z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
The Credibility of Party Policy Rhetoric Survey Experimental Evidence
Author(s) -
Pablo Fernández-Vázquez
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
the journal of politics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.489
H-Index - 121
eISSN - 1468-2508
pISSN - 0022-3816
DOI - 10.1086/699915
Subject(s) - credibility , skepticism , reputation , face value , argument (complex analysis) , value (mathematics) , incentive , political science , order (exchange) , rhetoric , law and economics , public relations , economics , law , microeconomics , philosophy , linguistics , biochemistry , chemistry , epistemology , finance , machine learning , computer science
This article analyzes how a party’s policy statements affect voters’ perceptions of where the party stands on a given issue. I argue that voters do not take a party’s statements at face value because these messages can be a strategic tool to win elections. Voters discount popular statements because they may respond to vote-seeking incentives rather than reflect the party’s sincere views. Espousing unpopular policies has less instrumental value in obtaining more votes and therefore is more credible. I have tested this argument with a survey experiment fielded in the United Kingdom that exposes respondents to Conservative and Labour Party statements on immigration and the National Health Service. I report evidence that popular statements tend to have a weaker effect on voter perceptions than unpopular ones. This finding suggests a paradox: the more a party needs to change its reputation in order to gain votes, the stronger the voters’ skepticism.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom