Sexual misconduct in politics: how intergroup biases affect judgments of a scandalized politician and partisan ambivalence

References

• Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (1999). Social identity and social cognition. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Abrams, D., Randsley de Moura, G., & Travaglino, G. A. (2013). A double standard when group members behave badly: Transgression credit to ingroup leaders. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(5), 799–815. doi:10.1037/a0033600
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Achen, C., & Bartels, L. (2016). Democracy for realists: Holding up a mirror to the electorate. Juncture, 22(4), 269–275. doi:10.1111/j.2050-5876.2016.00873.x
   Google Scholar
• Basinger, S. J., & Lavine, H. (2005). Ambivalence, information, and electoral choice. American Political Science Review, 99(2), 169–184. doi:10.1017/S0003055405051580
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benoit, W. L. (1995). Sears’ repair of its auto service image: Image restoration discourse in the corporate sector. Communication Studies, 46(1–2), 89–105. doi:10.1080/10510979509368441
   Google Scholar
• Benoit, W. L. (2000). Another visit to the theory of image restoration strategies. Communication Quarterly, 48(1), 40–43. doi:10.1080/01463370009385578
   Google Scholar
• Bowler, S., & Karp, J. A. (2004). Politicians, scandals, and trust in government. Political Behavior, 26(3), 271–287. doi:10.1023/B:POBE.0000043456.87303.3a
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2016). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality data? In A. E. Kazdin (Ed.), Methodological issues and strategies in clinical research (pp. 133–139). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Burns, J. P., & Bruner, M. S. (2000). Revisiting the theory of image restoration strategies. Communication Quarterly, 48(1), 27–39. doi:10.1080/01463370009385577
   Google Scholar
• Castano, E., Yzerbyt, V., Paladino, M. P., & Sacchi, S. (2002). I belong, therefore, I exist: Ingroup identification, ingroup entitativity, and ingroup bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(2), 135–143. doi:10.1177/0146167202282001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conner, M., & Sparks, P. (2002). Ambivalence and attitudes. European Review of Social Psychology, 12(1), 37–70. doi:10.1080/14792772143000012
   Google Scholar
• Costarelli, S. (2011). Ingroup ambivalence and experienced discomfort: The moderating roles of affective vs. cognitive attitudinal basis and group identification. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 15(2), 187. doi:10.1037/a0021959
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dhokolia, R. R. (1987). Source Credibility Effects: A Test of Behavior Persistence. Advances in Consumer Research, 14, 426–430. https://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/6731/volumes/v14/NA-14
   Google Scholar
• Dimock, M., & Wike, R. (2021March29). America is exceptional in its political divide: The pandemic has revealed how pervasive the divide in American politics is relative to other nations. The Pew Research Center. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/trust/archive/winter-2021/america-is-exceptional-in-its-political-divide
   Google Scholar
• Druckman, J. N., & Kam, C. D. (2011). Students as experimental participants. In J. N. Druckman, D. P. Greene, J. H. Kuklinski, & A. Lupia (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of experimental political science (pp. 41–57). New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dunn, A. (2020). Fact check: Over 159 million people voted in the US general election. USA Today. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/12/30/fact-check-fals-president-than-were-registered-u-s/4010087001/.
   Google Scholar
• Earle, E. R. (2019). ‘The consequences will be with us for decades’: The politicization and polarization of the #MeToo and Time’s Up movements in the United States. Interactions: Studies in Communication & Culture, 10(3), 257–271. doi:10.1386/iscc.10.3.257_1
   Google Scholar
• Everett, J. A. C., Faber, N. S., & Crockett, M. (2015). Preferences and beliefs in ingroup favoritism. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 9(15), 1–21. doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00015
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Field-Springer, K., Draut, H., Babrow, F., & Sandman, M. (2022). (Re)claiming stories in the #MeToo movement: Righting epistemic wrongs of physical, mental, and emotional harms of sexual violence. Health Communication, 37(8), 982–991. doi:10.1080/10410236.2021.1880052
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• García, C. (2011). Sex scandals: A cross-cultural analysis of image repair strategies in the cases of Bill Clinton and Silvio Berlusconi. Public Relations Review, 37(3), 292–296. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.03.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glasford, D. E., Dovidio, J. F., & Pratto, F. (2009). I continue to feel so good about us: In-group identification and the use of social identity - Enhancing strategies to reduce intragroup dissonance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(4), 415–427. doi:10.1177/0146167208329216
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodkind, N. (2021). Gov. Andrew Cuomo says he’s an outsider, but his downfall marks the end of a political dynasty. Fortune. https://fortune.com/2021/03/23/andrew-cuomo-ny-governor-downfall-family-dynasty-mario-cuomo-new-york-politics-sexual-misconduct-nursing-homes/
   Google Scholar
