How Citizens React to Political Scandals Surrounding Government Leaders: A Survey Study in Hong Kong

Abstract

Public opinion research has suggested that the negative impact of scandals on public evaluation of the politicians involved is not always strong. Part of the reason is that people may hold varying perceptions regarding the nature, factuality, and importance of the scandals. According to the theory of motivated reasoning, people develop varying perceptions by processing information in ways that reconfirm their existing views. This study applies such insights to analyze how citizens react to political scandals surrounding government leaders in Hong Kong, where such scandals have arguably become increasingly prominent in recent years. This study constructs a theoretical model linking prior political attitudes, scandal-related perceptions, response evaluation, and evaluation of politicians. Analysis of survey data confirms most of the hypotheses in two cases. External efficacy and support for democracy substantially influence perceived factuality and acceptability of the scandals. Such perceptions shape people's evaluations of the responses by the government and the officials involved, which in turn affect evaluation of the officials.

Voters’ Partisan Responses to Politicians’ Immoral Behavior

“…However, politicians embroiled in scandals are not always electorally punished for their moral transgressions, and individual voters' responses to such transgressions differ in strength (Fernández-Vázquez, Barberá, & Rivero, 2016). This has puzzled scholars and stimulated research trying to understand the psychology of the public's heterogeneous reactions to scandals (e.g., Fischle, 2000;Halmburger et al, 2012;Lee, 2015).…”

“…Financial scandals are punished more severely than sex scandals (Brenton, 2011;Carlson et al, 2000, Funk, 1996, although Doherty et al (2011) notes this holds only as long as the sex scandal does not involve abuse of power. The identity of the politician involved matters as does the politician's response to the moral transgression (Lee, 2015;Tiedens, 2001). Gender appears related to voters' judgments (Brenton, 2011), but probably in combination with the type of scandal (Carlson et al, 2000;Smith et al, 2015).…”

“…Moral transgressions, that is, harm to others’ welfare, are thought to be inherently wrong since they have an intrinsic effect on the well‐being of others (Ben‐Nun Bloom, ). Moral transgressions by politicians can become scandals, although the word “scandal” itself does not refer to the moral transgression, but to the communicative event surrounding the moral transgression becoming public (Lee, ).…”

“…Recently, Laustsen and Bor () have shown in an electoral context that warmth is the most influential candidate trait on which people judge politicians, perhaps challenging Funk. It also matters how credible voters perceive the information about a scandal—especially when there are claims that the politician committed the transgression intentionally (Anduiza, Gallego, & Munoz, ; Lee, ). The relevance and importance of the transgression also influences voters’ responses (Anduiza et al, ; Lee, ).…”

“…It also matters how credible voters perceive the information about a scandal—especially when there are claims that the politician committed the transgression intentionally (Anduiza, Gallego, & Munoz, ; Lee, ). The relevance and importance of the transgression also influences voters’ responses (Anduiza et al, ; Lee, ). These perceptions are also affected by how their news sources and the media in general frame the scandal (Peterson & Vonnahme, ; Shah, Watts, Domke, & Fan, ).…”