Pundits appear eager to portray the partisan battles waged during the 2016 U.S. presidential election as reaching new lows where dirty politics were concerned. Yet despite massive media interest in dirty politics and academic investigations into many aspects of this soft underbelly of democratic elections, very little is known about the way the public responds to news about dirty politics—whether the misdeed is a stolen yard sign or a more serious allegation of election fraud. Research by Ryan L. Claassen and Michael J. Ensley reveals good reasons for monitoring public reactions to dirty politics. The public are not neutral when news about a political misdeed surfaces—instead the public see the misdeed through partisan lenses. This research raises new and interesting possibilities regarding the implications of Trump’s allegations of election fraud and likely public response to ongoing reports about investigations into alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia

Claassen, Ryan L.

Ensley, Michael J.

LSE Research Online

‘Mine	is	a	likable	rogue,	yours	is	a	degeneratecriminal.’	When	it	comes	to	‘dirty	campaign	tricks’partisans	tend	to	ignore	bad	news	about	their	ownPundits	appear	eager	to	portray	the	partisan	battles	waged	during	the	2016	U.S.presidential	election	as	reaching	new	lows	where	dirty	politics	were	concerned.	Yetdespite	massive	media	interest	in	dirty	politics	and	academic	investigations	into	manyaspects	of	this	soft	underbelly	of	democratic	elections,	very	little	is	known	about	theway	the	public	responds	to	news	about	dirty	politics—whether	the	misdeed	is	a	stolenyard	sign	or	a	more	serious	allegation	of	election	fraud.	Research	by	Ryan	L.Claassen	and	Michael	J.	Ensley	reveals	good	reasons	for	monitoring	public	reactions	to	dirty	politics.	The	publicare	not	neutral	when	news	about	a	political	misdeed	surfaces—instead	the	public	see	the	misdeed	throughpartisan	lenses.	This	research	raises	new	and	interesting	possibilities	regarding	the	implications	of	Trump’sallegations	of	election	fraud	and	likely	public	response	to	ongoing	reports	about	investigations	into	allegedcollusion	between	the	Trump	campaign	and	Russia.The	Trump	Administration	has	challenged	traditional	American	democratic	norms	in	multiple	ways.	Near	the	topof	this	list	is	the	Administration’s	challenge	and	rejection	of	facts	and	information	that	is	generally	accepted,coupled	with	disdain	for	the	mainstream	media.	Now	many	in	the	media	and	the	public	are	discovering	whatpsychologists	and	political	scientists	have	long	known:	people	engage	in	motivated	reasoning,	which	means	thatcitizens	are	biased	information	processors	who	uncritically	accept	favorable	information	about	their	party	or	team,but	discount	or	reject	unfavorable	information	about	their	side.	We	have	concern	that	runs	deeper	than	thisregarding	motivated	reasoning.	While	it	is	not	new	nor	very	surprising	that	people	interpret	the	meaning	of	factsand	deem	their	importance	according	to	their	partisan	orientations,	it	is	rightfully	concerning	that	the	factsthemselves	are	a	matter	of	debate.	Does	this	tendency	towards	motivated	reasoning	extend	to	areas	where	clearethical	norms	define	what	is	acceptable	behavior	in	democratic	politics?To	gain	leverage	on	this	question	we	studied	individuals’	reactions	to	“dirty”	campaign	tricks	through	a	surveyexperiment,	which	is	presented	in	our	recently	published	article	in	Political	Behavior.	We	define	‘dirty	tricks’	asactions	taken	to	undermine	the	opponent’s	electoral	chances	through	tactics	that	would	be	deemed	unethical(and	typically	illegal).	