• Greene, S. (2004a). Social identity theory and party identification. Social Science Quarterly, 85(1), 136–153. doi:10.1111/j.0038-4941.2004.08501010.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greene, S. H. (2004b). The structure of partisan attitudes: Reexamining partisan dimensionality and ambivalence. Political Psychology, 26(5), 809–822. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2005.00445.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Groenendyk, E. (2016). The anxious and ambivalent partisan: The effect of incidental anxiety on partisan motivated recall and ambivalence. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(2), 460–479. doi:10.1093/poq/nfv083
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hacker, K. L., Zakahi, W. R., Giles, M. J., & McQuitty, S. (2000). Components of candidate images: Statistical analysis of the issue-persona dichotomy in the presidential campaign of 1996. Communication Monographs, 67(3), 227–238. doi:10.1080/03637750009376508
   Google Scholar
• Hardy, M. M., Coker, C. R., Funk, M. E., & Warner, B. R. (2019). Which ingroup, when? effects of gender, partisanship, veteran status, and evaluator identities on candidate evaluations. Communication Quarterly, 67(2), 199–220. doi:10.1080/01463373.2019.1573201
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling [White paper]. http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Jennings, F. J. (2019). An uninformed electorate: Identity-motivated elaboration, partisan cues, and learning. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 47(5), 527–547. doi:10.1080/00909882.2019.1679385
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jeon, M., Kim, H. O., & Woo, C. W. (2021). #MeToo movement in political media era: A comparison of U.S. media and Korean media. Communication Quarterly, 70(1), 22–41. doi:10.1080/01463373.2021.2001552
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, A. A. (2014). Ambivalence, political engagement and context. Political Studies, 62(3), 502–521. doi:10.1111/1467-9248.12063
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnston, C. D., Lavine, H., & Woodson, B. (2015). Emotion and political judgement: Expectancy violation and affective intelligence. Political Research Quarterly, 68(3), 474–492. doi:10.1177/1065912915593644
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knobloch-Westerwick, S., Mothes, C., & Polavin, N. (2020). Confirmation bias, ingroup bias, and negativity bias in selective exposure to political information. Communication Research, 47(1), 104–124. doi:10.1177/0093650217719596
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kunst, J. R., Bailey, A., Prendergast, C., & Gundersen, A. (2019). Sexism, rape myths and feminist identification explain gender differences in attitudes toward the #metoo social media campaign in two countries. Media Psychology, 22(5), 818–843. doi:10.1080/15213269.2018.1532300
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lavine, H. (2001). The electoral consequences of ambivalence toward presidential candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 915–929. doi:10.2307/2669332
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leaper, C. (2011). More similarities than differences in contemporary theories of social development: A plea for theory bridging. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 40, 337–378. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-386491-8.00009-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, F. L. F. (2018). The spillover effects of political scandals: The moderating role of cynicism and social media communications. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 95(3), 714–733. doi:10.1177/1077699017723604
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindstadt, C., Boyer, B. P., Ciszek, E., Chung, A., & Wilcox, G. (2022). Drunk girl: A brief thematic analysis of Twitter posts about alcohol use and #MeToo. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 1–15. doi:10.1080/17459435.2021.2016919
   Google Scholar
• Maier, J. (2011). The impact of political scandals on political support: An experimental test of two theories. International Political Science Review, 32(3), 283–302. doi:10.1177/0192512110378056
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Major, B., Sciacchitano, A. M., & Crocker, J. (1993). In-group versus out-group comparisons and self-esteem. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19(6), 711–721. doi:10.1177/0146167293196006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mason, L. (2013). The rise of uncivil agreement: Issue versus behavioral polarization in the American electorate. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(1), 140–159. doi:10.1177/0002764212463363
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mason, L. (2018). Uncivil agreement: How politics became our identity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Maule, L. S., & Goidel, R. K. (2003). Adultery, drugs, and sex: An experimental investigation of individual reactions to unethical behavior by public officials. The Social Science Journal, 40(1), 65–78. doi:10.1016/S0362-3319(02)00259-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCroskey, J. C., & Teven, J. J. (1999). Goodwill: A reexamination of the construct and its measurement. Communications Monographs, 66(1), 90–103. doi:10.1080/03637759909376464
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moehler, D. C., & Conroy-Krutz, J. (2016). Partisan media and engagement: A field experiment study in a newly liberalized system. Political Communication, 33(3), 414–432. doi:10.1080/10584609.2015.1069768
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mucchi-Faina, A., Costarelli, S., & Romoli, C. (2002). The effects of intergroup context of evaluation on ambivalence toward the ingroup and the outgroup. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32(2), 247–259. doi:10.1002/ejsp.71
