How Candidate Perception Shapes Voting Choices

Candidate perception,
communication, and
voting choice
Patrizia 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
VOT
E
MACR
O
MICRO
DISTANT
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
PROXIMA
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

ideology and candidate evaluation
Centre-Left
Coalition
Centre-Right
Coalition
5-Star
Movement
Civic 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 1.398 4.046 .000 -.332 .718 .002 .434 1.543 .006
Leader
Eval.
1.292 3.639 .000 1.712 5.539 .000 2.020 7.539 .000 2.102 8.179 .000

political sophistication
2.528
2.357
.747
.705
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
Low High
Vote for Romney
2.308
2.616.295
.486
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
Low High
Vote for Obama
Political Sophistication Political Sophistication
Ideology
Candidate
eval.

2.425
1.843
.534
.333
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
Low High
Five-star Movement
2.158
1.913
.289 .378
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
Low High
Civic Choice
political sophistication
1.367 1.255
1.310 1.439
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
Low High
Centre-left
1.721 1.707
1.397 1.404
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
Low High
Centre-right
Ideology
Candidate
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 SociabilityLeadership
Competenc
e
strong leader knowledgeable honest empathetic

Perceived traits of American
presidential candidates 1980-2004
1.80
2.00
2.20
2.40
2.60
2.80
3.00
80 84 88 92 96 00 04
Leadership Sociability
Hayes, 2005
1.80
2.00
2.20
2.40
2.60
2.80
3.00
80 84 88 92 96 00 04
Leadership Sociability

Perceived traits of Italian centre-right
and centre-left leaders 2001-2008
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2001 2006 2008
%
Rutelli/Prodi/ Veltroni
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2001 2006 2008
Berlusconi
Leadership
Competence
Sociability
Morality
Barisione, Catellani e Garzia, 2014

Candidate perception 2012-2013
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
Obama Romney
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
Leadership
Competence
Morality
Sociability

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
0.207
0.313 0.109
0.058
0.252
0.272
0.325
0.303
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
RomneyObama
Sociability
Morality
Competence
Leadership
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
Obama Romney

Leader evaluation as a function of
personality perception
0.001
0.171
0.144
0.008
0.131
0.212
0.06
0.261
0.46 0.197
0.322
0.289
0.264
0.205 0.255
0.194
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Berlusconi Bersani Monti Grillo
Sociability
Morality
Competence
Leadership
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
Berlusconi Bersani Grillo Monti

Candidate impression
management
Candidates actively try to influence
voters' perception of them through:
O Appearance
O Behaviour
O Speech
Some voters are more attentive
than 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.

How Candidate Perception Shapes Voting Choices

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (10)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (6)

Similar to How Candidate Perception Shapes Voting Choices

Similar to How Candidate Perception Shapes Voting Choices (20)

More from PatriziaCatellani

More from PatriziaCatellani (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

How Candidate Perception Shapes Voting Choices