Assessments of candidates’ personal attributes are known to affect vote choice in presidential elections, but little work has explored trait perceptions and trait voting in congressional contests. In this article, I examine the role of candidate traits in U.S. Senate campaigns, drawing on unique survey data from the 2006 midterms. I find that voters’ evaluations of candidate qualities are less influenced by party stereotypes than in presidential elections and are strongly related to whether a candidate is an incumbent. And just as in campaigns for the White House, trait perceptions affect vote choice. But sitting Senators hold trait advantages that incumbent presidents do not necessarily receive, which makes leadership a particularly influential attribute in Senate races. In addition, trait voting is not contingent on campaign intensity and is strongest among the least politically aware citizens. In general, the results provide evidence for the applicability of presidential trait theories to congressional elections but show that incumbency and political awareness condition their effects in Senate contests.
Alexander, D., & Andersen, K. ( 1993). Gender as a factor in the attribution of leadership traits . Political Research Quarterly, 46, 527-545.
2.
Arceneaux, K., & Nickerson, D.W. (2009). Modeling certainty with clustered data: A comparison of methods. Political Analysis , 17, 177-190.
3.
Aronson, E. ( 2004). The social animal (9th ed.). New York, NY: Worth.
4.
Bafumi, J., & Shapiro, R.Y. ( 2009). A new partisan voter. Journal of Politics , 71, 1-24.
5.
Barker, D.C., Lawrence, A.B., & Tavits, M. ( 2006). Values, partisanship, and "candidate centered politics" in U.S. presidential nominations. Electoral Studies, 25, 599-610.
6.
Bartels, L.M. ( 2000). Partisanship and voting behavior, 1952-1996. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 35-50.
7.
Bartels, L.M. ( 2002a). Beyond the running tally: Partisan bias in political perceptions. Political Behavior, 24, 117-150.
8.
Bartels, L.M. ( 2002b). The impact of candidate traits in American presidential elections. In A. King (Ed.), Leaders’ personalities and the outcomes of democratic elections (pp. 44-69). Oxford , England: Oxford University Press.
9.
Bishin, B.G., Stevens, D., & Wilson, C. ( 2006). Character counts? Honesty and fairness in Election 2000 . Public Opinion Quarterly, 70, 235-248.
10.
Cain, B., Ferejohn, J., & Fiorina. M. ( 1987). The personal vote: Constituency service and electoral independence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
11.
Cantor, N., & Mischel, W. ( 1979). Prototypes in person perception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 3-52). New York, NY: Academic Press.
12.
Cappella, J.N., & Jamieson, K.H. (1997). Spiral of cynicism: The press and the public good. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
13.
Delli Carpini, M.X., & Keeter, S. ( 1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
14.
Druckman, J.N. ( 2003). The power of television images: The first Kennedy-Nixon debate revisited. Journal of Politics, 65, 559-571.
15.
Druckman, J.N. ( 2004). Priming the vote. Political Psychology , 25, 577-594.
16.
Druckman, J.N., & Parkin, M. ( 2005). The impact of media bias: How editorial slant affects voters. Journal of Politics, 67, 1030-1049.
17.
Feldman, S., & Conover, P.J. ( 1983). Candidates, issues, and voters: The role of inference in political perception. Journal of Politics, 45, 810-839.
18.
Fenno, R.F., Jr. ( 1978). Home style: House members in their districts. New York, NY: Little, Brown.
19.
Fenno, R.F., Jr. ( 2007). Congressional travels: Places, connections, and authenticity . New York, NY: Pearson Longman .
20.
Fiske, S.T., & Taylor, S.E. ( 1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
21.
Fridkin, K.L., & Kenney, P.J. ( 2007, August). The role of candidate traits in U.S. Senate campaigns . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.
22.
Funk, C.L. ( 1997). Implications of political expertise in candidate trait evaluations. Political Research Quarterly, 50, 675-697.
23.
Funk, C.L. ( 1999). Bringing the candidate into models of candidate evaluation . Journal of Politics, 61, 700-720.
24.
Glasgow, G., & Alvarez, R.M. ( 2000). Uncertainty and candidate personality traits. American Politics Research, 28, 26-49.
25.
Glass, D.P. ( 1985). Evaluating presidential candidates: Who focuses on their personal attributes? Public Opinion Quarterly, 49, 517-534.
