Scandalous?! Examining the Differential Effects of News Coverage About (Non-)Severe Political Misconduct on Voting Intentions and News Source Evaluations

Abstract

Scandal severity may affect public perceptions of both scandalous political actors and news sources reporting political misconduct. Yet, research that has empirically tested these assumptions is lacking. Drawing from theory on anchoring effects, the results of two experimental studies conducted using mediation analyses revealed that severe scandals hurt politicians (candidate evaluation) and weaken voting intentions. Although non-severe scandals have no such effects, they increased news consumers’ exaggerated scandalization perceptions and indirectly degraded news source evaluations. Severe scandals had no effect on the news source. Implications for the coverage of political scandals are discussed.

Keywords

political scandal scandal severity voting news source evaluation

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ajzen

(1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

Allern

Kantola

Pollack

Blach-Orsten

(2012). Increased scandalization: Nordic political scandals 1980–2010. In Allern

Pollack

(Eds.), Scandalous! The mediated construction of political scandals in four Nordic countries (pp. 29–50). Nordicom.

Allern

Pollack

(2016). Nordic political scandals—Frequency, types and consequences. In Ludwig

Schierl

von Sikorski

(Eds.), Mediated scandals: Gründe, genese und folgeeffekte (pp. 146–163). Halem.

Allern

Pollack

(2019). New Nordic noir: Political scandals as drama and media hunts. In Tumber

Waisbord

, S. (Eds.), The Routledge companion to media and scandal (pp. 129-137). London: Routledge.

Banducci

S. A.

Karp

J. A.

(1994). Electoral consequences of scandal and reapportionment in the 1992 House elections. American Politics Quarterly, 22, 2–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X9402200101

Bennett

S. E.

Rhine

S. L.

Flickinger

R. S.

(2001). Assessing Americans’ opinions about the news media’s fairness in 1996 and 1998. Political Communication, 18, 163–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/105846001750322961

Berinsky

A. J.

Hutchings

V. L.

Mendelberg

Shaker

Valentino

N. A.

(2011). Sex and race: Are Black candidates more likely to be disadvantaged by sex scandals? Political Behavior, 33, 179–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-010-9135-8

Bhatti

Hansen

K. M.

Olsen

A. L.

(2013). Political hypocrisy: The effects of political scandals on candidate evaluations. Acta Politica, 48, 408–428. https://doi.org/10.1057/ap.2013.6

Brants

(2013). Trust, cynicism and responsiveness: The uneasy situation of journalism in democracy. In Peters

Broersma

M. J.

(Eds.), Rethinking journalism. Trust and participation in a transformed news landscape (pp. 15–27). Routledge.

10.

Bucy

E. P.

D’Angelo

Bauer

N. M.

(2014). Crisis, credibility, and the press: A priming model of news evaluation. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 19, 453–475. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161214541682

11.

Bundesministerium der Finanzen. (2020). Bundesministerium für Finanzen—Höhe der Strafen [Federal Ministry of Finance — Amounts of Fines]. https://www.bmf.gv.at/steuern/fristen-verfahren/fsv-strafhoehe.html

12.

Carlson

Ganiel

Hyde

M. S.

(2000). Scandal and political candidate image. Southeastern Political Review, 28, 747–757. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2000.tb00798.x

13.

Darr

J. P.

Kalmoe

N. P.

Searles

Sui

Pingree

R. J.

Watson

B. K.

Bryanov

Santia

(2019). Collision with collusion: Partisan reaction to the Trump-Russia scandal. Perspectives on Politics, 17, 772–787. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592719001075

14.

Doherty

Dowling

C. M.

Miller

M. G.

(2011). Are financial or moral scandals worse? It depends. PS: Political Science & Politics, 44, 749–757. https://doi.org/10.1017/S104909651100124

15.

Druckman

J. N.

Kam

C. D.

(2011). Students as experimental participants: A defense of the “narrow data base.” In Druckman

J. N.

Green

D. P.

Kuklinski

J. H.

Lupia

(Eds.), Cambridge handbook of experimental political science (pp. 41–57). Cambridge University Press.

16.

Entman

R. M.

(2012). Scandal and silence: Media responses to presidential misconduct. Polity Press.

17.

Entman

R. M.

Stonbely

(2018). Political scandals as a democratic challenge: Blunders, scandals, and strategic communication in U.S. Foreign Policy: Benghazi vs. 9/11. International Journal of Communication, 12, 3024–3047.

18.

Esser

Hartung

(2004). Nazis, pollution, and no sex: Political scandals as a reflection of political culture in Germany. American Behavioral Scientist, 47, 1040–1071. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764203262277

19.

Fischle

(2000). Mass response to the Lewinsky scandal: Motivated reasoning or Bayesian updating? Political Psychology, 21, 135–159. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00181

20.

Franklin

C. H.

(1992). Measurement and the dynamics of party identification. Political Behavior, 14, 297–309. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00991982.

21.

Funk

C. L.

(1996). The impact of scandal on candidate evaluations: An experimental test of the role of candidate traits. Political Behavior, 18, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01498658

22.

Hallin

D. C.

Mancini

(2004). Comparing media systems: Three models of media and politics. Cambridge University Press.

23.

Hayes

A. F.

(2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.

24.

Johnson

T. J.

Kaye

B. K.

(1998). Cruising is believing? Comparing internet and traditional sources on media credibility measures. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 75, 325–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769909807500208

25.

