Is There an Ideological Asymmetry in the Incumbency Effect? Evidence From U.S. Congressional Elections

Abstract

The electoral advantage that incumbent legislators enjoy over challengers in the U.S. Congress has been investigated extensively in political science. Very few studies, however, have considered the role of individual differences when it comes to incumbency preferences among voters. Based on theory and research in political psychology, we hypothesized that political conservatives would exhibit stronger preferences than liberals for incumbents over challengers from the same party. Extensive analyses based on more than 150,000 voters from seven election cycles in the United States from 2006 to 2018 support this hypothesis. A significant effect of conservatism on incumbency preferences was observed in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, and it was not attributable to Republican Party identification. This ideological asymmetry is consistent with system justification theory and prior research linking conservatism to risk aversion and status quo bias. Practical implications and directions for future research are discussed.

Keywords

incumbency advantage status quo bias political conservatism system justification

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abramowitz

A. I.

(1989). Campaign spending in U.S. Senate elections. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 14(4), 487–507. https://doi.org/10.2307/439955

Abramowitz

A. I.

(1991). Incumbency, campaign spending, and the decline of competition in U.S. House elections. Journal of Politics, 53(1), 34–56. https://doi.org/10.2307/2131719

Ansolabehere

Schaffner

B. F

. (2017). CCES common content, 2016. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/GDF6Z0,HarvardDataverse,V4,UNF:6:WhtR8dNtMzReHC295hA4cg==

Ansolabehere

Snyder

J. M.

Jr . (2002). The incumbency advantage in U.S. elections: An analysis of state and federal offices, 1942–2000. Election Law Journal, 1(3), 315–338.

Ansolabehere

Snyder

J. M.

Jr Stewart

(2000). Old voters, new voters, and the personal vote: Using redistricting to measure the incumbency advantage. American Journal of Political Science, 44(1), 17–34. https://doi.org/10.2307/2669290

Bartels

L. M.

(2000). Partisanship and Voting Behavior, 1952-1996. American Journal of Political Science, 44(1), 35–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/2669291

Bisbee

Honig

(2021). Flight to safety: COVID-induced changes in the intensity of status quo preference and voting behavior. American Political Science Review, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055421000691

Bond

J. R.

Covington

Fleisher

(1985). Explaining challenger quality in Congressional elections. Journal of Politics, 47(2), 510–529. https://doi.org/10.2307/2130894

Brown

A. R.

(2014). Voters don’t care much about incumbency. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 1(2), 132–143. https://doi.org/10.1017/xps.2014.6

10.

Carney

D. R.

Jost

J. T.

Gosling

S. D.

Potter

(2008). The secret lives of liberals and conservatives: Personality profiles, interaction styles, and the things they leave behind. Political Psychology, 29(6), 807–840.

11.

Carson

J. L.

Engstrom

E. J.

Roberts

J. M.

(2007). Candidate quality, the personal vote, and the incumbency advantage in Congress. American Political Science Review, 101(2), 289–301. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055407070311

12.

Carson

J. L.

Roberts

J. M.

(2011). House and Senate elections. In Edwards

G. C.

Lee

F. E.

Schickler

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the American Congress. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199559947.003.0007

13.

Clifford

(2017). Individual differences in group loyalty predict partisan strength. Political Behavior, 39(3), 531–552.

14.

Cover

A. D.

(1977). One good term deserves another: Advantage of incumbency in Congressional elections. American Journal of Political Science, 21(3), 523–541. https://doi.org/10.2307/2110580

15.

Cover

A. D.

Brumberg

B. S.

(1982). Baby books and ballots: The impact of Congressional mail on constituent opinion. American Political Science Review, 76(2), 347–359. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055400187040

16.

Converse

P. E.

(2006). The nature of belief systems in mass publics (1964). Critical Review, 18(1–3), 1–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08913810608443650

17.

Cox

G. W.

Katz

J. N.

(1996). Why did the incumbency advantage in U.S. House elections grow? American Journal of Political Science, 40(2), 478–497. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111633

18.

Cox

G. W.

Katz

J. N.

(2002). Elbridge Gerry’s Salamander: The electoral consequences of the reapportionment revolution. Cambridge University Press.

19.

Dahlbäck

(1990). Personality and risk-taking. Personality and Individual Differences, 11(12), 1235–1242.

20.

