While the discussion on the individual level variables that affect responses to political scandals has focused mainly on variables such as partisan identity or political cynicism, we suggest that media skepticism could also moderate whether and how individuals respond to political scandals. To test this relationship, we rely on panel data from the United States gathered before and after the Trump–Ukraine scandal occurred (Wave 1 in June 2019, Wave 2 in October 2019). Our results show that individuals who rank higher on media skepticism hold comparatively more positive views of Trump after the scandal, even when previous evaluations and alternative explanations are controlled for. Conversely, we find no effect of media skepticism in trust toward the US political system and government. We believe our findings have significant consequences to understanding the relationship between the governed and those governing in times of widespread media skepticism.
BrodyRichard AShapiroCatherine R (1989) Policy Failure and Public Support: The Iran-contra affair and public assessment of President Reagan. Political Behavior11(4): 353–369. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/586163
5.
CarlinRyan ELoveGregory JMartínez-GallardoCecilia (2015) Cushioning the Fall: Scandals, economic conditions, and executive approval. Political Behavior37(1): 109–130. DOI: 10.1007/s11109-014-9267-3.
CozzensMichael DContractorNoshir S (1987) The Effect of Conflicting Information on Media Skepticism. Communication Research14(4): 437–451. DOI: 10.1177/009365087014004004.
9.
DahlgrenPeter (2018) Media, Knowledge and Trust: The deepening epistemic crisis of democracy. Javnost - The Public25(1–2): 20–27. DOI: 10.1080/13183222.2018.1418819.
10.
DanceyLogan (2012) The Consequences of Political Cynicism: How cynicism shapes citizens’ reactions to political scandals. Political Behavior34(3): 411–423. DOI: 10.1007/s11109-011-9163-z.
DittoPeter HLopezDavid F (1992) Motivated Skepticism: Use of differential decision criteria for preferred and nonpreferred conclusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology63(4): 568–584.
13.
EngelkeKatherine MHaseValerieWintterlinFlorian (2019) On Measuring Trust and Distrust in Journalism: Reflection of the status quo and suggestions for the road ahead. Journal of Trust Research9(1): 66–86. DOI: 10.1080/21515581.2019.1588741.
14.
ErnstNicoleKühneRinaldoWirthWerner (2017) Effects of Message Repetition and Negativity on Credibility Judgments and Political Attitudes. International Journal of Communication11: 3265–3285.
15.
GarrettR Kelly (2009) Politically Motivated Reinforcement Seeking: Reframing the selective exposure debate. Journal of Communication59(4): 676–699. DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01452.x.
16.
GarrettR KellyBimberBrucede ZunigaHomero GilHeinderyckxFrançoisKellyJohnSmithMarc (2012) Transnational Connections| New ICTs and the Study of Political Communication. International Journal of Communication6: 18. Available at: https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/1112 (accessed 16 December 2021).
Gil de ZúñigaHomeroGonzález-GonzálezPabloGoyanesManuel (2021) Pathways to Political Persuasion: Linking online, social media, and fake news with political attitude change through political discussion. American Behavioral Scientist.
KepplingerHans MathiasGeissStefanSiebertSandra (2012) Framing Scandals: Cognitive and emotional media effects. Journal of Communication62(4): 659–681. DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01653.x.
22.
KumlinStaffanEsaiassonPeter (2012) Scandal Fatigue? Scandal elections and satisfaction with democracy in Western Europe, 1977–2007. British Journal of Political Science42(2): 263–282. DOI: 10.1017/S000712341100024X.
23.
LischkaJuliane A (2019) A Badge of Honor?Journalism Studies20(2): 287–304. DOI: 10.1080/1461670X.2017.1375385.
MaierJürgen (2010) The Impact of Political Scandals on Political Support: An experimental test of two theories. International Political Science Review32(3): 283–302. DOI: 10.1177/0192512110378056.
MettlerSuzanneLiebermanRobert C. (2020) Four Threats: The Recurring Crises of American Democracy. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
28.
MinkusLaraDeutschmannEmanuelDelheyJan (2019) A Trump Effect on the EU’s Popularity? The U.S. presidential election as a natural experiment. Perspectives on Politics17(2): 399–416. DOI: 10.1017/S1537592718003262.
NyhanBrendan (2015) Scandal Potential: How political context and news congestion affect the president’s vulnerability to media scandal. British Journal of Political Science45(2): 435–466. DOI: 10.1017/S0007123413000458.
PrainoRodrigoStockemerDanielMoscardelliVincent G (2013) The Lingering Effect of Scandals in Congressional Elections: Incumbents, challengers, and voters. Social Science Quarterly94(4): 1045–1061. DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.12046.
RoehmMichelle LTyboutAlice M (2006) When Will a Brand Scandal Spill Over, and How Should Competitors Respond?Journal of Marketing Research43(3): 366–373. DOI: 10.1509/jmkr.43.3.366.
35.
StockemerDanielPrainoRodrigo (2019) The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: Do attractive politicians get a ‘break’ when they are involved in scandals?Political Behavior41(3): 747–767. DOI: 10.1007/s11109-018-9469-1.
36.
StroudNatalie Jomini (2010) Polarization and Partisan Selective Exposure. Journal of Communication60(3): 556–576. DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01497.x.
TsfatiYarivCappellaJoseph N (2003) Do People Watch What They do not Trust? Exploring the association between news media skepticism and exposure. Communication Research30(5): 504–529. DOI: 10.1177/0093650203253371.
42.
van DijkTeun A (2017) How Globo Media Manipulated the Impeachment of Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff. Discourse & Communication11(2): 199–229. DOI: 10.1177/1750481317691838.
43.
von SikorskiChristian (2018) Political Scandals as a Democratic Challenge| The Aftermath of Political Scandals: A Meta-Analysis. International Journal of Communication12: 25. Available at: https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/7100
44.
von SikorskiChristianHeissRaffaelMatthesJörg (2020) How Political Scandals Affect the Electorate. Tracing the eroding and spillover effects of scandals with a panel study. Political Psychology41(3): 549–568. DOI: 10.1111/pops.12638.
45.
WagnerMarkusTarlovJessicaVivyanNick (2012) Partisan Bias in Opinion Formation on Episodes of Political Controversy: Evidence from Great Britain. Political Studies62(1): 136–158. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2012.01002.x.
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.