The	survey	experiment	was	part	of	the	2010	Cooperative	Congressional	Election	Study,which	provided	a	nationally	representative	sample	of	one	thousand	American	voting	age	citizens.	Surveyrespondents	were	exposed	to	one	of	two	brief	news	story	vignettes	about	a	dirty	political	campaign	trick	(therewas	also	a	control	group	that	did	not	see	any	story).	One	story	involved	stolen	campaign	yard	signs,	while	theother	trick	involved	an	automated	phone	call	scheme	wrongly	informing	the	opponent’s	likely	supporters	aboutwhen	the	polls	were	open.	We	chose	these	treatments	since	one	trick	(the	phone	calls)	seems	seriously	moredamaging	to	the	electoral	process	than	the	other	trick.To	investigate	whether	partisans	apply	different	standards	to	dirty	tricks	perpetrated	by	co-partisans,	theexperiment	also	manipulates	the	party	of	the	perpetrator	of	the	dirty	trick.	Respondents	were	randomly	assignedto	hear	a	story	where	the	campaign	that	authorized	the	phone	calls	or	stole	the	yard	signs	was	affiliated	with	theRepublican	or	Democratic	Party.	After	the	respondents	were	asked	to	read	the	story	about	the	dirty	trick,	theywere	asked	to	evaluate	the	seriousness	of	these	types	of	actions	and	whether	the	actions	were	justifiable.The	experimental	results	reveal	that	motivated	reasoning	is	present	even	when	it	pertains	to	ethical	issues.	Whena	citizen	that	identifies	as	a	Republican	sees	a	story	where	the	Democratic	Party	is	the	perpetrator	of	a	dirty	trick,he	or	she	is	less	likely	to	feel	the	tactic	is	justified	and	views	the	offense	as	more	serious	than	a	citizen	whoidentifies	with	the	Democratic	Party	(see	Figure	1a	and	Figure	1b	below).	The	same	is	true	for	Democraticidentifiers	who	see	a	story	where	the	perpetrator	is	the	Republican	Party:	they	see	the	trick	as	more	serious	andare	less	likely	to	feel	it	is	justified.		Bear	in	mind,	the	descriptions	of	the	dirty	tricks	are	identical,	save	thedescription	of	the	partisanship	of	the	perpetrator.Figure	1.	Assessments	of	the	seriousness	of	the	dirty	trick	described	in	the	vignetteUSApp – American Politics and Policy Blog: ‘Mine is a likable rogue, yours is a degenerate criminal.’ When it comes to ‘dirty campaign tricks’ partisanstend to ignore bad news about their ownPage 1 of 4		Date originally posted: 2017-07-18Permalink: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2017/07/18/mine-is-a-likable-rogue-yours-is-a-degenerate-criminal-when-it-comes-to-dirty-campaign-tricks-partisans-tend-to-ignore-bad-news-about-their-own/Blog homepage: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/Figure	2.		Assessments	of	whether	the	dirty	trick	described	in	the	vignette	was	justifiedApart	from	demonstrating	partisan	motivated	moral	elasticity,	the	results	also	shed	new	light	on	the	mechanismsbehind	motivated	reasoning.	Independents	who	are	exposed	to	a	dirty	trick	vignette	respond	in	the	same	ways	asRepublicans	that	see	a	story	with	a	Republican	perpetrator	and	Democrats	that	see	a	story	with	a	Democraticperpetrator.	In	other	words,	partisans	deviate	from	the	behavior	of	Independents	when	exposed	to	news	of	theopposing	party	committing	a	dirty	trick.	There	seems	to	be	a	strong	dose	of	negative	partisanship	–	when	theopposing	party	commits	a	dirty	trick,	individuals	arrive	at	exceptionally	negative	judgments.USApp – American Politics and Policy Blog: ‘Mine is a likable rogue, yours is a degenerate criminal.’ When it comes to ‘dirty campaign tricks’ partisanstend to ignore bad news about their ownPage 2 of 4		Date originally posted: 2017-07-18Permalink: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2017/07/18/mine-is-a-likable-rogue-yours-is-a-degenerate-criminal-when-it-comes-to-dirty-campaign-tricks-partisans-tend-to-ignore-bad-news-about-their-own/Blog homepage: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/According	to	the	theory	of	motivated	reasoning,	subjects	typically	“discount”	information	that	causes	cognitivedissonance	(good	news	about	the	opposition	or,	in	our	experiment,	bad	news	about	one’s	party).		