Research assessing how voters evaluate political candidates often focuses on the effects of particular attributes (e.g., race, gender, partisanship). I submit that voters’ perceptions of candidates may depend not only on candidates’ own traits and features, but those of other candidates running against them. Drawing on literature on reference dependence, I argue that the same candidate may be perceived in significantly different ways depending on whether or not voters evaluate the candidate as a single entity or as one option in a multicandidate field. An original survey experiment reveals that under certain circumstances, Republicans and Democrats both adjust their evaluations of party candidates as a function of the presence of other candidates. I conclude with a discussion of this project’s implications for a larger body of work looking at reference dependence in American elections.
BagwellK.RiordanM. (1991). High and declining prices signal product quality. The American Economic Review, 81, 224-239.
4.
BandaK. (2014). Issue-based negativity and candidate assessment. Public Opinion Quarterly, 78, 707-720.
5.
BarkerD.CarmanC. (2012). Representing red and blue: How the culture wars change the way citizens speak and politicians listen. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
6.
BerinskyA.HuberG.LenzG. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research. Political Analysis, 20, 351-368.
7.
BiswasA.BlairE. (1991). Contextual effects of reference prices in retail advertisements. Journal of Marketing, 55, 1-12.
8.
BordaloP.GennaioliN.ShleiferA. (2013). Salience and consumer choice. Journal of Political Economy, 121, 803-843.
9.
BrieschR. A.KrishnamurthiL.MazumdarT.RajS. P. (1997). A comparative analysis of reference price models. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 202-214.
10.
BuhrmesterM.KwangT.GoslingS. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality data?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3-5.
11.
BullockD. (1994). The influence of political attack advertising on undecided voters: An experimental study of campaign message strategy (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Arizona, Tucson.
12.
BurrellB. (2013). Gender in campaigns for the U.S. House of Representatives. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
13.
ChanslorM. (1995). The effects of televised political advertisements on candidate image (Doctoral dissertation). The University of Oklahoma, Norman.
14.
CliffordS.JewellR.WaggonerP. (2015). Are samples drawn from Mechanical Turk valid for research on political ideology?Research and Politics, 2(4), 1-9.
15.
DownsA. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York, NY: Harper &Row.
16.
DruckmanJ.KamC. (2011). Students as experimental participants: A defense of the “narrow data base.” In DruckmanJ.GreenD.KuklinskiJ.LupiaA. (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of experimental political science (pp. 41-57). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
17.
EmeryF. (1970). Some psychological aspects of price. In TaylorB.WillisG. (Eds.), Pricing strategy (pp. 89-97). Princeton, NJ: Brandon Systems.
18.
FridkinK.KenneyP. (2004). Do negative messages work? The impact of negativity on citizens’ evaluations of candidates. American Politics Research, 32, 570-605.
19.
FridkinK.KenneyP. (2011a). The role of candidate traits in campaigns. Journal of Politics, 73, 61-73.
20.
FridkinK.KenneyP. (2011b). Variability in citizens’ reactions to different types of negative campaigns. American Journal of Political Science, 55, 307-325.
21.
FunkC. (1999). Bringing the candidate into models of candidate evaluation. Journal of Politics, 61, 700-200.
22.
GarramoreG. (1984). Voter response to negative political ads. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 61, 250-259.
23.
GeerJ.VavreckL. (2014). Negativity, information, and candidate position-taking. Political Communication, 31, 218-236.
24.
GoslingS.VazireS.JohnO. (2004). Should we trust Web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about Internet questionnaires. American Psychologist, 59, 93-104.
25.
GrossmannM.HopkinsD. (2015). Ideological Republicans and group interest Democrats: The asymmetry of American party politics. Perspectives on Politics, 13, 119-139.
26.
GrossmannM.HopkinsD. (2016). Asymmetric politics: Ideological republicans and group interest democrats. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
27.
HardieB.JohnsonE.FaderP. (1993). Modeling loss aversion and reference dependence effects on brand choice. Marketing Science, 12, 378-394.
28.
HayesD. (2011). When gender and party collide: Stereotyping in candidate trait attribution. Politics & Gender, 7, 133-165.
29.
HeitE.NicholsonS. (2010). The opposite of Republican: Polarization and political categorization. Cognitive Science, 34, 1503-1516.
30.
HenrichJ.HeineS.NorenzayanA. (2010). The weirdest people in the world?Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 62-135.
31.
HotellingH. (1929). Stability in competition. The Economic Journal, 39, 41-57.
32.
HuberJ.PayneJ.PutoC. (1982). Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: Violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 90-98.
33.
HuddyL.TerkildsenN. (1993a). Gender stereotypes and the perception of male and female candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 119-147.
34.
HuddyL.TerkildsenN. (1993b). The consequences of gender stereotypes for women candidates at different levels and types of office. Political Research Quarterly, 46, 503-525.
35.
JacobyW. (2014). Is there a culture war? Conflicting value structures in American public opinion?American Political Science Review, 108, 754-771.
36.
JahediS. (2011). A taste for bargains (Working paper).
37.
JostJ. (2017). Ideological asymmetries and the essence of political psychology. Political Psychology, 38, 167-208.
38.
