Abstract
Six alternative hypotheses about public responses to “out-of-character” presidential actions were tested in an experiment that manipulated both the president's preexisting policy position (a hawkish or a dovish stance in international affairs) and the nature of his action in an international crisis (hawkish versus dovish). In addition, subjects themselves were classified as hawks or doves. Approval of the president and of his response to the crisis was a complex function of the policy views of the subject and the consistency of the president's action with his past record. Doves supported presidents and actions that were compatible with their own dovish leanings but resented a dovish president who behaved hawkishly, generally confirming the view that similarity breeds attraction. By contrast, hawks were willing to tolerate dovish behavior if it was undertaken by a hawk, supporting the expectation that out-of-character actions are uniquely capable of disarming would-be opponents. For neither hawkish nor dovish presidents were these findings consistent with the “waffling” interpretation, which holds that inconsistency per se is downgraded. Compared to presidents whose actions were consistent with their previous beliefs, out-of-character presidents were preceived as more changeable, in both positive and negative senses; were believed to have disliked doing what they had done; and were judged to have been relatively uninfluenced by internal causes.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allgeier, A. R., Byrne, D., Brooks, B., and Revnes, D. (1979). The waffle phenomenon: Negative evaluations of those who shift attitudinally.Journal of Applied Social Psychology 9:170–182.
Aronson, E., and Linder, D. E. (1965). Gain and loss of esteem as determinants of interpersonal attractiveness.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 1:156–171.
Ashmore, R. D., Bird, D., Del Boca, F. K., and Vanderet, R. C. (1979). An experimental investigation of the double standard in the perception of international affairs.Political Behavior 1:123–135.
Byrne, D. (1971).The Attraction Paradigm. New York: Academic Press.
Carlson, J. M., and Dolan, K. (1985). The waffle phenomenon and candidate image.Psychological Reports 57:795–798.
Caspary, W. R. (1970). The ‘mood theory’: A study of public opinion and foreign policy.American Political Science Review 64:536–547.
Downs, A. (1957).An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper and Row.
Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., and Chaiken, S. (1978). Causal inferences about communicators and their effect on opinion change.Journal of Personal and Social Psychology 36:424–435.
Fishel, Jeff. (1985).Presidents and Promises. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press.
Goodin, R. E. (1983). Voting through the looking glass.American Political Science Review 77:420–434.
Hoffman, H. S., and Carver, C. S. (1984). Political waffling: Its effects on the evaluations of observers.Journal of Applied Social Psychology 14:375–385.
Holmes, J. E. (1985).The Mood/Interest Theory of American Foreign Policy. Lexington, Ky.: University Press of Kentucky.
Jaros, D., Sigelman, L., and Conover, P. J. (1982). Sophistication and foreign-policy preferences: The Iranian hostage crisis.Polity 15:151–155.
Kinder, D. R., Peters, M. D., Abelson, R. P., and Fiske, S. T. (1980). Presidential prototypes.Political Behavior 2:315–337.
Koeske, G. F., and Crano, W. D. (1968). The effect of congruous and incongruous source-statement combinations upon the judged credibility of a communication.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 4:384–399.
Krukones, M. G. (1984).Promises and Performance: Presidential Campaigns as Policy Predictors. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America.
Lipset, S. M. (1966). The president, the polls, and Vietnam.Transaction: 19–24.
Mueller, J. E. (1973).War, Presidents, and Public Opinion. New York: Wiley.
Page, B. I. (1978).Choices and Echoes in Presidential Elections. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Regan, D. T., Straus, E., and Fazio, R. (1974). Liking and the attribution process.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 10:385–397.
Rielly, J. E. (1983).American public opinion and U.S. foreign policy 1983. Chicago: Chicago Council on Foreign Relations.
Sigelman, L., and Knight, K. (1983). Why does presidential popularity decline? A test of the expectation-disillusion theory.Public Opinion Quarterly 47:310–324.
Stimson, J. A. (1976). Public support for American presidents: A cyclical model.Public Opinion Quarterly 40:1–21.
Walster, E., Aronson, E., and Abrahams, D. (1966). On increasing the persuasiveness of a low prestige communicator.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2:325–343.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sigelman, L., Sigelman, C.K. Shattered expectations: Public responses to “out-of-character” presidential actions. Polit Behav 8, 262–286 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01002101
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01002101