We	note	thatpartisans	respond	to	bad	news	about	their	party	in	the	same	way	as	Independents.		If	“discounting”	meansactively	doing	something,	then	they	should	deem	the	trick	less	serious	and	more	justified	when	it	is	done	by	theirparty	than	independents	do.		We	find	little	evidence	of	discounting	in	our	experiment.		In	some	ways	this	is	goodnews.		Partisans	do	not	appear	to	“acquit”	their	candidates	in	the	court	of	public	opinion	for	misbehavior	on	thecampaign	trail.However,	we	do	find	that	partisans	respond	in	a	motivated	way	to	bad	news	about	their	partisan	opponents—consistent	with	expectations	about	how	subjects	will	deal	with	news	that	follows	a	congenial	cognitive	pattern(good	news	about	one’s	party	or,	in	our	experiment,	bad	news	about	the	opposition).		Unfortunately,	this	patternof	motivated	reasoning	has	more	ominous	implications	when	it	comes	to	dirty	political	tricks.		If	negative	reactionsto	cheating	are	so	demoralizing	to	opposition	partisans	(relative	to	the	partisanship	of	the	perpetrator)	that	theydisengage	from	politics,	the	cheater	reaps	a	perverse	public	opinion	reward	for	cheating	as	opposition	voters	stayhome.		However,	we	hasten	to	add	the	link	between	victim	partisans’	reactions	to	dirty	tricks	and	demobilization	isnot	well	established	empirically.		In	fact,	if	reactions	to	dirty	tricks	have	a	mobilizing	effect	on	victim	partisans,	acandidate	would	benefit	from	accusing	the	other	side	of	foul	play—equally	troubling	if	the	accusation	is	unfounded(more	on	this	in	a	moment).Two	additional	results	are	noteworthy.	First,	there	were	not	any	appreciable	differences	between	the	two	types	oftricks,	even	though	we	expected	individuals	to	react	differently	to	the	automated	phone	calls	because	suchrobocall	operations	are	a	much	more	serious	offense.	Second,	we	did	not	find	that	overall	trust	in	government	isseverely	affected	by	these	political	tactics.	When	we	compared	individuals	that	were	exposed	to	a	dirty	trick	to	thecontrol	group	that	did	not	see	a	vignette	about	a	dirty	trick,	there	were	only	minor	differences	in	the	levels	of	trustbetween	the	two	groups.Returning	to	ongoing	developments,	what	does	one	make	of	public	reactions	to	Trump’s	pre-election	accusationsof	impending	election	fraud?	First,	we	would	like	to	note	that	our	experimental	treatment	falls	well	short	of	stealingelections.		While	we	were	heartened	to	find	that	Americans’	general	attitudes,	such	as	trust	in	the	government,were	unfazed	by	news	of	a	dirty	trick	on	the	campaign	trail,	we	recognize	that	trust	could	be	more	vulnerable	inthe	face	of	more	serious	problems.		If	accusations	of	Democratic	Party	cheating	undermined	Republicans’	trust	inthe	system	to	the	point	of	disengagement,	then	the	ploy	would	have	backfired.		On	the	other	hand,	if	exceptionallynegative	reactions	to	such	accusations	were	motivating	to	Republicans	(e.g.	stimulated	turnout),	then	Trump’seffort	to	fire	up	his	base	would	have	been	successful.	Our	experiment	reveals	that	Republicans	would	deemDemocratic	cheating	to	be	exceptionally	serious	and	unjustified	and	that	it	is	unlikely	to	undermine	more	basicorientations	toward	the	political	system.		Additional	study	is	needed	to	assess	whether	negative	reactions	to	newsabout	dirty	tricks	perpetrated	by	opposition	partisans	stimulates	political	participation.Finally,	we	also	think	our	results	can	inform	expectations	about	public	response	to	the	unfolding	allegations	ofcollusion	between	the	Trump	campaign	and	the	Russians.		