One of the most obvious trends in Western democracies, during the past decades, has been the decline of citizens’ political support (that is, the growth of negative attitudes toward political parties, politicians and democracy). One explanation for this trend is that the number of political scandals has increased. However, the impact of political scandals on political support is not clear. Whereas the dysfunctional theory assumes that political scandals in general have an unfavourable impact on the political system, functional theory claims that political scandals can have positive effects. Using data from an experiment, this article analyses which theory is superior. It finds support for the dysfunctional theory: support for politicians and political parties was significantly eroded after exposure to scandal coverage whereas trust in institutions as well as satisfaction with democracy were not affected. The article concludes that political scandals contribute to the decline of political support.
Abramson PR ( 1983) Political Attitudes in America: Formation and Change . San Francisco, CA: Freeman.
2.
Abramson PR and Inglehart R. ( 1995) Value Change in Global Perspective. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
3.
Arterton FC ( 1974) The impact of Watergate on children’s attitudes toward political authority. Political Science Quarterly89: 269-288.
4.
Arterton FC ( 1975) Watergate on children’s attitudes toward political authority revisited. Political Science Quarterly90: 477-496.
5.
Bergesen A. and Warr M. ( 1979) A crisis in the moral order: the effects of Watergate upon confidence in social institutions. In: Wuthnow R (ed.) The Religious Dimension: New Directions in Quantitative Research. New York: Academic Press.
6.
Bowler S. and Karp JA ( 2004) Politicians, scandals, and trust in government . Political Behavior26: 271-287.
7.
Brody RA ( 1991) Assessing the President: The Media, Elite Opinion, and Public Support. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
8.
Brody RA ( 1998) The Lewinsky affair and popular support for President Clinton. The Polling Report16. November 1998. Available at: http://www.pollingreport.com/brody.htm (accessed February 2006).
9.
Brody RA and Shapiro CR ( 1989) Policy failure and public support: the Iran-Contra affair and public assessment of President Reagan. Political Behavior11: 353-369.
10.
Bytzek E. ( 2007) Ereignisse und ihre Wirkung auf die Popularität von Regierungen: Von der Schleyer-Entführung zur Elbeflut [Events and Their Impact on the Popularity of Governments: From the Kidnapping of Hanns Martin Schleyer to the Elbe River Flood]. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
11.
Carlson J., Ganiel G. and Hyde MS ( 2000) Scandal and political candidate image. Southeastern Political Review28: 747-757.
12.
Chaffee SH and Becker LB ( 1975) Young voters’ reactions to early Watergate issues . American Politics Quarterly3: 360-385.
13.
Chanley VA, Rudolph TJ and Rahn WM ( 2000) The origins and consequences of public trust in government: a time series analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly64: 239-256.
14.
Clarke H., Dutt N. and Kornberg A. ( 1993) The political economy of attitudes toward polity and society in westernEuropean democracies. Journal of Politics55: 998-1021.
15.
Dalton RJ ( 2004) Democratic Challenges, Democratic Choices: The Erosion of Political Support in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16.
Dalton RJ ( 2006) Citizen Politics: Public Opinion and Political Parties in Advanced Industrial Democracies, 4th edn. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
17.
della Porta D. ( 2000) Social capital, beliefs in government, and political corruption . In: Pharr SJ and Putnam RD (eds) Disaffected Democracies: What’s Troubling the Trilateral Countries?Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
18.
Dennis J. and Webster C. ( 1975) Children’s images of the president and of government in 1962 and 1974. American Politics Quarterly3: 386-405.
19.
Dunham RG and Mauss AL ( 1976) Waves from Watergate: evidence concerning the impact of the Watergate scandal upon political legitimacy and social control. Pacific Sociological Review19: 469-490.
20.
Dunlap RE and Wisniewski RL ( 1978) The effect of Watergate on political party identification: results for a 1970-1974 panel study. Sociological Focus11(2): 69-80.
21.
Durkheim E. ( 1970) Die Regeln der soziologischen Methode [The Rules of Sociological Method], 3rd edn. Neuwied: Luchterhand.
22.
Easton D. ( 1975) A re-assessment of the concept of political support . British Journal of Political Science5: 435-457.
23.
Easton D. ( 1979) A System Analysis of Political Life. New York: Wiley.
24.
Funk CL ( 1996) The impact of scandal in candidate evaluations: an experimental test of the role of candidate traits. Political Behavior18: 1-24.
25.
Garrett JB and Wallace B. ( 1976) Cognitive consistency, repression-sensitization, and level of moral judgment: reactions of college students to the Watergate scandal . Journal of Social Psychology98: 69-76.
26.
Geer JG ( 2006) In Defense of Negativity: Attack Ads in Presidential Campaigns . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
27.