JostJ.GlaserJ.KruglanskiA.SullowayF. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339-375.
39.
KahnK. (1994). Does gender make a difference? An experimental examination of sex stereotypes and press patterns in statewide campaigns. American Journal of Political Science, 38, 162-195.
40.
KahnK.KenneyP. (2004). No holds barred: Negativity in U.S. senate campaigns. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
41.
KahnemanD.TverskyA. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39, 341-350.
42.
KingD.MatlandR. (2003). Sex and the grand old party: An experimental investigation of the effect of candidate sex on support for a Republican candidate. American Politics Research, 31, 595-612.
43.
KingJ.McConnellJ. (2003). The effect of negative campaign advertising on vote choice: The mediating influence of gender. Social Science Quarterly, 84, 843-857.
44.
LauR.SigelmanL.HeldmanC.BabbittP. (1999). The effects of negative political advertisements: A meta-analytic review. American Political Science Review, 93, 851-875.
45.
LauR.SigelmanL.RovnerI. (2007). The effects of negative political campaigns: A meta-analytic reassessment. Journal of Politics, 69, 1176-1209.
46.
LauR.RovnerI. (2009). Negative campaigning. Annual Review of Political Science, 12, 285-306.
47.
LawlessJ.PearsonK. (2008). The primary reason for women’s underrepresentation? Reevaluating conventional wisdom. Journal of Politics, 70, 67-82.
48.
LazarusJ. (2008). Incumbent vulnerability and challenger entry in statewide elections. American Politics Research, 36, 108-129.
49.
LodgeM.SteenbergenM.BrauS. (1995). The responsive voter: Campaign information and the dynamics of candidate evaluation. American Political Science Review, 89, 309-326.
50.
MaestasC.FultonS.MaiselS.StoneW. (2006). When to risk it? Institutions, ambitions, and the decision to run for the U.S. House. American Political Science Review, 100, 195-208.
51.
MasonW.SuriS. (2012). Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 1-23.
52.
McdermottM. (1998). Race and gender cues in low-information elections. Political Research Quarterly, 41, 895-918.
53.
MishraS.UmeshU. N.StemD. E. (1993). Antecedents of the attraction effect: An information-processing approach. Journal of Marketing Research, 30, 331-349.
54.
MondakJ. (1993). Public opinion and heuristic processing of source cues. Political Behavior, 15, 167-192.
55.
MonroeK. (1973). Buyers’ subjective perceptions of price. Journal of Marketing Research, 10, 70-80.
56.
MullineauxK.LeeperT.DruckmanJ.FreeseJ. (2015). The generalizability of survey experiments. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 2, 109-138.
57.
PalmerB.SimonD. (2005). When women run against women: The hidden influence of female incumbents in elections to the U.S. House of Representatives. Politics & Gender, 1, 39-63.
58.
PaolacciG.ChandlerJ.SternL. (2010). Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5, 411-419.
59.
PinkletonB. (1997). The effects of negative comparative political advertising on candidate evaluations and advertising evaluations: An exploration. Journal of Advertising, 26, 19-29.
60.
RabinowitzG. (1978). On the nature of political issues: Insights from a spatial analysis. American Journal of Political Science, 22, 793-817.
61.
RabinowitzG.MacdonaldS. (1989). A directional theory of issue voting. American Political Science Review, 83, 93-121.
62.
RahnW. (1993). The role of partisan stereotypes in information processing about political candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 472-496.
63.
RoddyB.GarramoneG. (1988). Appeals and strategies of negative political advertising. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 32, 415-427.
64.
RoeseN.SandeG. (1994). Backlash effects in attack politics. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 632-653.
65.
SaundersK. L.AbramowitzA. (2004). Ideological realignment and active partisans in the American electorate. American Politics Research, 32, 285-309.
66.
SchaffnerB. F.StrebM. J. (2002). The partisan heuristic in low-information elections. Public Opinion Quarterly, 66, 559-581.
67.
SchaffnerB, F.StrebM.WrightG. (2001). Teams without Uniforms: The Nonpartisan Ballot in State and Local Elections. Political Research Quarterly, 54, 7-30.
68.
SearsD. (1986). College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of a narrow data base on psychology’s view of human nature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 515-530.
69.
SigelmanC. K.SigelmanL.WalkoszB. J.NitzM. (1995). Black candidates, White voters: Understanding racial bias in political perceptions. American Journal of Political Science, 39, 243-265.
70.
SimonsonI. (1989). Choice based on reasons: The case of attraction and compromise effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 158-174.
71.
SimonsonI.TverskyA. (1992). Choice in context: Tradeoff contrast and extremeness aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, 29, 281-295.
72.
StokesD. (1963). Spatial models of party competition. American Political Science Review, 57, 368-377.
73.
TerkildsenN. (1993). When White voters evaluate Black candidates: The processing implications of candidate skin color, prejudice, and self-monitoring. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 1032-1053.
74.
ThalerR. (1985). Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing Science, 4,199-214.
75.
TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131.
76.
TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1991). Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependence model. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106, 1039-1061.
77.
ZigerellL. (2010). Senator opposition to Supreme Court nominations: Reference dependence on the departing Justice. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 35, 393-416.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
