2015)

Candidate perception,

communication, and voting choicePatrizia Catellani and Mauro Bertolotti

Comparative Perspectives on Electoral Behaviour: The Impact of the Electoral and

Party System. Academia Belgica, Rome, 16-18 September 2015

Catellani & BertolottiAcademia Belgica, 16-18 September 2015

Factors in vote choice

VOTE

MACRO

MICRO

DIST

ANT

Rokkan, 1982

-Party system-Electoral laws-Socio-economic and territorial cleavages

-Economic climate-Salient political issues-Perception of leaders

-Ideology-Political alignment-Socio political values

-Cognitive factors-Affective factors-Motivational factors

PROX

IMA

L


Research questions

O Does candidate evaluation affect vote choice? O Does the effect depend on the political context?O Does the effect depend on the candidate?O Does the effect depend on voters'

characteristics?

O How does the perception of candidates affect their evaluation and vote choice?O Does the effect depend on the political context?O Does the effect depend on the candidate?O Does the effect depend on voters'

characteristics?


Candidate-based voting

Candidate evaluation is a widely used heuristic among voters (Lau & Redlawsk, 2001; Marcus, Neuman, & McKuen, 2000).Attention to candidates in vote choice is increased by:

O The personalisation and mediatization of politics (Hallin & Mancini, 2004; Mazzoleni & Schulz, 1999; Strömbäck, 2008).

O A shift towards electoral systems that emphasise the role of candidates/leaders (Poguntke & Webb, 2007).


Sources of candidate evaluation

O Voters use available cues to detect candidates’ dispositions and make inferences regarding their likely behaviour if elected in office.

O Basic features of candidates:O age, gender, race, physical appearance, clothing (Rosenberg,

Bohan, McCafferty, & Harris, 1986; Rosenberg & Kahn, 1987). O More subtle features of candidates’ demeanor:

O speech, tone of voice, nonverbal behaviour (De Landtsheer, 2000, 2004; De Landtsheer, De Vries, & Vertessen, 2008).

O Information regarding candidates' affiliation to relevant social groups:O Wealth, religion, profession (Miller, Wattenberg, & Malanchuk, 1986).

O Candidates' personality traits:O competence, integrity, reliability, charisma (Miller et al., 1986).


Self-reported factors in vote choice

Miller, Wattenberg, Malanchuk, 1986


Method

We compared data from the latest American and Italian electoral surveys:O ANES 2012 (N = 5914)O ITANES 2013 (N = 1508)

Main variables:O Vote choice: voting intention (ANES), self-reported vote choice

(ITANES)O Candidate evaluation: 100-point feeling thermometer (ANES),

11-point rating (ITANES)O Candidate perception (traits): leadership, competence,

morality, sociability (ANES & ITANES)O Ideology: liberal-conservative (ANES), left-right (ITANES)O Political sophistication: political knowledge, political interest

(ITANES), interest in the campaign (ANES)


Vote choice as a function of ideology and candidate

evaluation

Democratic Presidential

Candidate

Republican Presidential

Candidate

B Exp(B) p B Exp(B) p

Constant -.792 .453 .000 -1.914 .148 .000

Ideology -.414 .661 .000 .729 2.072 .000

Candidate Evaluation 2.491 12.072 .000 2.440 11.471 .000

Nagelkerke R2 .643 .665


Vote choice as a function of ideology and candidate

evaluation

Centre-Left

Coalition

Centre-Right

Coalition

5-Star

MovementCivic Choice

B Exp(

B)

p B Exp(

B)

p B Exp(

B)

p B Exp(

B)

p

Constant -

1.658.191 .000

-

1.879.153 .000 -

1.988.137 .000

-

3.703.025 .000

Ideology -

1.361.256 .000 1.3984.046 .000 -.332 .718 .002 .434 1.543 .006

Leader

Eval.1.2923.639 .000 1.7125.539 .000 2.0207.539 .000 2.1028.179 .000

Nagelk. R2 .542 .728 .487 .439


Vote choice as a function of political sophistication

Low High0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.5

2.5282.357

.747.705

Vote for Romney

Low High0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.5

2.3082.616.295

.486

Vote for Obama

Political Sophistication

Political Sophistication

Ideology

Candidate eval.

Catellani & BertolottiAcademia Belgica, 16-18 September 2015Low High

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.5

2.4251.843

.534

.333

Five-star Movement

Low High0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.5

2.158 1.913.289 .378

Civic Choice

Vote choice as a function of political sophistication

Low High0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.5

1.367 1.255

1.310 1.439

Centre-left

Low High0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.5

1.721 1.707

1.397 1.404

Centre-right

IdeologyCandidate eval.