Hawkins RP, Pingree S. and Roberts DF ( 1975) Watergate and political socialization: the inescapable event. American Politics Quarterly3: 406-422.
28.
Hogan JM ( 2003) The rhetoric of presidential approval: media polling and the White House intern scandal. In: Denton RE and Holloway RL (eds) Images, Scandal, and Communication Strategies of the Clinton Presidency. Westport, CT: Praeger.
29.
Hurwitz J., Peffley M. and Raymond P. ( 1989) Presidential support during the Iran-Contra affair: an individual-level analysis of presidential reappraisal. American Politics Quarterly17: 359-385.
30.
Inglehart R. ( 1977) The Silent Revolution: Changing Values and Political Styles among Western Publics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
31.
Inglehart R. ( 1990) Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Societies . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
32.
Jaros D. and Shoemaker JA ( 1976) The malevolent unindicted co-conspirator: Watergate and Appalachian youth. American Politics Quarterly4: 483-508.
33.
Joslyn MR ( 2003) Framing the Lewinsky affair: third-person judgments by scandal frame. Political Psychology24: 829-844.
34.
Joslyn RA ( 1977) Adolescent attitudes toward the political process: political learning in the midst of turmoil. Polity41: 373-383.
35.
Joslyn RA and Galderisi PF ( 1977) The impact of adolescent perceptions of the president: a test of the spillover hypothesis. Youth & Society9: 151-170.
36.
Kepplinger HM ( 1996) Skandale und Politikverdrossenheit - ein Langzeitvergleich [Scandals and political dissatisfaction - a long-term comparison]. In: Jarren O, Schatz H and Weßler H (eds) Medien und politischer Prozess: Politische Öffentlichkeit und massenmediale Politikvermittlung im Wandel. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
37.
Kepplinger HM ( 1998) Die Demontage der Politik in der Informationsgesellschaft [The Disassembly of Politics in the Information Society]. Freiburg: Alber.
38.
Kepplinger HM ( 2005) Die Mechanismen der Skandalierung. Die Macht der Medien und die Möglichkeiten der Betroffenen [The Mechanisms of Scandalization: The Power of Media and the Opportunities of the People Concerned], 2nd edn. München: Olzog.
39.
Kepplinger HM and Ehmig SC ( 2004) Ist die funktionalistische Skandaltheorie haltbar? Ein Beitrag zur Interdependenz von Politik und Medien im Umgang mit Missständen in der Gesellschaft [Is the functional theory of scandals sustainable? A contribution to the interdependency of politics and media in handling abuses of society] . In: Imhof K, Blum R, Bonfadelli H and Jarren O (eds) Mediengesellschaft: Strukturen, Merkmale, Entwicklungsdynamiken. Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
40.
King A. ( 1986) Sex, money and power. In: Hodder-Williams R and Ceaser K-J (eds) Politics in Britain and the United States. Comparative Perspectives . Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
41.
King G. ( 1997) A Solution to the Ecological Inference Problem: Reconstructing Individual Behavior from Aggregate Data. Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press.
42.
Klingemann H-D and Fuchs D (eds) (1995) Citizens and the State. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
43.
Krosnick JA and Kinder DR ( 1990) Altering the foundations of support for the president through priming. American Political Science Review84: 497-512.
44.
Lawrence R. ( 1997) Is it really the economy, stupid? In: Nye JS, Zelikow PD and King DC (eds) Why People Don’t Trust Government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
45.
Lipset SM and Schneider W. ( 1983) The Confidence Gap: Business, Labor, and Government in the Public Mind. New York: Free Press.
46.
Lupfer M. and Kenny C. ( 1974) Watergate is just a bunch of honky jive: the impact of Watergate on black and white youth’s view of the presidency. Proceedings of the Division of Personality and Social Psychology1: 163-165.
47.
Maier J. ( 2002) Politische Skandale - Quelle der Politikverdrossenheit? Zum Einfluss von Fernsehnachrichten über politische Skandale auf Bevölkerungseinstellungen zu Parteien, Politikern und Demokratie in Deutschland [Political scandals - a source of political dissatisfaction? The impact of television news about political scandals on public attitudes toward parties, politicians, and democracy in Germany]. In: Schatz H, Rössler P and Nieland J-U (eds) Politische Akteure in der Mediendemokratie: Politiker in den Fesseln der Medien?Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.
48.
Maier J. ( 2003) Der CDU-Parteispendenskandal: Medienberichterstattung und Bevölkerungsreaktion [The financial scandal of the Christian Democratic Party: media coverage and public opinion]. Publizistik48: 135-155.
49.
