Misconduct and scandals might be seen as an inevitable aspect of politics and power, but while some politicians decide to step down if they are implicated in misconduct others choose to carry on campaigning.
So, why do some voters continue to support politicians despite hearing of allegations of misconduct or sexual harassment? New research from Brunel University of London and Queen Mary University of London investigated how people explain their willingness to vote for such candidates.
As voters in America prepare to go to the polls, this timely research, published in Political Research Exchange, involved 159 American voters who were all open to voting for a political candidate accused of misconduct or sexual harassment.
The views of the participants were identified in a survey conducted by the researchers, and they were given the opportunity to further explain their thinking in their own words.
The survey outlined a hypothetical scenario, and participants were asked to explain why they would continue to support a hypothetical political candidate after hearing that they were accused of sexual harassment that occurred three years earlier.
The survey results found two main reasons why the voters would continue to view the candidate favourably. “One was to extend moral licence to the candidate — looking past negative behaviours based on previous good deeds — and the second was to simply reject the allegations as false and fake news,” explained Dr Manu Savani, Senior Lecturer in Behavioural Public Policy at Brunel University of London, who led the research.
“Voters citing moral license were willing to forgive or at least overlook the allegations in favour of the politician’s other positive traits — and some participants stated that ‘everyone makes mistakes’,” she added. “Others stated that they wouldn’t seek his friendship, but they were satisfied with his political experience.”
The participants who reported that they would dismiss the allegations as ‘fake news’ explained that this was partly linked to the amount of time that had passed in the hypothetical scenario. “Participants queried why it took staff three years to report the alleged incidents, and others expressed that they have ‘grown tired of sexual harassment suits that come up after years of silence’ and stated that such reports no longer affect their vote,” explained Dr Sofia Collignon, Senior Lecturer in Comparative Politics at Queen Mary University of London.
“Although our previous research showed that candidates lose voter support when they are linked to allegations of sexual harassment, a sizeable minority remain willing to vote for a candidate accused of sexual harassment,” said Dr Savani.
“Among those willing to look past these allegations, we found new evidence that voters are extending moral license to politicians,” she added. “If they have done something good in the past, they are given license to make mistakes — even serious mistakes in the present.”
The researchers believe that their findings can help explain why we sometimes see politicians staying in their jobs, seeking higher office and pushing for re-election despite past misconduct.
“We are not yet certain if the findings could be applicable to the electorate in other countries, but the idea that moral license could be the reason that some voters look past even the most serious allegations of misconduct is fascinating,” added Dr Collignon.
‘Moral licence and disbelief: how voters look past political misconduct’, by Manu M Savani and Sofia Collignon, is published in Political Research Exchange.
Reported by:
Nadine Palmer,
Media Relations
+44 (0)1895 267090
nadine.palmer@brunel.ac.uk