When does a candidate’s inconsistency matter to the voter?

Abstract

A review of the literature indicates that there is little research on how voters respond to candidates' inconsistency on issues. Our study addresses this gap. We investigate whether voter response in terms of trust, attitude towards the candidate and intention to vote for the candidate is negatively influenced by a candidate's inconsistency on an issue and by the voter's attribution of the candidate's motive to a genuine desire to benefit the voter or to a ruse to garner their vote. Further, it is investigated whether this negative impact is stronger when the issue is relevant to the voter; and whether the effect of inconsistency depends on the attribution and issue relevance. The hypotheses are tested by conducting an experiment with 242 subjects. Results indicate that there is a three-way interaction and the effects of inconsistency depend upon the attribution and relevance. The effects of inconsistency are found only in certain conditions based on relevance and attribution. Attribution, however, is found to have an impact on all three aspects of voter response regardless of relevance of the issue and voter attribution. Thus, many candidates who might be tempted to argue that they have been 'not inconsistent' might be better off explaining the reasons for their change in position. Limitations and suggestions for future research are provided.

A little justification goes a long way: audience costs and the EU referendum

“…This argument is also consistent with research on election campaigns demonstrating that candidate inconsistencies are less likely to be forgiven when the responsibility for such inconsistencies lies with the candidate, e.g. as a plan to obtain votes (Karande et al 2008). Building from attribution theory, then, we expect that citizens will generally be more willing to forgive executive inconsistency when it is attributed to internal or external political pressures than when it is explained as the result of an electoral strategy.…”

“…This result is consistent with the 'negative disconfirmation' paradigm (Oliver 1997) that underpins research on advertising and product failure. When applied to campaign pledges, disapproval and vote loss result when candidates or leaders are inconsistent or break their promises (Karande et al 2008). Like consumers, voters choose a candidate based on expectations, attitudes and past performances.…”

“…Levendusky and Horowitz (2012) find that a good justification for executive inconsistency can reduce or even eliminate audience costs. Similarly, Karande et al (2008) find that justifying broken promises in the name of the public good can reduce the negative impact on performance judgements, while Robinson (2017) shows that political elites can avoid the negative consequences of 'flip-flopping' on an issue by offering an explanation that persuades the public that the new position is the better one.…”