The electoral advantage that incumbent legislators enjoy over challengers in the U.S. Congress has been investigated extensively in political science. Very few studies, however, have considered the role of individual differences when it comes to incumbency preferences among voters. Based on theory and research in political psychology, we hypothesized that political conservatives would exhibit stronger preferences than liberals for incumbents over challengers from the same party. Extensive analyses based on more than 150,000 voters from seven election cycles in the United States from 2006 to 2018 support this hypothesis. A significant effect of conservatism on incumbency preferences was observed in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, and it was not attributable to Republican Party identification. This ideological asymmetry is consistent with system justification theory and prior research linking conservatism to risk aversion and status quo bias. Practical implications and directions for future research are discussed.
AbramowitzA. I. (1989). Campaign spending in U.S. Senate elections. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 14(4), 487–507. https://doi.org/10.2307/439955
2.
AbramowitzA. I. (1991). Incumbency, campaign spending, and the decline of competition in U.S. House elections. Journal of Politics, 53(1), 34–56. https://doi.org/10.2307/2131719
AnsolabehereS.SnyderJ. M.Jr. (2002). The incumbency advantage in U.S. elections: An analysis of state and federal offices, 1942–2000. Election Law Journal, 1(3), 315–338.
5.
AnsolabehereS.SnyderJ. M.JrStewartC. (2000). Old voters, new voters, and the personal vote: Using redistricting to measure the incumbency advantage. American Journal of Political Science, 44(1), 17–34. https://doi.org/10.2307/2669290
6.
BartelsL. M. (2000). Partisanship and Voting Behavior, 1952-1996. American Journal of Political Science, 44(1), 35–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/2669291
7.
BisbeeJ.HonigD. (2021). Flight to safety: COVID-induced changes in the intensity of status quo preference and voting behavior. American Political Science Review, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055421000691
8.
BondJ. R.CovingtonC.FleisherR. (1985). Explaining challenger quality in Congressional elections. Journal of Politics, 47(2), 510–529. https://doi.org/10.2307/2130894
9.
BrownA. R. (2014). Voters don’t care much about incumbency. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 1(2), 132–143. https://doi.org/10.1017/xps.2014.6
10.
CarneyD. R.JostJ. T.GoslingS. D.PotterJ. (2008). The secret lives of liberals and conservatives: Personality profiles, interaction styles, and the things they leave behind. Political Psychology, 29(6), 807–840.
11.
CarsonJ. L.EngstromE. J.RobertsJ. M. (2007). Candidate quality, the personal vote, and the incumbency advantage in Congress. American Political Science Review, 101(2), 289–301. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055407070311
12.
CarsonJ. L.RobertsJ. M. (2011). House and Senate elections. In EdwardsG. C.LeeF. E.SchicklerE. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the American Congress. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199559947.003.0007
13.
CliffordS. (2017). Individual differences in group loyalty predict partisan strength. Political Behavior, 39(3), 531–552.
14.
CoverA. D. (1977). One good term deserves another: Advantage of incumbency in Congressional elections. American Journal of Political Science, 21(3), 523–541. https://doi.org/10.2307/2110580
15.
CoverA. D.BrumbergB. S. (1982). Baby books and ballots: The impact of Congressional mail on constituent opinion. American Political Science Review, 76(2), 347–359. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055400187040
CoxG. W.KatzJ. N. (1996). Why did the incumbency advantage in U.S. House elections grow?American Journal of Political Science, 40(2), 478–497. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111633
18.
CoxG. W.KatzJ. N. (2002). Elbridge Gerry’s Salamander: The electoral consequences of the reapportionment revolution. Cambridge University Press.
19.
DahlbäckO. (1990). Personality and risk-taking. Personality and Individual Differences, 11(12), 1235–1242.
20.
EcklesD. L.KamC. D.MaestasC. L.SchaffnerB. F. (2014). Risk attitudes and the incumbency advantage. Political Behavior, 36(4), 731–749. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-013-9258-9
21.