26.
Goren, P. ( 2002). Character weakness, partisan bias, and presidential evaluation . American Journal of Political Science, 46, 627-641.
27.
Goren, P. ( 2007). Character weakness, partisan Bias, and presidential evaluation: Modifications and extensions. Political Behavior, 29, 305-325.
28.
Grose, C.R., & Globetti, S. ( 2007, April). Valence voters: Images, issues, and citizen vote choice in U.S. Senate elections. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.
29.
Hart, R.P. ( 1999). Seducing America: How television charms the modern voter (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
30.
Hayes, D. ( 2005). Candidate qualities through a partisan lens: A theory of trait ownership. American Journal of Political Science , 49, 908-923.
31.
Hayes, D. ( 2009). Has television personalized voting behavior?Political Behavior, 31, 231-260.
32.
Hibbing, J.R., & Theiss-Morse, E. (2002). Stealth democracy: Americans’ beliefs about how government should work. New York, NY : Cambridge University Press.
33.
Hill, S.J., Lo, J., Vavreck, L., & Zaller, J. ( 2007). The opt-in Internet panel: Survey mode, sampling methodology and the implications for political research. Retrieved from http://web.mit.edu/polisci/portl/cces/papers.html
34.
Huckfeldt, R., Levine, J., Morgan, W., & Sprague, J. ( 1999). Accessibility and the political utility of partisan and ideological orientations. American Journal of Political Science , 43, 888-911.
35.
Huddy, L., & Terkildsen, N. (1993a). Gender stereotypes and the perception of male and female candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 119-147.
36.
Huddy, L., & Terkildsen, N. (1993b). The consequences of gender stereotypes for women candidates at different levels and types of office. Political Research Quarterly, 46, 503-525.
37.
Iyengar, S., Valentino, N.A., Ansolabehere, S., & Simon, A.F. ( 1997). Running as a woman: Gender stereotyping in political campaigns. In P. Norris (Ed.), Women, media, and politics (pp. 77-98). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
38.
Jacobson, G.C. ( 2004). The politics of congressional elections (6th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson Longman.
39.
Jacobson, G.C. ( 2007). Referendum: The 2006 midterm congressional elections . Political Science Quarterly, 122, 1-24.
40.
Jacobson, G.C., & Wolfinger, R.E. (1989). Information and voting in California Senate elections. Legislative Studies Quarterly , 14, 509-529.
41.
Johns, R., & Shephard, M. ( 2007). Gender, candidate image and electoral preference. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 9, 434-460.
42.
Johnston, R., Hagen, M.G., & Jamieson, K.H. (2004). The 2000 presidential election and the foundations of party politics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
43.
Kahn, K.F., & Gordon, A. ( 1997). How women campaign for the U.S. Senate: Substance and strategy. In P. Norris (Ed.), Women, media, and politics (pp. 59-76). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
44.
Kahn, K.F., & Kenney, P.J. ( 1999). The spectacle of U.S. Senate campaigns. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
45.
Keeter, S. ( 1987). The illusion of intimacy: Television and the role of candidate personal qualities in voter choice. Public Opinion Quarterly, 51, 344-358.
46.
Kilburn, H.W. ( 2005). Does the candidate really matter? American Politics Research, 33, 335-356.
47.
Kinder, D.R. ( 1986). Presidential character revisited. In R. R. Lau & D. O. Sears (Eds.), Political cognition: The 19th annual Carnegie Symposium on Cognition (pp. 233-255). Hillside, NJ: Earlbaum.
Lau, R.R., & Pomper, G.M. ( 2001). Effects of negative campaigning on turnout in U.S. Senate elections, 1988-1998. Journal of Politics, 63, 804-819.
50.
Lau, R.R., & Redlawsk, D.P. (2001). Advantages and disadvantages of cognitive heuristics in political decision making. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 951-971.
51.
Levendusky, M. ( 2009). The partisan sort: How liberals became Democrats and conservatives became Republicans. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
52.
Lupia, A. ( 1994). Shortcuts versus encyclopedias: Information and voting behavior in California insurance reform elections. American Political Science Review, 88, 63-76.
53.