Eckles

D. L.

Kam

C. D.

Maestas

C. L.

Schaffner

B. F.

(2014). Risk attitudes and the incumbency advantage. Political Behavior, 36(4), 731–749. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-013-9258-9

21.

Eidelman

Crandall

C. S.

(2014). The intuitive traditionalist: How biases for existence and longevity promote the status quo. In Olson

J. M.

Zanna

M. P.

(Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 50, pp. 53–104). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-800284-1.00002-3.

22.

Eisenberg

A. E.

Baron

Seligman

M. E. P.

(1998). Individual difference in risk aversion and anxiety. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 245–251.

23.

Erikson

R. S.

(1971). Advantage of incumbency in Congressional elections. Polity, 3(3), 395–405. https://doi.org/10.2307/3234117

24.

Erikson

R. S.

Palfrey

T. R.

(1998). Campaign spending and incumbency: An alternative simultaneous equations approach. Journal of Politics, 60(2), 355–373. https://doi.org/10.2307/2647913

25.

Ferejohn

J. A.

(1977). On the decline of competition in Congressional elections. American Political Science Review, 71(1), 166–176. https://doi.org/10.2307/1956960

26.

Fiorina

M. P.

(1977). The case of the vanishing marginals: The bureaucracy did it. American Political Science Review, 71(1), 177–181. https://doi.org/10.2307/1956961

27.

Freier

(2015). The mayor’s advantage: Causal evidence on incumbency effects in German mayoral elections. European Journal of Political Economy, 40, 16–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2015.07.005

28.

Friedman

J. N.

Holden

R. T.

(2009). The rising incumbent re-election rate: What’s gerrymandering got to do with it? The Journal of Politics, 71(2), 593–611.

29.

Gelman

King

(1990). Estimating incumbency advantage without bias. American Journal of Political Science, 34(4), 1142–1164. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111475

30.

Gerber

A. S.

Huber

G. A.

Doherty

Dowling

C. M.

Raso

S. E.

(2011). Personality traits and participation in political processes. The Journal of Politics, 73(3), 692–706.

31.

Greene

(1999). Understanding party identification: A social identity approach. Political Psychology, 20(2), 393–403.

32.

Hainmueller

Kern

H. L.

(2008). Incumbency as a source of spillover effects in mixed electoral systems: Evidence from a regression-discontinuity design. Electoral Studies, 27(2), 213–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2007.10.006

33.

Hennes

E. P.

Nam

H. H.

Stern

Jost

J. T.

(2012). Not all ideologies are created equal: Epistemic, existential, and relational needs predict system-justifying attitudes. Social Cognition, 30(6), 669–688. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2012.30.6.669

34.

Hinckley

(1980). House re-elections and Senate defeats: The role of the challenger. British Journal of Political Science, 10(October), 441–460. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123400002337

35.

Jacobson

G. C.

(1978). Effects of campaign spending in Congressional elections. American Political Science Review, 72(2), 469–491. https://doi.org/10.2307/1954105

36.

Jacobson

G. C.

(1989). Strategic politicians and the dynamics of U.S. House elections, 1946-86. American Political Science Review, 83(3), 773–793. https://doi.org/10.2307/1962060

37.

Jacobson

G. C.

(2009). The politics of Congressional elections. Pearson/Longman.

38.

Jacobson

G. C.

(2015). It’s nothing personal: The decline of the incumbency advantage in U.S. House elections. The Journal of Politics, 77(3), 861–873.

39.

Jacobson

G. C.

Kernell

(1981). Strategy and choice in Congressional elections. Yale University Press.

40.

Janoff-Bulman

(2009). To provide or protect: Motivational bases of political liberalism and conservatism. Psychological Inquiry, 20(2-3), 120–128.

41.

Johannes

J. R.

McAdams

J. C.

(1981). The Congressional incumbency effect: Is it casework, policy compatibility, or something else? An examination of the 1978 election. American Journal of Political Science, 25(3), 512–542. https://doi.org/10.2307/2110817

42.

Jost

J. T.

(2017). Ideological asymmetries and the essence of political psychology. Political Psychology, 38(2), 167–208. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12407

43.

Jost

J. T.

(2020). A theory of system justification. Harvard University Press.

44.

Jost

J. T.

Banaji

M. R.

Nosek

B. A.

(2004, Dec). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25(6), 881–919. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00402.x

45.