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mucchi-Faina, A., Pacilli, M. G., Pagliaro, S., & Alparone, F. R. (2009). Ambivalence in intergroup evaluation: The role of fairness norm. Social Justice Research, 22(1), 117–133. doi:10.1007/s11211-009-0090-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mulligan, K. (2011). Partisan ambivalence, split-ticket voting, and divided government. Political Psychology, 32(3), 505–530. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2011.00830.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Otten, S., & Gordijn, E. H. (2014). Was it one of us? How people cope with misconduct by fellow ingroup members. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8(4), 165–177. doi:10.1111/spc3.12098
   Google Scholar
• Quinnipiac University. (2021). Support dips for Cuomo staying in office, Quinnipiac University New York state poll finds; Gov job approval, favorability, honesty ratings hit record lows. http://poll.qu.edu/poll-realease?releaseid=3806
   Google Scholar
• Regner, I., & Le Floch, V. (2005). When political expertise moderates the impact of scandals on young adults’ judgments of politicians. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35(2), 255–261. doi:10.1002/ejsp.245
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (1975). Whose opinion do you trust? The Journal of Communication, 25(3), 43–50. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1975.tb00604.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwarz, N., & Bless, H. (1992). Scandals and the public’s trust in politicians: Assimilation and contrast effects. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(5), 574–579. doi:10.1177/0146167292185007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sheffer, L. (2020). Partisan in-group bias before and after elections. Electoral Studies, 67, 102191. doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2020.102191
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shufeldt, G. (2017). Party-group ambivalence and voter loyalty: Results from three experiments. American Politics Research, 46(1), 132–168. doi:10.1177/1532673X17705854
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Solaz, H., De Vries, C. E., & Geus, R. A. D. (2018). In-group loyalty and the punishment of corruption. Comparative Political Studies, 52(6), 896–926. doi:10.1177/0010414018797951
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Solomon, E. D., Hackathorn, J. M., & Crittendon, D. (2019). Judging scandal: Standards or bias in politics. The Journal of Social Psychology, 159(1), 61–74. doi:10.1080/00224545.2018.1453468
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spina, N. (2021). Partisanship and generalized trust in response to the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The Social Science Journal, 1–13. doi:10.1080/03623319.2021.1899361
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Starkey, J. C., Koerber, A., Sternadori, M., & Pitchford, B. (2019). #MeToo goes global: Media framing of silence breakers in four national settings. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 43(4), 437–461. doi:10.1177/0196859919865254
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stassen, H., & Bates, B. R. (2020). Beers, bros, and Brett: Memes and the visual ideograph of the <Angry>. Communication Quarterly, 68(3), 331–354. doi:10.1080/01463373.2020.1787477
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steenbergen, M. R., & Ellis, C. R. (2003). Affective Ambivalence in Electoral Behavior. In Shambaugh Conference on Affect and Cognition in Political Action, University of Iowa, Iowa City (pp. 6–9).
   Google Scholar
• Tajfel, H. (Ed.). (1978). Differentiation between social groups. London, United Kingdom: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33(1), 1–39. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.33.020182.000245
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and ingroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1(2), 149–178. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420010202
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teven, J. J. (2008). An examination of perceived credibility of the 2008 presidential candidates: Relationships with believability, likeability, and deceptiveness. Human Communication, 11(4), 391–408. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.615.8086&rep=rep1&type=pdf
   Google Scholar
• Thompson, M. M., Zanna, M. P., & Griffin, D. W. (1995). Let’s not be indifferent about (attitudinal) ambivalence. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 361–386). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Trepte, S., & Loy, L. S. (2017). Social Identity Theory and Self-Categorization Theory. The International Encyclopedia of Media Effects, 1–13. doi:10.1002/9781118783764.wbieme0088
   Google Scholar
• Ulbig, S. G., & Miller, N. M. (2012). The Coingate effect: The impact of scandal on attitudes toward, state and federal political actors. The Social Science Journal, 49(1), 61–71. doi:10.1016/j.soscij.2011.07.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Umeogu, B. (2012). Source credibility: A philosophical analysis. Open Journal of Philosophy, 2(2), 112. doi:10.4236/ojpp.2012.22017
   Google Scholar
• von Sikorski, C. (2018). The aftermath of political scandals: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Communication, 12, 3109–3133.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• von Sikorski, C., & Herbst, C. (2020). Not practicing what they preached! Exploring negative spillover effects of news about ex-politicians’ hypocrisy on party attitudes, voting intentions, and political trust. Media Psychology, 23(3), 436–460. doi:10.1080/15213269.2019.1604237
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warner, B. R., & Banwart, M. C. (2016). A multifactor approach to candidate image. Communication Studies, 67(3), 258–279. doi:10.1080/10510974.2016.1156005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yokley, E. (2021August10). Cuomo’s support among New Yorkers plummeted ahead of his resignation. https://morningconsult.com/2021/08/10/cuomo-approval-rating-new-york/
   Google Scholar