Markus, G.B. ( 1982). Political attitudes during an election year: A report on the 1980 NES panel study. American Political Science Review , 76, 538-560.
54.
McCurley, C., & Mondak, J.J. ( 1995). Inspected by #1184063113: The influence of incumbents’ competence and integrity in U.S. House elections. American Journal of Political Science, 39, 864-885.
55.
McGraw, K.M. ( 2003). Political impressions. In D. O. Sears, L. Huddy, & R. Jervis (Eds.), Oxford handbook of political psychology (pp. 394-432). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
56.
Miller, A.H. ( 1990). Public judgments of Senate and House candidates. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 15, 525-542.
57.
Miller, A.H., Wattenberg, M.P., & Malanchuk, O. ( 1986). Schematic assessments of presidential candidates. American Political Science Review, 80, 521-540.
58.
Ottati, V.C. ( 1990). Determinants of political judgments: The joint influence of normative and heuristic rules of inference. Political Behavior , 12, 159-179.
59.
Petrocik, J.R. ( 1996). Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 825-850.
60.
Pierce, P.A. ( 1993). Political sophistication and the use of candidate traits in candidate evaluation. Political Psychology, 14, 21-35.
61.
Popkin, S.L. ( 1994). The reasoning voter: Communication and persuasion in presidential campaigns (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
62.
Prysby, C. ( 2008). Perceptions of candidate character traits and the presidential vote in 2004. PS: Political Science & Politics, 41, 115-122.
63.
Rahn, W.M. ( 1993). The role of partisan stereotypes in information processing about political candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 472-496.
64.
Rahn, W., Aldrich, J.H., Borgida, E., & Sullivan, J.L. (1990). A social-cognitive model of candidate appraisal. In J. Ferejohn & J. Kuklinski (Eds.), Information and democratic process (pp. 136-159). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
65.
Rahn, W.M., Krosnick, J.A., & Breuning, M. ( 1994). Rationalization and derivation processes in survey studies of political candidate evaluation. American Journal of Political Science, 38, 582-600.
66.
Rapoport, R.B., Metcalf, K.L., & Hartman, J.A. ( 1989). Candidate traits and voter inferences: An experimental study. Journal of Politics, 51, 917-932.
67.
Riggle, E.D., Ottati, V.C., Wyer, R.S., Jr., Kuklinski, J., & Schwartz, N. ( 1992). Bases of political judgments: The role of stereotypic and nonstereotypic information. Political Behavior, 14, 67-87.
68.
Rivers, D. ( 2006). Sampling matching. Retrieved from http://web.mit.edu/polisci/portl/cces/material/sample_matching.pdf
69.
Smith, E.R.A.N. ( 1989). The unchanging American voter. Berkeley : University of California Press.
70.
Stokes, D.E. ( 1966). Some dynamic elements of contests for the presidency . American Political Science Review, 60, 19-28.
71.
Stonecash, J.M., Brewer, M.D., & Mariani, M. ( 2002). Diverging parties: Social change, realignment, and party polarization. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
72.
Sulkin, T. ( 2001). Explaining campaign intensity. American Politics Research, 29, 608-624.
73.
Sullivan, J.L., Aldrich, J.H., Borgida, E., & Rahn, W. ( 1990). Candidate appraisal and human nature: Man or superman in the ’84 election. Political Psychology, 11, 459-484.
74.
Taber, C.S., & Lodge, M. ( 2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs . American Journal of Political Science, 50, 755-769.
75.
Taylor, S.E., & Fiske, S.G. ( 1978). Salience, attention, and attribution: Top of the head phenomena. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 250-288). New York, NY : Academic Press.
76.
Todorov, A., Mandisodza, A.N., Goren, A., & Hall, C.C. ( 2005). Inferences of competence from faces predict election outcomes. Science, 308, 1623-1626.
77.
Tomz, M., Wittenberg, J., & King, G. ( 2001). CLARIFY: Software for Interpreting and Presenting Statistical Results (Version 2.0) [Computer software]. Cambridge, MA : Harvard University.
78.
Westlye, M.C. ( 1991). Senate elections and campaign intensity. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.
79.
Zaller, J. ( 1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
80.
Zengerle, J. ( 2002, September 9). Erskine Bowles and the politics of anti-personality . The New Republic. Retrieved from http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/748748/posts
