This paper explores how political scandals are discounted over time. Previous research has shown that voters respond disproportionately to recent economic conditions when evaluating incumbents. We argue that voters discount not only the performance of incumbents in office but also information about their personal character, largely due to accessibility biases. Building on a comprehensive database of congressional scandals covering the last four decades, we show that the electoral consequences of political scandals fade fairly quickly. Only cases emerging in the election-year systematically affect the vote share of incumbents. Moral scandals are the exception, with negative effects persisting over the entire term. In line with the mechanism proposed, additional analyses suggest this pattern results from disproportional levels of media attention, making moral scandals more easily retrieved from memory. The results broaden our understanding of the nature of myopic voting and provide an explanation for the increasing reliance on negative campaigning.
AbramowitzAlan I.1988. “Explaining Senate Election Outcomes.” American Political Science Review82 (2): 385–403.
2.
AbramowitzAlan I.1991. “Incumbency, Campaign Spending, and the Decline of Competition in U.S. House Elections.” Journal of Politics53 (1): 34–56.
3.
AchenChristopher H.BartelsLarry M.2016. Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
4.
AlesinaAlbertoLondreganJohnRosenthalHoward. 1993. “A Model of the Political Economy of the United States.” American Political Science Review87 (1): 12–33.
5.
ArceneauxKevinJohnsonMartin. 2013. Changing Minds or Changing Channels? Partisan News in an Age of Choice. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
6.
BasingerScott J.2013. “Scandals and Congressional Elections in the Post-Watergate Era.” Political Research Quarterly66 (2): 385–98.
7.
BasingerScott J.2015. “The Electoral Effects of Congressional Scandals.” In Scandal! An Interdisciplinary Approach to the Consequences, Outcomes, and Significance of Political Scandals, edited by DagnesAlisonSachlebenMark, 67–80. New York: Bloomsbury Press.
8.
BasingerScott J.BrownLara M.GulatiGirish J.HarrisDouglas B.2015. “Counting and Classifying Congressional Scandals.” In Scandal! An Interdisciplinary Approach to the Consequences, Outcomes, and Significance of Political Scandals, edited by DagnesAlisonSachlebenMark, 3–28. New York: Bloomsbury Press.
9.
BaumMatthew A.2002. “Sex, Lies, and War: How Soft News Brings Foreign Policy to the Inattentive Public.” American Political Science Review96 (1): 91–109.
10.
BrownLara M.2006. “Revisiting the Character of Congressional Scandals in the U.S. House of Representatives, 1966-2002.” Journal of Political Marketing5 (1–2): 149–72.
11.
CareyJohn M.ShugartMatthew. 1995. “Incentives to Cultivate a Personal Vote: A Rank Ordering of Electoral Formulas.” Electoral Studies14 (4): 417–39.
12.
CarlsonJamesGanielGladysHydeMark S.2000. “Scandal and Political Candidate Image.” Southeastern Political Review28 (4): 747–57.
13.
Congressional Quarterly. 1980. Congressional Ethics. Washington, DC: CQ Roll Call.
14.
Congressional Quarterly. 1992. Congressional Ethics: History, Facts, and Controversy. Washington, DC: CQ Roll Call.
15.
DohertyDavidDowlingConor M.MillerMichael G.2011. “Are Financial or Moral Scandals Worse? It Depends.” PS: Political Science & Politics44 (4): 749–57.
16.
DohertyDavidDowlingConor M.MillerMichael G.2014. “Does Time Heal All Wounds? Sex Scandals, Tax Evasion, and the Passage of Time.” PS: Political Science & Politics47 (2): 357–66.
17.
EntmanRobert M.2012. Scandal and Silence: Media Responses to Presidential Misconduct. Cambridge: Polity.
18.
FairRay C.1978. “The Effect of Economic Events on Votes for President.” The Review of Economics and Statistics60 (2): 159–73.
19.
FunkCarolyn L.1996. “The Impact of Scandal on Candidate Evaluations: An Experimental Test of the Role of Candidate Traits.” Political Behavior18 (1): 1–24.
20.
GrosecloseTimothyKrehbielKeith. 1994. “Golden Parachutes, Rubber Checks, and Strategic Retirements from the 102nd House.” American Journal of Political Science38 (1): 75–99.
21.
GrossmanMark. 2008. Political Corruption in America: An Encyclopedia of Scandals, Power, and Greed. 2nd ed.Amenia, NY: Grey House.
22.
HealyAndrewLenzGabriel S.2014. “Substituting the End for the Whole: Why Voters Respond Primarily to the Election-Year Economy.” American Journal of Political Science58 (1): 31–47.
23.