EidelmanS.CrandallC. S. (2014). The intuitive traditionalist: How biases for existence and longevity promote the status quo. In OlsonJ. M.ZannaM. P. (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 50, pp. 53–104). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-800284-1.00002-3.
22.
EisenbergA. E.BaronJ.SeligmanM. E. P. (1998). Individual difference in risk aversion and anxiety. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 245–251.
23.
EriksonR. S. (1971). Advantage of incumbency in Congressional elections. Polity, 3(3), 395–405. https://doi.org/10.2307/3234117
24.
EriksonR. S.PalfreyT. R. (1998). Campaign spending and incumbency: An alternative simultaneous equations approach. Journal of Politics, 60(2), 355–373. https://doi.org/10.2307/2647913
25.
FerejohnJ. A. (1977). On the decline of competition in Congressional elections. American Political Science Review, 71(1), 166–176. https://doi.org/10.2307/1956960
26.
FiorinaM. P. (1977). The case of the vanishing marginals: The bureaucracy did it. American Political Science Review, 71(1), 177–181. https://doi.org/10.2307/1956961
27.
FreierR. (2015). The mayor’s advantage: Causal evidence on incumbency effects in German mayoral elections. European Journal of Political Economy, 40, 16–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2015.07.005
28.
FriedmanJ. N.HoldenR. T. (2009). The rising incumbent re-election rate: What’s gerrymandering got to do with it?The Journal of Politics, 71(2), 593–611.
29.
GelmanA.KingG. (1990). Estimating incumbency advantage without bias. American Journal of Political Science, 34(4), 1142–1164. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111475
30.
GerberA. S.HuberG. A.DohertyD.DowlingC. M.RasoC.HaS. E. (2011). Personality traits and participation in political processes. The Journal of Politics, 73(3), 692–706.
31.
GreeneS. (1999). Understanding party identification: A social identity approach. Political Psychology, 20(2), 393–403.
32.
HainmuellerJ.KernH. L. (2008). Incumbency as a source of spillover effects in mixed electoral systems: Evidence from a regression-discontinuity design. Electoral Studies, 27(2), 213–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2007.10.006
33.
HennesE. P.NamH. H.SternC.JostJ. T. (2012). Not all ideologies are created equal: Epistemic, existential, and relational needs predict system-justifying attitudes. Social Cognition, 30(6), 669–688. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2012.30.6.669
34.
HinckleyB. (1980). House re-elections and Senate defeats: The role of the challenger. British Journal of Political Science, 10(October), 441–460. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123400002337
35.
JacobsonG. C. (1978). Effects of campaign spending in Congressional elections. American Political Science Review, 72(2), 469–491. https://doi.org/10.2307/1954105
36.
JacobsonG. C. (1989). Strategic politicians and the dynamics of U.S. House elections, 1946-86. American Political Science Review, 83(3), 773–793. https://doi.org/10.2307/1962060
37.
JacobsonG. C. (2009). The politics of Congressional elections. Pearson/Longman.
38.
JacobsonG. C. (2015). It’s nothing personal: The decline of the incumbency advantage in U.S. House elections. The Journal of Politics, 77(3), 861–873.
39.
JacobsonG. C.KernellS. (1981). Strategy and choice in Congressional elections. Yale University Press.
40.
Janoff-BulmanR. (2009). To provide or protect: Motivational bases of political liberalism and conservatism. Psychological Inquiry, 20(2-3), 120–128.
41.
JohannesJ. R.McAdamsJ. C. (1981). The Congressional incumbency effect: Is it casework, policy compatibility, or something else? An examination of the 1978 election. American Journal of Political Science, 25(3), 512–542. https://doi.org/10.2307/2110817
42.
JostJ. T. (2017). Ideological asymmetries and the essence of political psychology. Political Psychology, 38(2), 167–208. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12407
43.
JostJ. T. (2020). A theory of system justification. Harvard University Press.
44.
JostJ. T.BanajiM. R.NosekB. A. (2004, Dec). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25(6), 881–919. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00402.x
45.
JostJ. T.GlaserJ.KruglanskiA. W.SullowayF. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339–375. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339
46.
