IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/eeupol/v21y2020i3p519-540.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How candidate characteristics affect favorability in European Parliament elections: Evidence from a conjoint experiment in Finland

Author

Listed:
  • Henrik S Christensen

    (Samforsk & Department of Political Science, Ã…bo Akademi University, Ã…bo, Finland)

  • Marco S La Rosa

    (Samforsk & Department of Political Science, Ã…bo Akademi University, Ã…bo, Finland)

  • Kimmo Grönlund

Abstract

Previous literature has studied voter behavior in European Parliament elections. However, it remains unclear how candidate characteristics affect favorability of EP candidates since it cannot be taken for granted that these characteristics work as in national elections. We therefore use a conjoint analysis to examine how gender, left-right ideology, issue focus, political experience, representative focus, citizenship, and attitude towards European integration affected EP candidate favorability during the 2019 campaign in Finland. Results show that while traditional candidate characteristics matter, their impact is dwarfed by effects of traits particular to the EP elections. Hence, it is imperative to observe the particularities of EP elections to understand candidate choice.

Suggested Citation

  • Henrik S Christensen & Marco S La Rosa & Kimmo Grönlund, 2020. "How candidate characteristics affect favorability in European Parliament elections: Evidence from a conjoint experiment in Finland," European Union Politics, , vol. 21(3), pages 519-540, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:eeupol:v:21:y:2020:i:3:p:519-540
    DOI: 10.1177/1465116520929765
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1465116520929765
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1465116520929765?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bullock, John G., 2011. "Elite Influence on Public Opinion in an Informed Electorate," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 105(3), pages 496-515, August.
    2. Carnes, Nicholas & Lupu, Noam, 2016. "Do Voters Dislike Working-Class Candidates? Voter Biases and the Descriptive Underrepresentation of the Working Class," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 110(4), pages 832-844, November.
    3. Leeper, Thomas J. & Hobolt, Sara B. & Tilley, James, 2020. "Measuring Subgroup Preferences in Conjoint Experiments," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 28(2), pages 207-221, April.
    4. Macdonald, Stuart Elaine & Rabinowitz, George & Listhaug, Ola, 1995. "Political Sophistication and Models of Issue Voting," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(4), pages 453-483, October.
    5. Franchino, Fabio & Zucchini, Francesco, 2015. "Voting in a Multi-dimensional Space: A Conjoint Analysis Employing Valence and Ideology Attributes of Candidates," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(2), pages 221-241, May.
    6. Timothy Besley & Olle Folke & Torsten Persson & Johanna Rickne, 2017. "Gender Quotas and the Crisis of the Mediocre Man: Theory and Evidence from Sweden," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(8), pages 2204-2242, August.
    7. Ono, Yoshikuni & Yamada, Masahiro, 2020. "Do voters prefer gender stereotypic candidates? evidence from a conjoint survey experiment in Japan," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(3), pages 477-492, July.
    8. Vivien A. Schmidt, 2013. "Democracy and Legitimacy in the European Union Revisited: Input, Output and ‘Throughput’," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 61(1), pages 2-22, March.
    9. Bansak, Kirk & Hainmueller, Jens & Hopkins, Daniel J. & Yamamoto, Teppei, 2018. "The Number of Choice Tasks and Survey Satisficing in Conjoint Experiments," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(1), pages 112-119, January.
    10. Carson, Jamie L. & Engstrom, Erik J. & Roberts, Jason M., 2007. "Candidate Quality, the Personal Vote, and the Incumbency Advantage in Congress," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 101(2), pages 289-301, May.
    11. Matland, Richard E., 1994. "Putting Scandinavian Equality to the Test: An Experimental Evaluation of Gender Stereotyping of Political Candidates in a Sample of Norwegian Voters," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 24(2), pages 273-292, April.
    12. Hainmueller, Jens & Hopkins, Daniel J. & Yamamoto, Teppei, 2014. "Causal Inference in Conjoint Analysis: Understanding Multidimensional Choices via Stated Preference Experiments," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(1), pages 1-30, January.
    13. Matthew Singer & Christopher Anderson, 2008. "The Sensitive Left and the Impervious Right: Multilevel Models and the Politics of Inequality, Ideology, and Legitimacy in Europe," LIS Working papers 477, LIS Cross-National Data Center in Luxembourg.
    14. Damien Bol & Philipp Harfst & André Blais & Sona N. Golder & Jean-François Laslier & Laura B. Stephenson & Karine van Der Straeten, 2016. "Addressing the European Union’s democratic deficit: An experimental evaluation of the pan-European district’s proposal," PSE-Ecole d'économie de Paris (Postprint) halshs-01518283, HAL.
    15. Franchino, Fabio & Zucchini, Francesco, 2015. "Voting in a Multi-dimensional Space: A Conjoint Analysis Employing Valence and Ideology Attributes of Candidates," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(02), pages 221-241, May.
    16. Leeper, Thomas J. & Hobolt, Sara & Tilley, James, 2020. "Measuring subgroup preferences in conjoint experiments," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 100944, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    17. Horiuchi, Yusaku & Smith, Daniel M. & Yamamoto, Teppei, 2018. "Measuring Voters’ Multidimensional Policy Preferences with Conjoint Analysis: Application to Japan’s 2014 Election," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(2), pages 190-209, April.
