The impact of candidates’ negative traits (CNTs) on voting behavior has received significant attention in election studies in recent decades. However, scholarly efforts have focused primarily on elections in advanced Western democracies, largely overlooking the relationship between candidates’ personal traits and the electorate’s voting behaviors in the context of new democracies. In this study, we fill this gap by investigating the impact of CNTs on the electorate’s vote choices in South Korean presidential elections. Our study of CNTs in South Korea shows that CNTs have statistically significant effects on the electorate’s vote choices. Our findings are particularly relevant because many new democracies are implementing fair and free elections, and the elites under previous authoritarian regimes are running in these elections.
AlvarezRMNaglerJ (1995) Economics, issues and the Perot candidacy: Voter choice in the 1992 presidential election. American Journal of Political Science39(3): 714–744.
2.
AnsolabehereSRoddenJSnyderJM (2008) The strength of issues: Using multiple measures to gauge preference stability, ideological constraint, and issue voting. American Political Science Review102(2): 215–232.
3.
BanksJSKiewietDR (1989) Explaining patterns of candidate competition in congressional elections. American Journal of Political Science33(4): 997–1015.
4.
BartelsLM (2002) The impact of candidate traits in American presidential elections. In: KingA (ed.) Leaders’ Personalities and the Outcomes of Democratic Elections, Oxford Scholarship Online Monographs. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.44–69.
5.
BBC News (2016) Peru elections: Keiko Fujimori concedes to Kuczynski. BBC News, 10June.
6.
BondJRFleisherRTalbertJC (1997) Partisan differences in candidate quality in open seat House races, 1976–1994. Political Research Quarterly50(2): 281–299.
7.
CarsonJLEngstromEJRobertsJM (2007) Candidate quality, the personal vote, and the incumbency advantage in Congress. American Political Science Review101(2): 289–301.
8.
ChoK (2003) Policy and political party in South Korea. In: SimJ (ed.) Understanding of the Contemporary Party Politics. Seoul: Baek San Press (in Korean), pp.120–145.
9.
ChoiH (1995) What determines the 6.27 local election?: Partisanship and regionalism. The Korean Political Science Review29(3): 141–161 (in Korean).
10.
ChoiJJ (2002) Democracy after Democracy: The Origin and Crisis of Conservative Democracy in South Korea. Seoul: Humanitas (in Korean).
11.
ChoiJYKimJRohJ (2017) Cognitive and partisan mobilization in new democracies: The case of South Korea. Party Politics23(6): 680–691.
12.
ChungJ (1993) Generational gap and the South Korean elections. In: LeeNY (ed.) The South Korean Election I. Seoul: Nanam, pp.116–137 (in Korean).
13.
CollynsD (2016) Kuczynski ahead in Peru election, but will he be able to govern?The Guardian, 7June.
14.
CoxGWKatzJN (1996) Why did the incumbency advantage in US House elections grow?American Journal of Political Science40(2): 478–497.
15.
DaltonRJ (1984) Cognitive mobilization and partisan dealignment in advanced industrial democracies. The Journal of Politics46(1): 264–284.
16.
DaltonRJ (2000) The decline of party identification. In: DaltonRWattenbergM (eds) Parties Without Partisans. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.19–36.
17.
DaltonRJ (2013) The Apartisan American: Dealignment and Changing Electoral Politics. Los Angeles, CA: CQ Press.
18.
EriksonRSTedinKL (2015) American Public Opinion: Its Origins, Content and Impact. 9th ed.New York, NY: Routledge.
19.
EvansJA (2004) Voting and Voters: An Introduction. London: SAGE Publications.
20.
FridkinKLKenneyPJ (2011) The role of candidate traits in campaigns. The Journal of Politics73(1): 61–73.
21.
FunkCL (1996) The impact of scandal on candidate evaluations: An experimental test of the role of candidate traits. Political Behavior18(1): 1–24.
22.
FunkCL (1999) Bringing the candidate into models of candidate evaluation. The Journal of Politics61(3): 700–720.