JostJ. T.HennesE. P.LavineH. (2013). “Hot” political cognition: Its self-, group-, and system-serving purposes. In CarlstonD. E. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of social cognition (pp. 851–875). Oxford University Press.
47.
KahnemanD.KnetschJ. L.ThalerR. H. (1991). Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status-quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 193–206. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.5.1.193
48.
KamC. D.SimasE. N. (2012). Risk attitudes, candidate characteristics, and vote choice. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(4), 747–760.
49.
KrasnoJ. S.GreenD. P. (1988). Preempting quality challengers in House elections. Journal of Politics, 50(4), 920–936. https://doi.org/10.2307/2131385
50.
LelkesY. (2016). Mass polarization: Manifestations and measurements. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(S1), 392–410.
51.
LenzG.SahnA. (2020). Achieving statistical significance with control variables and without transparency. Political Analysis, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2020.31
52.
MayhewD. R. (1974). Congressional elections: The case of the vanishing marginals. Polity, 6(3), 295–317. https://doi.org/10.2307/3233931
53.
McGregorR. M.MooreA.JacksonS.BirdK.StephensonL. B. (2017). Why so few women and minorities in local politics? Incumbency and affinity voting in low information elections. Representation, 53(2), 135–152.
54.
MondakJ. J. (2010). Personality and the foundations of political behavior. Cambridge University Press.
55.
MoonW. (2006). The paradox of less effective incumbent spending: Theory and tests. British Journal of Political Science, 36, 705–721. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123406000378
56.
MorgensternS.ZechmeisterE. (2001). Better the devil you know than the saint you don’t? Risk propensity and vote choice in Mexico. Journal of Politics, 63(1), 93–119.
57.
MorisiD. (2018). Choosing the risky option: Information and risk propensity in referendum campaigns. Public Opinion Quarterly, 82(3), 447–469.
58.
MorisiD.ColomboC.De AngelisA. (2019). Who is afraid of a change? Ideological differences in support for the status quo in direct democracy. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 1–20.
59.
MorisiD.JostJ. T.SinghV. (2019). An asymmetrical “president-in-power” effect. American Political Science Review, 113(2), 614–620.
60.
MorrisM. W.CarranzaE.FoxC. R. (2008). Mistaken identity: Activating conservative political identities induces “conservative” financial decisions. Psychological Science, 19(11), 1154–1160. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02217.x
NadeauR.Lewis-BeckM. S. (2001). National economic voting in U.S. presidential elections. Journal of Politics, 63(1), 159–181.
63.
PriorM. (2006). The incumbent in the living room: The rise of television and the incumbency advantage in U.S. House elections. Journal of Politics, 68(3), 657–673. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00452.x
64.
QuattroneG. A.TverskyA. (1988, Sep). Contrasting rational and psychological analyses of political choice. American Political Science Review, 82(3), 719–736. https://doi.org/10.2307/1962487
65.
RedmondP.ReganJ. (2015). Incumbency advantage in a proportional electoral system: A regression discontinuity analysis of Irish elections. European Journal of Political Economy, 38, 244–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2015.03.002
66.
SalasC. (2016). Incumbency advantage in multi-member districts: Evidence from Congressional elections in Chile. Electoral Studies, 42, 213–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2016.03.002
67.
SamuelsonW.ZeckhauserR. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1(1), 7–59.
68.
SerraG. (1994). What’s in it for me? The impact of Congressional casework on incumbent evaluation. American Politics Quarterly, 22(4), 403–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x9402200401
69.
ShefferL. (2021). Political accountability, legislator gender, and the status quo bias. Politics & Gender, 17(3), 365–401. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X19000825
70.
SnyderJ. M.StrömbergD. (2010). Press coverage and political accountability. Journal of Political Economy, 118(2), 355–408.
71.
StonecashJ. M. (2008). Reassessing the incumbency effect. Cambridge University Press.
72.
WeisbergH. F. (2002). Partisanship and incumbency in presidential elections. Political Behavior, 24(4), 339–360.
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.