    18. Marsh, Michael, 1998. "Testing the Second-Order Election Model after Four European Elections," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 28(4), pages 591-607, October.
    19. Jens Hainmueller & Daniel J. Hopkins, 2015. "The Hidden American Immigration Consensus: A Conjoint Analysis of Attitudes toward Immigrants," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 59(3), pages 529-548, July.
    20. Roger Scully & David M. Farrell, 2003. "MEPs as Representatives: Individual and Institutional Roles," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(2), pages 269-288, April.
    21. Ansolabehere, Stephen & Rodden, Jonathan & Snyder, James M., 2008. "The Strength of Issues: Using Multiple Measures to Gauge Preference Stability, Ideological Constraint, and Issue Voting," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 102(2), pages 215-232, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Thomas Däubler & Mihail Chiru & Silje SL Hermansen, 2022. "Introducing COMEPELDA: Comprehensive European Parliament electoral data covering rules, parties and candidates," European Union Politics, , vol. 23(2), pages 351-371, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Henrik Serup Christensen & Lauri Rapeli, 2021. "Immediate rewards or delayed gratification? A conjoint survey experiment of the public’s policy preferences," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(1), pages 63-94, March.
    2. Janne Tukiainen & Sebastian Blesse & Albrecht Bohne & Leonardo M. Giuffrida & Jan Jäässkeläinen & Ari Luukinen & Antti Sieppi, 2021. "What Are the Priorities of Bureaucrats? Evidence from Conjoint Experiments with Procurement Officials," EconPol Working Paper 63, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich.
    3. Tukiainen, Janne & Blesse, Sebastian & Bohne, Albrecht & Giuffrida, Leonardo M. & Jääskeläinen, Jan & Luukinen, Ari & Sieppi, Antti, 2024. "What are the priorities of bureaucrats? Evidence from conjoint experiments with procurement officials," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 227(C).
    4. Anne-Marie Jeannet & Tobias Heidland & Martin Ruhs, 2021. "What asylum and refugee policies do Europeans want? Evidence from a cross-national conjoint experiment," European Union Politics, , vol. 22(3), pages 353-376, September.
    5. MIWA Hirofumi & KASUYA Yuko & ONO Yoshikuni, 2022. "Voters' Perceptions and Evaluations of Dynastic Politics in Japan," Discussion papers 22113, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    6. Barceló, Joan & Sheen, Greg Chih-Hsin & Tung, Hans H. & Wu, Wen-Chin, 2022. "Vaccine nationalism among the public: A cross-country experimental evidence of own-country bias towards COVID-19 vaccination," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 310(C).
    7. Becker, Malte & Krüger, Finja & Heidland, Tobias, 2022. "Country, culture or competition: What drives attitudes towards immigrants in Sub-Saharan Africa?," Kiel Working Papers 2224, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    8. Yoshiaki Kubo & Isamu Okada, 2022. "COVID-19 health certification reduces outgroup bias: evidence from a conjoint experiment in Japan," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-11, December.
    9. Gallagher,Allen William Andrew & Ruiz,Isabel & Vargas Silva,Carlos Ivan, 2022. "Policy Preferences in Response to Large Migration Inflows," Policy Research Working Paper Series 10055, The World Bank.
    10. Mark D. Ramirez, 2021. "Unmasking the American death penalty debate: Race, context, and citizens’ willingness to execute," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(4), pages 1931-1946, July.
    11. Vrânceanu, Alina & Dinas, Elias & Heidland, Tobias & Ruhs, Martin, 2023. "The European refugee crisis and public support for the externalisation of migration management," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 279441, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    12. Chu, Haoran & Liu, Sixiao, 2021. "Light at the end of the tunnel: Influence of vaccine availability and vaccination intention on people’s consideration of the COVID-19 vaccine," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 286(C).
    13. KASUYA Yuko & MIWA Hirofumi & ONO Yoshikuni, 2022. "Why are There More Women in the Upper House?," Discussion papers 22094, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    14. Leeper, Thomas J. & Hobolt, Sara & Tilley, James, 2020. "Measuring subgroup preferences in conjoint experiments," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 100944, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    15. Tellez,Juan Fernando & Balcells,Laia, 2022. "Social Cohesion, Economic Security, and Forced Displacement in the Long-Run : Evidence from Rural Colombia," Policy Research Working Paper Series 10019, The World Bank.
    16. Christensen, Henrik Serup, 2020. "How design features affect evaluations of participatory platforms," SocArXiv 4ubwh, Center for Open Science.
    17. Raman, Shyam & Kriner, Douglas & Ziebarth, Nicolas & Simon, Kosali & Kreps, Sarah, 2022. "COVID-19 booster uptake among US adults: Assessing the impact of vaccine attributes, incentives, and context in a choice-based experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 310(C).
    18. Brian Burgoon & Theresa Kuhn & Francesco Nicoli & Frank Vandenbroucke, 2022. "Unemployment risk-sharing in the EU: How policy design influences citizen support for European unemployment policy," European Union Politics, , vol. 23(2), pages 282-308, June.
    19. Pieter Vanhuysse & Michael Jankowski & Markus Tepe, 2021. "Vaccine alliance building blocks: a conjoint experiment on popular support for international COVID-19 cooperation formats," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(3), pages 493-506, September.
    20. Michael J. Frith, 2021. "Analysing conjoint experiments in Stata: the conjoint command," London Stata Conference 2021 14, Stata Users Group.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:eeupol:v:21:y:2020:i:3:p:519-540. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.