The Credibility of Party Policy Rhetoric Survey Experimental Evidence

• Published in: The Journal of politics Vol. 81; no. 1; pp. 309 - 314
• Main Author: Fernandez-Vazquez, Pablo
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Chicago University of Chicago Press 01.01.2019
• Subjects: Communication; Competition; Credibility; Elections; Experiments; Health care policy; Health services; Immigration; Immigration policy; Incentives; Labor migration; Labor parties; Perceptions; Political parties; Polls & surveys; Reputations; Respondents; Rhetoric; Text analysis; Voter behavior; Voters; United Kingdom > UK; spatial competition; survey experiment; Great Britain; party communication; voter updating; crowd-sourced text analysis
• ISSN: 0022-3816; 1468-2508
• DOI: 10.1086/699915

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.