Jost

J. T.

Glaser

Kruglanski

A. W.

Sulloway

F. J.

(2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339–375. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339

46.

Jost

J. T.

Hennes

E. P.

Lavine

(2013). “Hot” political cognition: Its self-, group-, and system-serving purposes. In Carlston

D. E.

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of social cognition (pp. 851–875). Oxford University Press.

47.

Kahneman

Knetsch

J. L.

Thaler

R. H.

(1991). Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status-quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 193–206. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.5.1.193

48.

Kam

C. D.

Simas

E. N.

(2012). Risk attitudes, candidate characteristics, and vote choice. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(4), 747–760.

49.

Krasno

J. S.

Green

D. P.

(1988). Preempting quality challengers in House elections. Journal of Politics, 50(4), 920–936. https://doi.org/10.2307/2131385

50.

Lelkes

(2016). Mass polarization: Manifestations and measurements. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(S1), 392–410.

51.

Lenz

Sahn

(2020). Achieving statistical significance with control variables and without transparency. Political Analysis, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2020.31

52.

Mayhew

D. R.

(1974). Congressional elections: The case of the vanishing marginals. Polity, 6(3), 295–317. https://doi.org/10.2307/3233931

53.

McGregor

R. M.

Moore

Jackson

Bird

Stephenson

L. B.

(2017). Why so few women and minorities in local politics? Incumbency and affinity voting in low information elections. Representation, 53(2), 135–152.

54.

Mondak

J. J.

(2010). Personality and the foundations of political behavior. Cambridge University Press.

55.

Moon

(2006). The paradox of less effective incumbent spending: Theory and tests. British Journal of Political Science, 36, 705–721. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123406000378

56.

Morgenstern

Zechmeister

(2001). Better the devil you know than the saint you don’t? Risk propensity and vote choice in Mexico. Journal of Politics, 63(1), 93–119.

57.

Morisi

(2018). Choosing the risky option: Information and risk propensity in referendum campaigns. Public Opinion Quarterly, 82(3), 447–469.

58.

Morisi

Colombo

De Angelis

(2019). Who is afraid of a change? Ideological differences in support for the status quo in direct democracy. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 1–20.

59.

Morisi

Jost

J. T.

Singh

(2019). An asymmetrical “president-in-power” effect. American Political Science Review, 113(2), 614–620.

60.

Morris

M. W.

Carranza

Fox

C. R.

(2008). Mistaken identity: Activating conservative political identities induces “conservative” financial decisions. Psychological Science, 19(11), 1154–1160. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02217.x

61.

Moshinsky

Bar-Hillel

(2010). Loss aversion and status quo label bias. Social Cognition, 28(2), 191–204. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2010.28.2.191

62.

Nadeau

Lewis-Beck

M. S

. (2001). National economic voting in U.S. presidential elections. Journal of Politics, 63(1), 159–181.

63.

Prior

(2006). The incumbent in the living room: The rise of television and the incumbency advantage in U.S. House elections. Journal of Politics, 68(3), 657–673. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00452.x

64.

Quattrone

G. A.

Tversky

(1988, Sep). Contrasting rational and psychological analyses of political choice. American Political Science Review, 82(3), 719–736. https://doi.org/10.2307/1962487

65.

Redmond

Regan

(2015). Incumbency advantage in a proportional electoral system: A regression discontinuity analysis of Irish elections. European Journal of Political Economy, 38, 244–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2015.03.002

66.

Salas

(2016). Incumbency advantage in multi-member districts: Evidence from Congressional elections in Chile. Electoral Studies, 42, 213–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2016.03.002

67.

Samuelson

Zeckhauser

(1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1(1), 7–59.

68.

Serra

(1994). What’s in it for me? The impact of Congressional casework on incumbent evaluation. American Politics Quarterly, 22(4), 403–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x9402200401

69.

Sheffer

(2021). Political accountability, legislator gender, and the status quo bias. Politics & Gender, 17(3), 365–401. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X19000825

70.

Snyder

J. M.

Strömberg

(2010). Press coverage and political accountability. Journal of Political Economy, 118(2), 355–408.

71.

Stonecash

J. M.

(2008). Reassessing the incumbency effect. Cambridge University Press.

72.

Weisberg

H. F.

(2002). Partisanship and incumbency in presidential elections. Political Behavior, 24(4), 339–360.

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.

0.00 MB

0.24 MB