ON HOW WE PERCEIVE

SCANDALS

Sebastián Vallejo Fordham University

Research Question:

Does context attenuate the negative effects normally caused

by scandals?

Hypothesis:

While people have a consistent negative opinion of scandal,

when prompted together with a real candidate, the effect is

attenuated.

Data:

Quinnipiac University Poll, April 1, 2014

N= 1578 Registered Voters / 749 – 835 for Split Sample Feeling Thermometer

N= 1837 Adults for Scandal Section / 341 – 395 for Split Sample Scandal Scenarios

The survey research

The respondents were presented with a hypothetical congressman, James

Miller, who advocates for middle-class, working families. Voters view him

favorably, at 83%, and are willing to vote for his reelection. 65% of voters

say they would probably or definitely vote for him.

While voters consistently view unfavorably a member of Congress which

has been in a scandal, whichever the scandal is, they are more lenient with

a politician in an extramarital affair than they are with the hypothetical

politician who has abused his office for a personal favor.

In the non-hypocritical scandal scenarios, 57% of voters view the

congressman unfavorably, compared to 64% who view the congressman who

hired a family member unfavorably.

In the hypocritical scandal scenarios the results worsened. 65% of the

voters viewed both the unfaithful congressman and the office-abuser

congressman unfavorably.

SPLIT SAMPLE SCENARIOS PRESENTED:

CONTROL: James Miller is 53 years old and is a member of Congress running for re-election this

year. He is married and has two children. His main concern in office is developing policies to help

middle class, working families.

PERSONAL/HYPOCRITICAL: James Miller is 53 years old and is a member of Congress

running for re-election this year. He is married and has two children. His main concerns in office are

promoting moral values, and developing policies to help middle class, working families. Recently it

was discovered that Mr. Miller has been unfaithful to his wife with another woman.

PERSONAL/NEUTRAL: James Miller is 53 years old and is a member of Congress running for re-

election this year. He is married and has two children. His main concern in office is developing

policies to help middle class, working families. Recently it was discovered that Mr. Miller has been

unfaithful to his wife with another woman.

OFFICIAL/HYPOCRITICAL: James Miller is 53 years old and is a member of Congress running

for re-election this year. He is married and has two children. His main concerns in office are

cleaning up government, and developing policies to help middle class, working families. Recently it

was discovered that Mr. Miller created a new, well-paid position on his staff in order to hire an

unqualified family member as a favor.

OFFICIAL/NEUTRAL: James Miller is 53 years old and is a member of Congress running for re-

election this year. He is married and has two children. His main concern in office is developing

policies to help middle class, working families. Recently it was discovered that Mr. Miller created a

new, well-paid position on his staff in order to hire an unqualified family member as a favor.

Voters consistently view unfavorably a member of Congress

which has been in a scandal

Table 1. Crosstab of hypothetical candidate favorability with the different scandal

scenarios

Personal /

Hypocritical

Official /

Hypocritical

Personal /

Neutral

Official /

Neutral Control

Very and somewhat

favorable 26.5% 30.6% 33.7% 30.0% 81.2%

Very and somewhat

unfavorable 65.2% 65.1% 57.2% 64.3% 7.3%

DK/NA 8.4% 4.3% 9.2% 5.7% 11.5%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Figure 1. Crosstab of hypothetical candidate favorability with the different scandal

scenarios

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

Personal / Hypocritical Official / Hypocritical Personal / Neutral Official / Neutral Control

Very and somewhat favorable Very and somewhat unfavorable DK/NA

The results were consistent across the different variables.

Republicans viewed the Congressman slightly worse than Democrats

in all scandals, with the exception of the official/hypocritical, but with

no significant differences.

The same with age, sex, race and levels of education, which are the

strong predictors of voting behavior.

Gov. Chris Christie Case Study

The survey included a feeling thermometer of different candidates. Respondent were

asked to rate a candidate from 0 to 100. The higher the number, the warmer or more

favorable you feel toward that person, the lower the number, the colder or less

favorable.

Using Gov. Chris Christie as a case study, the research analyze how people perceive

scandals when influenced by the behavior of a real politician whom they support.

By comparing the different scenarios used in the national survey experiment and the

position taking by the respondents with their attitudes towards Gov. Christie, we can

broadly determine how much does contextual information about the politician affect

the attitudes of the respondents.

Given the recent “Bridgegate” incident involving Gov. Chris Christie, we can

categorize it in Official / Hypocritical1

1 In a National Bloomberg poll, 63% of Americans said they don’t believe Christie’s claims that he was kept in the dark about plans laid by his top

aides to create an epic traffic jam aimed at a mayor who didn’t endorse his reelection bid.

Correlation between their feeling towards Chris Christie and

their attitude towards fictitious character in the official/neutral

scandal2.

Feeling Thermometer: Gov. Chris Christie

Personal /

Hypocritical Personal / Neutral

Official /

Hypocritical Personal / Neutral

0 - 49 50 - 100 0 - 49 50 - 100 0 - 49 50 - 100 0 - 49 50 - 100

Fa

vo

rab

ilit

y o

f

Hy

po

thet

ica

l

Can

did

ate

Very and

somewhat

favorably

25.4% 25.0% 36.7% 36.4% 17.0% 24.4% 20.8% 20.0%

Very and

somewhat

unfavorably

74.6% 75.0% 63.3% 63.6% 83.0% 75.6% 79.2% 80.0%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2 Significant at p<.05 (two-tailed); Somers’d = 0.75. The results shows our feeling towards Gov. Chris Christie to be a modest predictor of how we rate scandals, but a predictor nonetheless.

Figure 2. Relation between the variance of favorability and Gov. Chris Christie’s rating.

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

Personal /Hypocritical

Personal / Neutral Official /Hypocritical

Personal / Neutral

Favorability of Hypothetical Candidate Very and somewhat favorably Favorability of Hypothetical Candidate Very and somewhat unfavorably

Figure 3. Plot chart of relation between Favorability and complete Feeling Thermometer

spread

4. V

ery

Favo

rab

le

3. S

om

ewh

at

Favo

rab

le

2. S

om

ewh

at

Un

favo

rab

le

1. V

ery

Un

favo

rab

le

Conclusions and Recommendations

The results of the research suggest that, while people are going to harshly evaluate

candidates who are involved in scandals, this is modestly affected by our

preconception of the candidate. This would align with theories that propose that we

pick the information we receive according to our position on the issue or our

perception of the candidate.

There are many theories regarding our motivations behind voting behavior. This

research can help better understand the way voters receive, process and filter

information regarding candidates they support, giving more insight on the cognitive

process behind voting behavior.

The drawback on scandal research is the difficulty to time scandals with surveys.

Gov. Christies “Bridgegate” scandal was a timely, and allowed for this analysis.

Scandals are also a matter of perception, and greatly depend on media coverage.

It would be important to analyze the trend as the scandal becomes a less salient issue

in the public agenda. This could also give us insight on the degree in which scandals

affect candidates over time.