The Coingate effect: The impact of scandal on attitudes toward, state and federal political actors

Abstract

Highlights

► Consumption of news coverage of governors boosts approval relative to the president. ► Exposure to negative scandalous news leads to a decline in governor approval. ► The content of media coverage impacts how the public places blame and attribution.

Abstract

What happens when a major, well publicized state-level scandal occurs? Do opinions of federal politicians improve because of relative comparisons to state politicians caught in the scandal? Do attitudes toward all politicians suffer? Little work has been done to investigate about how scandals related to one level of government affect attitudes about political actors at other levels. We investigate what happens when a major and well publicized state-level scandal occurs. Using individual-level public opinion data collected during the summer of 2006, we analyze the impact that a state-level scandal had on citizen approval of state and federal political actors, considering the mediating impact of exposure to media coverage of the scandal. Overall consumption of news coverage of state governors boosts approval of the governor relative to the president. At the same time, however, citizens exposed to negative scandalous news coverage of their governor show a decline in relative gubernatorial approval.

Notes

1 Further, national economic conditions have been consistently shown to impact gubernatorial approval (Chubb, 1988; Cohen & King, 2004; Crew & Weiher, 1996; Crew et al., 2002; Howell & Vanderleeuw, 1990; Orth, 2001).

2 In later polls, Governor Taft's public approval rating would rebound slightly.

3 The authors would like to thank Dr. Kellie Sims Butler for her assistance with data collection.

4 The response rate for the survey, given by [number of completed interviews/(number of completed interviews + number of refusals)] = 2006/(2006 + 3673) = 35.3%. The response rates for each state are: Missouri = 380/(380 + 595) = 40%; Ohio = 783/(783 + 1465) = 35%; and Pennsylvania = 843/(843 + 1613) = 34%.

5 Percent Anglo Population: US = 73.9%; OH = 84; PA = 83.8; MO = 84.0. Percent African-American Population: US = 12.4; OH = 11.8; PA = 10.4; MO = 11.3 (U.S. Census Bureau).

6 Median Income: US = $48,451; OH = $44,532; PA = $46,259; MO = $42,841. Per Capita Income: US = $22,267; OH = $23,543; PA = $24,694; MO = 22,916. Percent Families Below Poverty Line: US = 9.8; OH = 9.8; PA = 8.2; MO = 10.0 (U.S. Census Bureau).

7 The difference in mean gubernatorial approval between Ohio and each other state is significant at p < 0.05.

8 The difference in mean presidential approval between Missouri and each other state is significant at p < 0.05, while the difference between Ohio and Pennsylvania is not significant.

9 The authors would like to thank Johanna Dunaway for her assistance with this search.

10 The searches of the newspapers were conducted one state at a time so that we could have specific information on news coverage about each governor.

11 Ohio and Pennsylvania had 2.25 governor stories per paper and Missouri had 6.5 governor stories per paper over he entire six-month period.

12 The results remain statistically and substantively unchanged when the additional control variables are included.

13 The model estimated in Table 2 was run with two additional specifications: (1) substituting a three way interaction between news consumption, media coverage of the governor, and a dummy for Pennsylvania residents and (2) substituting a three way interaction between news consumption, media coverage of the governor, and a dummy for Pennsylvania residents. In both cases, the three way interaction was positive and significant. Further, we ran the specified models for each state separately, thus excluding the three-way interaction. The results are fully consistent with the findings presented here. News consumption is negatively and significantly related to relative gubernatorial approval in Ohio, but not related in either Missouri or Pennsylvania.

14 Probabilities were calculated using the model presented in Table 2. The Ohio specific variables (media coverage, governor's margin of victory, and the Ohio dummy variable) were held at appropriate levels, the news consumption variable was changed to represent different levels of news consumption, and the other variables were held at their means. Those following news “not very closely” have a 0.25 probability of approving of the governor more than the president and those following news “somewhat closely” have a 0.17 chance of doing so.

15 Probabilities were calculated using the models presented in Table 3. The Ohio specific variables (number of governor stories, governor's margin of victory, and the Ohio dummy variable) were held at appropriate levels, the news consumption variable was changed to represent different levels of news consumption, and the other variables were held at their means. The probability of those who do not consume news at all approving or strongly approving of the governor is about 0.51, while those who follow news very closely have a 0.12 probability of doing so. The probability of those who do not consume news at all approving or strongly approving of the president is 0.38, while those who follow news very closely have a 0.26 probability of doing so.

16 As above, the models estimated in Table 3 was run substituting three way interactions between news consumption, gubernatorial media coverage and either a Pennsylvania or Missouri dummy variable. In both cases, the three way interaction was positive and significant.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Stacy G. Ulbig

Stacy Ulbig is an associate professor of political science at Sam Houston State University. Her research interests include voting behavior, public opinion, and trust in government. Her work has appeared in Political Behavior, Social Science Quarterly, Political Research Quarterly and State Politics and Policy Quarterly.

Nancy Martorano Miller

Nancy Martorano Miller is an associate professor of political science at the University of Dayton. Her research interests include state legislative institutions and state politics. Her work has appeared in Legislative Studies Quarterly, State Politics and Policy Quarterly and Journal of Legislative Studies.