Be All that You Can Be

Abstract

Former military service has long been considered a plus for the résumé of a political candidate, presumably because voters may rely on this information as a shortcut by which to make inferences about the candidates and cast ballots accordingly. Previous research has demonstrated that such heuristics frequently affect vote decisions, but few studies have examined the impact of candidates’ military background on support at the polls; moreover, existing research is largely observational, leaving open crucial questions about causal impact. We build on this work by conducting an original survey experiment imbedded in a national survey in 2008 to test the effects of labeling a candidate an Iraq War veteran. Formulating our hypotheses from known issue and trait stereotypes of the military, we demonstrate that military experience can be helpful to some candidates under some conditions. The experimental evidence we present shows that stereotypes based on both issue position (military intervention) and issue ownership (Republican ties) matter to voters facing a military candidate, but only when that candidate is a Democrat. The results we report support the notion that voters rely on information shortcuts, but we find that there is considerable heterogeneity in the impact of heuristics.