Creating Confusion: Disputed “Facts” and Voter Learning in Campaigns

• In Event: Quantifying the Impact of Political Information on Political Engagement

Abstract

Campaigns are a valuable source of information for voters when it comes to learning where candidates stand on issues. However, much of the work on how voters learn from campaigns emphasizes information quantity – that is, how the amount of information about an issue to which voters are exposed shapes their ability to recognize candidates’ positions on the issue and use that knowledge in making voting decisions. In this analysis we consider quantity alongside a key feature of message content: Whether candidates offer competing messages about where one of the stands on an issue. For example, during the 2008 presidential election, the Obama and McCain campaigns made competing claims about Barack Obama’s position on federal income tax rates. To what extent do these contested claims impact what voters learn about the candidates and how they use this information in their vote choice? We use observational data from a panel survey as well as a separate survey experiment fielded to a nationally representative sample of American adults to identify the effects of these disputes on voters’ perceptions of candidate positions and the relationship between those perceptions and vote choice. Results indicate that disputing another candidate’s position fosters misperception and stunts voters’ use of their own positions on the issue when making their vote choice. The benign view that campaigns bolster voter learning and issue-voting, then, is highly contingent on the decisions candidates makes about whether or not to dispute their opponents’ descriptions of their own policy positions.

Authors

• Michael B. Henderson, Louisiana State University

• Nicholas Davis, Louisiana State University