Our study examines the influence of various candidate characteristics (sociodemographic profile, competence and experience, issue positions, and party affiliation) on voters’ preference for a candidate, and investigates the impact of voters’ levels of political sophistication on their likelihood of considering various candidate characteristics when deciding whom to support. Using data from the 2015 Finnish National Election Study, this study is situated within the complex Finnish open list system with many candidates at display and mandatory preference voting. We find that voters mostly argue to make their choice based on candidate characteristics with direct politically relevant information such as candidate party affiliation and issue positions. Candidate sociodemographic profile has relatively little stated impact. Overall, voters with higher levels of political sophistication tend to be more likely to consider a broad range of candidate characteristics. When investigating the relative impact of each candidate characteristic (that is, their impact relative to the other candidate characteristics) on voting behaviour, political sophistication increases the likelihood of saying to rely on candidate characteristics that are more demanding in terms of information processing such as competence and experience, and issue positions. Our analyses also show how different measures of political sophistication have distinct effects.
AdamSMaierM (2010) Personalization of politics: A critical review and agenda for research. Annals of the International Communication Association34(1): 213–257.
2.
AlbrightJJ (2009) Does political knowledge erode party attachments? A review of the cognitive mobilization thesis. Electoral Studies28: 248–260.
3.
ArnesenSDuellDJohannessonMP (2019) Do citizens make inferences from political candidate characteristics when aiming for substantive representation?Electoral Studies57: 46–60.
4.
ArterD (2014) Clowns, ‘alluring ducks’ and ‘Miss Finland 2009’: The value of ‘celebrity candidates’ in an open- list PR voting system. Representation50(4): 453–470.
5.
BafumiJShapiroRY (2009) A new partisan voter. Journal of Politics71(1): 1–24.
6.
BartelsLM (1996) Uninformed votes: Information effects in presidential elections. American Journal of Political Science40(1): 194–230.
7.
BartelsLM (2000) Partisanship and voting behavior, 1952–1996. American Journal of Political Science44(1): 35–50.
8.
BerggrenNJordahlHPoutvaaraP (2010) The looks of a winner: Beauty and electoral success. Journal of Public Economics94(1–2): 8–15.
9.
BlaisAMartinPNadeauR (1998) Can people explain their own vote? Introspective questions as indicators of salience in the 1995 Quebec referendum on sovereignty. Quality and Quantity32(4): 355–366.
10.
BolzendahlCBrooksC (2007) Women’s political representation and welfare state spending in 12 capitalist democracies. Social Forces85(4): 1509–1534.
11.
BoonenJPedersenEFHoogheM (2017) The effect of political sophistication and party identification on voter-party congruence: A comparative analysis of 30 countries. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties27(3): 311–329.
12.
BrownSDLambertRDKayBJCurtisJE (1988) The eye of the beholder: Leader images in Canada. Canadian Journal of Political Science21(4): 729–755.
13.
CampbellRCowleyP (2014) What voters want: Reactions to candidate characteristics in a survey experiment. Political Studies62(4): 745–765.
14.
CatellaniPAlbericiAI (2012) Does the candidate matter? Comparing the voting choice of early and late deciders. Political Psychology33(5): 619–634.
15.
ChildsS (2004) A feminised style of politics? Women MPs in the house of commons. British Journal of Politics and International Relations6(1): 3–19.
16.
CliffordS (2014) Linking issue stances and trait inferences: A theory of moral exemplification. Journal of Politics76(3): 698–710.
17.
CofféHTheiss -MorseE (2016) The effect of political candidates’ occupational background on voters’ perceptions of and support for candidates. Political Science68(1): 55–77.
18.
CollignonSSajuriaJ (2018) Local means local, does it? Regional identification and preferences for local candidates. Electoral Studies56: 170–178.
19.
CutlerF (2002) The simplest shortcut of all: Sociodemographic characteristics and electoral choice. Journal of Politics64(2): 466–490.
20.
DahlgaardJO (2016) You just made it: Individual incumbency advantage under proportional representation. Electoral Studies44: 319–328.
21.
DaltonRJ (1984) Cognitive mobilization and partisan dealignment in advanced industrial democracies. Journal of Politics46(1): 264–284.
22.
DaltonRJ (2007) Partisan mobilization, cognitive mobilization, and the changing American electorate. Electoral Studies26(2): 274–286.
23.
DaltonRJWattenbergMP (2000) Parties without Partisans: Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
24.
Delli CarpiniMXKeeterS (1996) What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
25.
DolanKLynchT (2014) It takes a survey: Understanding gender stereotypes, abstract attitudes and voting for women candidates. American Politics Research42(4): 656–676.
26.
FranchinoFZucchiniF (2015) Voting in a multi-dimensional space: A conjoint analysis employing valence and ideology attributes of candidates. Political Science Research and Methods3(2): 221–241.
27.
FridkinKLKenneyPJ (2011) The role of candidate traits in campaigns. Journal of Politics73(1): 61–73.
28.
