Americans hold their political leaders to a higher discursive standard than rank-and-file co-partisans

Abstract

Do political partisans hold their co-partisan political leaders to a higher or lower discursive standard than rank-and-file co-partisans? Previous research in non-political group contexts suggests competing answers to this question. Some research (e.g., Abrams et al., 2013) suggests that leaders (as defenders of the group) are afforded credits for transgressions and thus held to a lower behavioral standard for incivility than their constituents. Other research (e.g., Pinto et al., 2010) suggests the opposite, that is, that leaders are held to a higher standard than constituents and are thus judged harshly for transgressions in an effort to preserve the group's self-esteem and image. We conducted the first experimental tests of these competing hypotheses in the contemporary American political theatre by having people evaluate either a high-ranking (politician) or low-ranking (e.g., janitor) co-partisan who uncivilly attacks members of the opposite party. Eight experiments (N = 7511) consistently found that co-partisan leaders were judged more harshly for interpartisan incivility than were fellow rank-and-file partisans. This leaders' higher standard effect generalized to electoral and governing contexts, attacks on high and low ranking targets, both male and female politicians, across Democratic and Republican observers, and party-defending or selfish motives. Mediation and moderation analyses supported a pragmatic explanation for this result: people wanted their political leaders (more than their fellow partisans) to cultivate positive working relationships and govern effectively and incivility undermined this primary aim.