23.
GelmanAKingG (1990) Estimating incumbency advantage without bias. American Journal of Political Science34(4): 1142–1164.
24.
GlasgowGAlvarezRM (2000) Uncertainty and candidate personality traits. American Politics Quarterly28(1): 26–49.
25.
HackerKLZakahiWRGilesMJet al. (2000) Components of candidate images: Statistical analysis of the issue-persona dichotomy in the presidential campaign of 1996. Communications Monographs67(3): 227–238.
26.
HahnHG (2014) Yushin: An Era for the Only One. Seoul, South Korea: Hanibook (in Korean).
27.
HayesD (2005) Candidate qualities through a partisan lens: A theory of trait ownership. American Journal of Political Science49(4): 908–923.
28.
HuntingtonSP (1993) The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
29.
JohnstonRPattieC (2006) Candidate quality and the impact of campaign expenditure: a British example. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties16(3): 283–294.
30.
KangW (2002) Generation, ideology, and the Roh Moo-hyun phenomenon. Kekansasang54: 80–102 (in Korean).
31.
KangW (2003) Electoral Politics in South Korea: Ideology, Region, Generation and Media. Seoul: Purungil (in Korean).
32.
KimH (2011) Korean Democracy in Transition: A Rational Blueprint for Developing Societies. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky.
33.
KimHChoiJYChoJ (2008) Changing cleavage structure in new democracies: An empirical analysis of political cleavages in Korea. Electoral Studies27(1): 136–150.
34.
KingA (2002) Leaders’ Personalities and the Outcomes of Democratic Elections. Oxford Scholarship Online Monographs. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
35.
KulisheckMRMondakJJ (1996) Candidate quality and the congressional vote: A causal connection?Electoral Studies15(2): 237–253.
36.
LeeK (1999) The South Korean Elections and Regionalism. Seoul: Orum (in Korean).
37.
LeeNY (1998) Regionalism and voting behavior in the South Korean electorates. In: LeeNY (ed.) The South Korean Election II: The 15th Presidential Election. Seoul: Purungil, pp.11–44 (in Korean).
38.
LeeNY (1999) The 1998 local election and regionalism. In: ChoJ (ed.) The South Korean Election III: The 1998 Local Election. Seoul: Purungil, pp.15–42 (in Korean).
39.
LeeSRKimHK (2013) The effect of the generation on the public attitudes toward the social welfare in Korea. Social Science Research Review29(3): 433–458 (in Korean).
40.
LimHB (2012) ‘Yushin princess’ vs. ‘election queen.’DongA-Ilbo, 19July (in Korean).
41.
McCargoD (2002) Democracy under stress in Thaksin’s Thailand. Journal of Democracy13(4): 112–126.
42.
MillerAHWattenbergMPMalanchukO (1986) Schematic assessments of presidential candidates. American Political Science Review80(2): 521–540.
43.
ParkCW (1993) Party votes in the 14th national assembly elections. In: LeeNY (ed.) The South Korean Election I. Seoul: Nanam, pp.67–114 (in Korean).
44.
ParkDSHongYL (2007) 30 days before presidential election: 19.2% are floating voters. Chosun Ilbo, 19November (in Korean).
45.
ParkYLeeJ (2016) A cohort analysis of attitudes toward national unification and North Korea. Journal of Global Politics9(2): 31–67 (in Korean).
46.
PrysbyC (2008) Perceptions of candidate character traits and the presidential vote in 2004. PS: Political Science & Politics41(1): 115–122.
47.
RohJKimY-S (2017) Welfare attitudes and partisan support: A test based on the 20th South Korean National Assembly election. East and West Studies29(2): 167–196 (in Korean).
48.
SohnHC (1995) Contemporary South Korean Politics: Theory and History. Seoul: Social Critique (in Korean).
49.
TerkildsenN (1993) When white voters evaluate black candidates: The processing implications of candidate skin color, prejudice, and self-monitoring. American Journal of Political Science37(4): 1032–1053.