Once	again	we	can	be	confident	that	the	opposition(in	this	case	Democrats)	will	be	exceptionally	incensed.		However,	in	this	case	the	experiment	also	points	tooutrage	among	Republicans,	assuming	they	do	not	discount.		In	any	case,	we	note	that	news	of	dirty	tricks	is	notthe	be-all-end-all	—	the	public	response	can	be	every	bit	as	titillating.This	article	is	based	on	the	paper	Motivated	Reasoning	and	Yard-Sign-Stealing	Partisans:	Mine	is	a	LikableRogue,	Yours	is	a	Degenerate	Criminal	in	Political	Behavior.Republican	election	yard	signs	by	TheDigitel	Beaufort	is	licensed	under	CC	BY	2.0.Please	read	our	comments	policy	before	commentingNote:		This	article	gives	the	views	of	the	author,	and	not	the	position	of	USAPP	–	American	Politics	and	Policy,nor	of	the	London	School	of	Economics.Shortened	URL	for	this	post:	http://bit.ly/2vxjsYY		_________________________________USApp – American Politics and Policy Blog: ‘Mine is a likable rogue, yours is a degenerate criminal.’ When it comes to ‘dirty campaign tricks’ partisanstend to ignore bad news about their ownPage 3 of 4		Date originally posted: 2017-07-18Permalink: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2017/07/18/mine-is-a-likable-rogue-yours-is-a-degenerate-criminal-when-it-comes-to-dirty-campaign-tricks-partisans-tend-to-ignore-bad-news-about-their-own/Blog homepage: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/About	the	authorsRyan	L.	Claassen	–	Political	Science	at	Kent	State	UniversityRyan	L.	Claassen	is	Professor	of	Political	Science	at	Kent	State	University	in	Ohio.		He	teaches	avariety	of	courses	in	the	areas	of	quantitative	research	methods,	American	politics,	and	politicalbehavior	–	at	both	the	doctoral	and	undergraduate	levels.	He	is	the	author	of	“Godless	Democratsand	Pious	Republicans?		Party	Activists,	Party	Capture,	and	the	‘God	Gap’”	(Cambridge	UniversityPress)	and	his	work	work	has	appeared	journals	such	as	American	Politics	Research,	The	Journalof	Politics,	The	Journal	of	Political	Science	Education,	Political	Behavior,	Political	Research	Quarterly,	PublicOpinion	Quarterly,	and	PS:	Political	Science	and	Politics.Michael	J.	Ensley	–	Political	Science	at	Kent	State	UniversityMichael	J.	Ensley	is	Associate	Professor	of	Political	Science	at	Kent	State	University	in	Ohio.	Hisresearch	and	teaching	interests	include	the	U.S.	Congress,	elections,	voting	behavior,	and	statisticalmethodology.	He	has	published	journal	articles	in	many	different	journals	including	The	AmericanJournal	of	Political	Science,	Political	Behavior,	Legislative	Studies	Quarterly,	American	PoliticsResearch,	and	Public	Choice	and	is	currently	working	on	a	book	entitled	Beyond	the	Left-RightDivide	(with	Edward	Carmines	and	Michael	Wagner).	He	received	his	Ph.D.	from	Duke	University	in	2002.USApp – American Politics and Policy Blog: ‘Mine is a likable rogue, yours is a degenerate criminal.’ When it comes to ‘dirty campaign tricks’ partisanstend to ignore bad news about their ownPage 4 of 4		Date originally posted: 2017-07-18Permalink: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2017/07/18/mine-is-a-likable-rogue-yours-is-a-degenerate-criminal-when-it-comes-to-dirty-campaign-tricks-partisans-tend-to-ignore-bad-news-about-their-own/Blog homepage: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/

Mine is a likable rogue, yours is a degenerate criminal. When it comes to 'dirty campaign tricks' partisans tend to ignore bad news about their own.

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online