FunkCL (1997) Implications of political expertise in candidate trait evaluations. Political Research Quarterly50(3): 675–697.
29.
GarziaD (2014) Personalization of Politics and Electoral Change. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
30.
GorenP (1997) Political expertise and issue voting in presidential elections. Political Research Quarterly50(2): 387–412.
HayesDLawlessJL (2016) Women on the Run. Gender, Media and Political Campaigns in a Polarized Era. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
33.
IsotaloVJärviTVon SchoultzÅ (2019) The Finnish Voter 2003–2019. Helsinki: Ministry of Justice.
34.
JohnsRShephardM (2007) Gender, candidate image and electoral preference. British Journal of Politics and International Relations9(3): 434–460.
35.
KarvonenL (2010) The Personalization of Politics: A Study of Parliamentary Democracies (Monographs). Colchester: ECPR Press.
36.
KelleySJr (1983) Interpreting Elections. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
37.
KimD-K (2006) Political Sophistication and Partisan Cues: Insight from South Korea’s 2002 Presidential Election. PhD Dissertation, University of Tennessee.
38.
KirklandPACoppockA (2018) Candidate choice without party labels. Political Behavior40(3): 571–591.
39.
KochJ (2002) Gender stereotypes and citizens’ impression of house candidates’ ideological orientations. American Journal of Political Science46(2): 453–462.
40.
LauRRRedlawskDP (2001) Advantages and disadvantages of cognitive heuristics in political decision making. American Journal of Political Science45(4): 951–971.
41.
LauRRRedlawskDP (2006) How Voters Decide: Information Processing During Election Campaigns. New York: Cambridge University Press.
42.
LauRRPatelPFahmyDFKaufmanRR (2013) Correct voting across thirty-three democracies: A preliminary analysis. British Journal of Political Science44(2): 239–259.
43.
LenzGSLawsonC (2011) Looking the part: Television leads less informed citizens to vote based on candidates’ appearance. American Journal of Political Science55(3): 574–589.
LuskinR (1990) Explaining political sophistication. Political Behavior12(4): 331–361.
46.
McAllisterI (2007) The personalization of politics. In: DaltonRJKlingemannH-D (eds) Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.571–588.
47.
MacdonaldSERabinowitzGListhaugO (1995) Political sophistication and models of issue voting. British Journal of Political Science25(4): 453–483.
48.
MarshM (1985) The voters decide: Preferential voting in European list systems. European Journal of Political Research13(4): 365–378.
49.
MillerAHWattenbergMPMalanchukO (1986) Schematic assessments of presidential candidates. American Political Science Review80(2): 521–540.
50.
NisbettREWilsonTD (1977) Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review84(3): 231–259.
51.
NorrisP (1996) Women politicians: Transforming Westminster?Parliamentary Affairs49(1): 89–102.
52.
PedersenRTDahlgaardJOCitiM (2019) Voter reactions to candidate background characteristics depend on candidate policy positions. Electoral Studies61: 102066.
53.
PetersonDAM (2005) Heterogeneity and certainty in candidate evaluations. Political Behavior27(1): 1–24.
54.
PopkinSL (1991) The Reasoning Voter. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
55.
PutG-JMaddensB (2015) The effect of municipal size and local office on the electoral success of Belgian/Flemish election candidates: A multilevel analysis. Government and Opposition59(4): 607–628.
56.
RahnWMKrosnickJABreuningM (1994) Rationalization and derivation processes in survey studies of political candidate evaluation. American Journal of Political Science38(3): 582–600.
57.
RosenthalCS (1995) The role of gender in descriptive representation. Political Research Quarterly48(3): 599–611.
58.
von SchoultzÅ (2018) Electoral systems in context: Finland. In: HerronESPekkanenRJShugartMS (eds) Oxford Handbook of Electoral Systems. Oxford: Oxford University press, pp.601–626.
59.
ShugartMSValdiniMESuominenK (2005) Looking for locals: Voter information demands and personal vote-earning attributes of legislators under proportional representation. American Journal of Political Science49(2): 437–449.
60.
SinghSP (2010) Contextual influences on the decision calculus: A cross-national examination of proximity voting. Electoral Studies29(3): 425–434.
61.
SnidermanPMGlaserJMGriffinR (1991) Information and electoral choice. In: SnidermanPMBrodyRATetlockPE (eds) Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.164–178.
TavitsM (2010) Effect of local ties on electoral success and parliamentary behaviour: The case of Estonia. Party Politics16(2): 215–235.
64.
TrentJSShort-ThompsonCMongeauPANuszAKTrentJD (2001) Image, media bias, and voter characteristics: The ideal candidate from 1988-2000. American Behavioural Scientist44(12): 2101–2124.
65.
WängnerudL (2009) Women in parliaments: Descriptive and substantive representation. Annual Review of Political Science12(1): 51–69.
66.
WattenbergMP (1991) The Rise of Candidate-Centered Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
67.
ZallerJR (1990) Political awareness, elite opinion leadership, and the mass survey response. Social Cognition8(1): 125–153.
68.
ZallerJR (1992) The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.
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.