HerrickRebekah. 2003. Fashioning the More Ethical Representative: The Impact of Ethics Reforms in the U.S. House of Representatives. Westport: Praeger.
24.
Holtz-BachaChristina. 2004. “Germany: How the Private Life of Politicians Got into the Media.” Parliamentary Affairs57 (1): 41–52.
25.
IyengarShanto. 1990. “The Accessibility Bias in Politics: Television News and Public Opinion.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research2 (1): 1–15.
26.
JacobsonGary. 2015. “It’s Nothing Personal: The Decline of the Incumbency Advantage in US House elections.” Journal of Politics77 (3): 861–73.
27.
JacobsonGary C.DimockMichael A.1994. “Checking Out: The Effects of Bank Overdrafts on the 1992 House Elections.” American Journal of Political Science38 (3): 601–24.
28.
KiewietD. Roderick. 1983. Macroeconomics and Micropolitics: The Electoral Effects of Economic Issues. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
29.
KingGaryHonakerJamesJosephAnneScheveKenneth. 2001. “Analyzing Incomplete Political Science Data: An Alternative Algorithm for Multiple Imputation.” American Political Science Review95 (1): 49–69.
30.
KramerGerald H.1971. “Short-Term Fluctuations in U.S. Voting Behavior, 1896-1964.” American Political Science Review65 (1): 131–43.
31.
LauRichardRedlawskDavid. 2001. “Advantages and Disadvantages of Cognitive Heuristics in Political Decision Making.” American Journal of Political Science45 (4): 951–71.
32.
LazarusJeffrey. 2008. “Incumbent Vulnerability and Challenger Entry in Statewide Elections.” American Politics Research36 (1): 108–29.
33.
LeeperThomas J.SlothuusRune. 2014. “Political Parties, Motivated Reasoning, and Public Opinion Formation.” Political Psychology35 (1): 129–56.
34.
LongKim. 2007. The Almanac of Political Corruption, Scandals, and Dirty Politics. New York: Delacorte.
35.
MacKuenMichaelEriksonRobertStimsonJames. 1992. “Peasants or Bankers? The American Electorate and the US Economy.” American Political Science Review86 (3): 597–611.
36.
MarionNancy. 2010. The Politics of Disgrace: The Role of Political Scandal in American Politics. Durham: Carolina Academic Press.
37.
McAllisterIan. 2007. “The Personalization of Politics.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior, edited by Russell J. Dalton & Kligemann Hans-Dieter, 571–588. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
38.
NyhanBrendan. 2015. “Scandal Potential: How Political Context and News Congestion Affect the President’s Vulnerability to Media Scandal.” British Journal of Political Science45 (2): 435–66.
39.
NyhanBrendan. 2017. “Media Scandals Are Political Events: How Contextual Factors Affect Public Controversies over Alleged Misconduct by U.S. Governors.” Political Research Quarterly70 (1): 223–36.
40.
PetersJohn G.WelchSusan. 1980. “The Effects of Corruption on Voting Behavior in Congressional Elections.” American Political Science Review74 (3): 697–708.
41.
PrainoRodrigoStockemerDanielMoscardelliVincent G.2013. “The Lingering Effect of Scandals in Congressional Elections: Incumbents, Challengers, and Voters.” Social Science Quarterly94 (4): 1045–61.
42.
PriorMarkus. 2007. Post-Broadcast Democracy: How Media Choice Increases Inequality in Political Involvement and Polarizes Elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
43.
RobertsRobert North. 2001. Ethics in US Government: An Encyclopedia of Investigations, Scandals, Reforms, and Legislation. Santa Barbara: Greenwood.
44.
RottinghausBrandon. 2014. “Surviving Scandal: The Institutional and Political Dynamics of National and State Executive Scandals.” PS: Political Science & Politics47 (1): 131–40.
45.
SabatoLarry. 1991. Feeding Frenzy: How Attack Journalism Has Transformed American Politics. New York: The Free Press.
46.
SarafidisYianis. 2007. “What Have You Done for Me Lately? Release of Information and Strategic Manipulation of Memories.” Economic Journal117 (518): 307–26.
47.
StreitmatterRodger. 2004. Sex Sells! The Media’s Journey from Repression to Obsession. New York: Basic Books.
48.
ThompsonDennis. 1995. Ethics in Congress: From Individual to Institutional Corruption. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
49.
TufteEdward R.1978. Political Control of the Economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
50.
TverskyAmosKahnemanDaniel. 1974. “Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.” Science185 (4157): 1124–31.
51.
WelchSusanHibbingJohn R.1997. “The Effects of Charges of Corruption on Voting Behavior in Congressional Elections.” Journal of Politics59 (1): 226–39.
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.
