The study of contextual effects on political behavior has expanded dramatically in the last two decades. In this article we review the recent progress of the field in an attempt to develop a coherent framework for categorizing and analyzing contextual effects. We note that some types of effects have been understudied and that the processes by which context affects individuals have not received sufficient attention. Taking an information approach, we argue that context works through individual perceptions of contextual phenomena and that many sources of and reactions to information condition contextual effects. Finally, we suggest profitable future research efforts based on previous research and our preferred approach to the field.
This article examines the effect of perceptions of the character traits of the presidential candidate on the vote in 2012. Barack Obama was perceived more favorably than Mitt Romney on empathy, integrity, and competence, and just as favorably on leadership. The more favorable perceptions of Obama were due to very unfavorable perceptions of Romney; perceptions of Obama were mixed and were less favorable than they were in 2008. Trait perceptions had a significant effect on the vote. Independents were most strongly affected, and they were particularly affected by perceptions of leadership and empathy. Democrats were influenced more by perceptions of empathy and competence, and Republicans were influenced more by leadership and integrity.
Many media pundits explained Bush's victory in the 2004 presidential election as due in large part to an advantage that he held over Kerry in personal characteristics or character traits, at least as perceived by the voters. By these accounts, Kerry was seen by many voters as aloof, humorless, vacillating, and indecisive. In contrast, Bush was viewed as warm, authentic, and a strong leader. Such interpretations were expressed by a wide range of journalists. For example, New York Times Op-Ed columnist David Brooks (2004a) claimed that if “… the Democrats had nominated Dick Gephardt, this election wouldn't be close, but character is destiny, and Kerry's could be debilitating …” Also in the New York Times, Kate Zernike and John Broder (2004) found that in interviews around the country taken the day after the election, “the voices of voters … fairly shouted that the outcome was … about a fundamental question of character.” Leadership was the trait most commonly cited as one of Bush's strengths. As one voter whom they interviewed put it, “People say George Bush is a cowboy … People say he shoots quick … sometimes you have to do that, you have to be decisive. Kerry never projected that.” Kerry was also faulted for being dull and uninspiring. Brooks (New York Times2004b) felt that Kerry talked “like a manager or an engineer.” Others felt that Kerry lacked the personal warmth or charm that would allow voters to relate to him. Klein (2006, 221) felt that Kerry “… remained aloof, a distant figure, a politician in all the worst senses of the word.” Perhaps the worst insult was hurled by one of my students, who called Kerry “too professorial.” Author's note: I appreciate the comments provided by two of my colleagues, David Holian and Greg McAvoy.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.