Marx K. and Engels F. ( 1965) Werke. Band 26: Theorien über den Mehrwert, I. Teil [Theories of Surplus-Value, Part I]. Berlin: Dietz.
50.
Maurer M. ( 2003) Politikverdrossenheit durch Medienberichte: Eine Paneluntersuchung [Political Dissatisfaction Caused by Media Coverage: A Panel Analysis]. Konstanz: UVK.
51.
Maurer M., Reinemann C., Maier J. and Michaela M. ( 2007) Schröder gegen Merkel. Wahrnehmung und Wirkung des TV-Duells 2005 im Ost-West-Vergleich [Schröder vs. Merkel. Comparing East and West Germany on the perception and impact of the 2005 televised debate] . Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften .
52.
Mead GH ( 1918) The psychology of punitive justice. American Journal of Sociology23: 577-602.
53.
Noelle-Neumann E. ( 1973) Return to the concept of powerful mass media. Studies of Broadcasting9: 67-112.
54.
Norris P (ed.) (1999) Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Governance. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
55.
Nye JS, Zelikow PD and King DC ( 1997) Why People Don’t Trust Government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press .
56.
Offe C. ( 1984) Contradictions of the Welfare State. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
57.
Patterson TE ( 1993) Out of Order. New York: Knopf.
58.
Pharr SJ ( 2000) Officials’ misconduct and public distrust: Japan and the trilateral democracies. In: Pharr SJ and Putnam RD (eds) Disaffected Democracies: What’s Troubling the Trilateral Countries?Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
59.
Popitz H. ( 1968) Über die Präventivwirkung des Nichtwissens: Dunkelziffer, Norm und Strafe [On the Preventive Effects of Agnosia: the Number of Undetected Crimes, Common Standards, and Punishment]. Tübingen: Mohr.
60.
Putnam RD, Pharr SJ and Dalton RJ ( 2000) Introduction: what’s troubling the trilateral democracies? In: Pharr SJ and Putnam RD (eds) Disaffected Democracies: What’s Troubling the Trilateral Countries?Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
61.
Robinson MJ ( 1974) The impact of the televised Watergate hearings . Journal of Communication24: 17-30.
62.
Rundquist BS, Strom GS and Peters JG ( 1977) Corrupt politicians and their electoral support: some experimental observations. American Political Science Review71: 954-963.
63.
Sabato LJ, Stencel M. and Lichter SR ( 2000) Peep Show: Media and Politics in the Age of Scandal . Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield .
64.
Sigel RS and Hoskin MB ( 1977) Affect for government and its relation to policy output among adolescents. American Journal of Political Science21: 111-134.
65.
Smith TW ( 1994) Is there real opinion change? International Journal of Public Opinion Research6: 187-203.
66.
Smyth DJ and Taylor SW ( 2003) Presidential popularity: what matters most, macroeconomics or scandals?Applied Economics Letters10: 585-588.
67.
Sniderman PM, Brody RA and Tetlock PE ( 1991) Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
68.
Sniderman PM, Neuman WR, Citrin J., McClosky H. and Shanks JM ( 1975) Stability of support for the political system: the initial impact of Watergate. American Politics Quarterly3: 437-457.
69.
Thompson JB ( 2000) Political Scandals: Power and Visibility in the Media Age. Cambridge: Blackwell .
70.
Tiffen R. ( 1999) Scandals: Media, Politics and Corruption in Contemporary Australia. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.
71.
von Alemann U. ( 1985) Politische Moral und politische Kultur in der Bundesrepublik - Vergiften oder reinigen Skandale die Politik? [Morality in politics and political culture in Germany - do scandals poison or clean up politics?]. Gewerkschaftliche Monatshefte36: 258-269.
72.
Weischenberg S., Malik M. and Scholl A. ( 2006) Journalismus in Deutschland: Zentrale Befunde der aktuellen Repräsentativbefragung deutscher Journalisten [Journalism in Germany: main results of the recent survey of German journalists]. Media Perspektiven7: 346-361.
73.
Westerstahl J. and Johansson F. ( 1986) News ideologies as moulders of domestic news. European Journal of Communication1: 133-149.
74.
Yaffee RA ( 1999) Presidential Scandals and Job Approval: Impact Analysis with SAS. Available at: http://www.nyu.edu/its/socsci/docs/scandalshtml (accessed November 2004).
75.
Yaffee RA and McGee M. ( 2000) Introduction to Time Series Analysis and Forecasting with Applications of SAS and SPSS. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
76.
Zaller JR ( 1998) Monica Lewinsky’s contribution to political science . Political Science & Politics31: 182-189.
77.
Zaller JR ( 2002) The statistical power of election studies to detect media exposure effects in political campaigns. Electoral Studies21: 297-329.