Candidate perception

O Two fundamental dimensions in social judgements (Cuddy, Judd & Yzerbyt, 2008; Cuddy, Fiske & Glick, 2008; Wojciszke, 2005).

O Some findings indicate that the same bi-dimensional scheme applies to candidate perception (Caprara, Barbaranelli, & Zimbardo, 1999; 2002; Cislak & Wojciszke, 2008).

Agency Communion


Agency Communion

More dimensions?

O Recent research has showed that individuals make more nuanced judgments, based on specific sub-dimensions within the Big Two dimensions (Leach, Ellemers, & Barreto, 2007; Brambilla et al., 2011; Carrier et al, 2014)

O These sub-dimensions had already emerged in research on candidate perception (Kinder, 1986; Miller et al., 1986; Pierce, 1993).

O The American National Election Studies (ANES) have been regularly measuring them since the 1980's.

Morality Sociability

Leadership

Competence

strong leader knowledgeable honest empathetic


Perceived traits of American presidential candidates 1980-2004

80 84 88 92 96 00 041.80

2.00

2.20

2.40

2.60

2.80

3.00Leadership Sociability

Hayes, 200580 84 88 92 96 00 04

1.80

2.00

2.20

2.40

2.60

2.80

3.00Leadership Sociability


Perceived traits of Italian centre-right and centre-left leaders 2001-2008

2001 2006 20080

102030405060708090

100Rutelli/Prodi/

Veltroni

%

2001 2006 20080

102030405060708090

100 Berlusconi

LeadershipCompe-tenceSociabilityMorality

Barisione, Catellani e Garzia, 2014


Candidate perception 2012-2013

Obama Romney1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

Berlusconi

Bersani Grillo Monti1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

LeadershipCompetenceMoralitySociability


The relative importance of personality dimensions

O Several studies found a general primacy of morality in social judgements (Abele & Wojciszke, 2007; Leach, et al., 2007; Brambilla et al., 2011).

O The primacy of morality is moderated by contextual factors, such as actor/observer status, interdependence, etc... (Wojcizke, 2005; Abele & Bruckmuller, 2011).

O Which dimension is more important in the political context?

O Some research indicates that morality is more important in the evaluation of politicians (Cislak & Wojciszke, 2008; Catellani & Bertolotti, 2014; 2015)...



O ...Other studies found perceived competence to be a better predictor of candidate evaluation and vote choice (Todorov, et al., 2005; Antonakis & Dalgas, 2009; Castelli, et al., 2009; Johns & Shephard, 2011; Olivola & Todorov, 2010).

O Further research showed that the effect is strong only among less politically involved voters (Lenz & Lawson, 2011).



O The relative importance of candidates' personality dimensions might depend their political affiliation (Hayes, 2005).

O Voters have certain expectations regarding candidates' personalities, based on party tradition ("trait ownership"):O Leadership (Rep.) vs. Sociability (Dem.) (Hayes, 2005)O Leadership (centre-right) vs. morality (centre-left) (Caprara et

al., 2007).O Candidates' deviations from these stereotypical

expectations are particularly salient.O Reminiscent of the negativity effect phenomenon

(Baumeister, et al., 2001; Peeters & Czapinski, 1990).


Leader evaluation as a function of personality

perception

RomneyObama0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0.207

0.313 0.1090.058

0.252

0.272

0.3250.303

SociabilityMoralityCompetenceLeadership

Obama Romney1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0


Leader evaluation as a function of personality

perception

Berlusconi

Bersani Monti Grillo0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.001

0.1710.144

0.008

0.131

0.212

0.060.261

0.46 0.1970.322

0.289

0.264

0.205 0.2550.194

SociabilityMoralityCompetenceLeadership

Berlusconi Bersani Grillo Monti1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5


Candidate impression management

Candidates actively try to influence voters' perception of them through:

O AppearanceO BehaviourO Speech

Some voters are more attentivethan others to these attempts (Pierce, 1993; Bertolotti et al., 2013).


Conclusions

O Candidate-based voting is affected by contextual, political and individual factors.

O Candidate evaluation weighs more in vote choice when other elements are absent or less informative to voters.

O The perception of candidates's personality dimensions differentially affects their evaluation.

O The negativity effect applied to candidate perception results in varying diagnosticity of different dimensions in candidate evaluation.

candidate perception communication and voting choice (rome 2015)

News & Politics