Kepplinger

H. M.

(2018). Die Mechanismen der Skandalisierung: Warum man den Medien gerade dann nicht vertrauen kann, wenn es darauf ankommt [Mechanisms of scandalization: Why we cannot trust the media when it really matters]. Lau Verlag & Handel.

26.

Kepplinger

H. M.

Geiss

Siebert

(2012). Framing scandals: Cognitive and emotional media effects. Journal of Communication, 62, 659–681. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01653.x

27.

Kepplinger

H. M.

Lemke

(2016). Instrumentalizing Fukushima: Comparing media coverage of Fukushima in Germany, France, The United Kingdom and Switzerland. Political Communication, 33, 351–373. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2015.1022240

28.

Kepplinger

H. M.

Viererbl

(2018). Borderline journalism: Why do journalists accept and justify questionable practices that establish scandals? A quantitative survey. Journalism. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884918801077

29.

Kim

M.-S.

Hunter

J. E.

(1993). Attitude-behavior relations: A meta-analysis of attitudinal relevance and topic. Journal of Communication, 43, 101–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01251.x

30.

Kohring

Matthes

(2007). Trust in news media: Development and validation of a multidimensional scale. Communication Research, 34, 231–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650206298071

31.

Kumlin

Esaiasson

(2012). Scandal fatigue? Scandal elections and satisfaction with democracy in Western Europe, 1977–2007. British Journal of Political Science, 42, 263–282. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000712341100024X

32.

Lee

F. L. F.

(2018). The spillover effects of political scandals: The moderating role of cynicism and social media communications. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 95, 714–733. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699017723604

33.

McDermott

M. L.

Schwartz

Vallejo

(2015). Talking the talk but not walking the walk: Public reactions to hypocrisy in political scandal. American Politics Research, 43, 952–974. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X15577830

34.

Metzger

M. J.

Flanagin

A. J.

Eyal

Lemus

D. R.

Mccann

R. M.

(2003). Credibility for the 21st century: Integrating perspectives on source, message, and media credibility in the contemporary media environment. Annals of the International Communication Association, 27, 293–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2003.11679029

35.

Reeves

Yeykelis

Cummings

J. J.

(2016). The use of media in media psychology. Media Psychology, 19, 49–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2015.1030083

36.

Riera

Barberá

Gómez

Mayoral

J. A.

Montero

J. R.

(2013). The electoral consequences of corruption scandals in Spain. Crime, Law and Social Change, 60, 515–534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-013-9479-1

37.

Schudson

(2004). Notes on scandal and the Watergate legacy. American Behavioral Scientist, 47, 1231–1238. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764203262345

38.

Schwarz

Bless

(1992). Scandals and the public’s trust in politicians: Assimilation and contrast effects. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 574–579. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167292185007

39.

Shah

D. V.

Watts

M. D.

Domke

Fan

D. P.

(2002). News framing and cueing of issue regimes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 66, 339–370. https://doi.org/10.1086/341396

40.

Spiegel.de. (2001, August 31). Union will Rechenschaft über Mallorca-Flug [Union wants an account of Mallorca flight]. Der Spiegel. https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/verliebter-scharping-union-will-rechenschaft-ueber-mallorca-flug-a-154220.html

41.

Strack

Mussweiler

(1997). Explaining the enigmatic anchoring effect: Mechanisms of selective accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 437–446. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.3.437.

42.

Thompson

J. B.

(2000). Political scandal: Power and visibility in the media age. Polity Press Blackwell.

43.

Tumber

Waisbord

S. R.

(2004). Introduction: Political scandals and media across democracies, volume I. American Behavioral Scientist, 47, 1031–1039. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764203262275

44.

Tumber

Waisbord

S. R.

(Eds.). (2019). The Routledge companion to media and scandal. Routledge.

45.

Tversky

Kahneman

(1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124

46.

Umbricht

Esser

(2016). The push to popularize politics. Understanding the audience-friendly packaging of political news in six media systems since the 1960s. Journalism Studies, 17, 100–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2014.963369.

47.

von Sikorski

. (2018). The aftermath of political scandals: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Communication, 12, 3109–3133.

48.

von Sikorski

Hänelt

. (2016). Scandal 2.0: How valenced reader comments affect recipients’ perception of scandalized individuals and the journalistic quality of online news. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 93(3), 551–571. doi:10.1177/1077699016628822

49.

von Sikorski

Heiss

Matthes

. (2019). How political scandals affect the electorate. Tracing the eroding and spillover effects of scandals with a panel study. Political Psychology. Advance online publcation. doi:10.1111/pops.12638

50.

von Sikorski

Herbst

. (2019). Not practicing what they preached! Exploring negative spillover effects of news about ex-politicians’ hypocrisy on party attitudes, voting intentions, and political trust. Media Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/15213269.2019.1604237

51.

von Sikorski

Knoll

Matthes

. (2018). A new look at celebrity endorsements in politics: Investigating the impact of scandalous celebrity endorsers and politicians’ best responses. Media Psychology, 21(3), 403–436. doi:10.1080/15213269.2017.1378109

52.

von Sikorski

Ludwig

. (2018). The effects of visual isolation on the perception of scandalized politicians. Communications: European Journal of Communication Research, 43(2), 235–257. doi:10.1515/commun-2017-0054

53.

von Sikorski

Schierl

. (2014). Attitudes in context. Effects of salient contextual information on recipients’ attitudes toward persons with disabilities. Journal of Media Psychology, 26(2), 70–80. doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000113