The Face of the Problem: How Subordinates Shield Executives from Blame

IF 3.2 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Journal of Experimental Political Science Pub Date : 2021-06-16 DOI:10.1017/XPS.2021.16

Sarah E. Croco, J. McDonald, Candace Turitto

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Though avoiding blame is often a goal of elected officials, there are relatively few empirical examinations of how citizens assign blame during controversies. We are particularly interested in how this process works when an executive has been caught in a lie. Using two survey experiments, we examine whether subordinates can shield executives when they act as the face of a crisis. We first leverage a real-life situation involving the family separation crisis at the US–Mexico border in 2018. Respondents who read that Donald Trump falsely claimed he could not end the practice of family separation disapprove of his dishonesty. Yet this cost disappears when Trump’s then-Secretary of Homeland Security, Kirstjen Nielsen, is the primary official discussed in news stories. We then replicate these findings in a fictional scenario involving a city mayor, showing that the mayor is partially shielded from negative appraisals when the city manager lies on his behalf.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

直面问题:下属如何保护主管不受指责

摘要尽管避免指责通常是民选官员的目标，但对公民在争议中如何指责的实证研究相对较少。我们特别感兴趣的是，当一位高管陷入谎言时，这个过程是如何运作的。通过两项调查实验，我们考察了下属在高管面临危机时是否能保护他们。我们首先利用了2018年美墨边境家庭分离危机的真实情况。读到唐纳德·特朗普谎称他无法结束家庭分离的做法的受访者不赞成他的不诚实。然而，当特朗普当时的国土安全部长Kirstjen Nielsen成为新闻报道中讨论的主要官员时，这种成本就消失了。然后，我们在一个涉及市长的虚构场景中复制了这些发现，表明当城市经理代表市长撒谎时，市长在一定程度上免受负面评价。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Journal of Experimental Political Science Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science

CiteScore

5.10

自引率

8.30%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Journal of Experimental Political Science (JEPS) features cutting-edge research that utilizes experimental methods or experimental reasoning based on naturally occurring data. We define experimental methods broadly: research featuring random (or quasi-random) assignment of subjects to different treatments in an effort to isolate causal relationships in the sphere of politics. JEPS embraces all of the different types of experiments carried out as part of political science research, including survey experiments, laboratory experiments, field experiments, lab experiments in the field, natural and neurological experiments. We invite authors to submit concise articles (around 4000 words or fewer) that immediately address the subject of the research. We do not require lengthy explanations regarding and justifications of the experimental method. Nor do we expect extensive literature reviews of pros and cons of the methodological approaches involved in the experiment unless the goal of the article is to explore these methodological issues. We expect readers to be familiar with experimental methods and therefore to not need pages of literature reviews to be convinced that experimental methods are a legitimate methodological approach. We will consider longer articles in rare, but appropriate cases, as in the following examples: when a new experimental method or approach is being introduced and discussed or when novel theoretical results are being evaluated through experimentation. Finally, we strongly encourage authors to submit manuscripts that showcase informative null findings or inconsistent results from well-designed, executed, and analyzed experiments.

期刊最新文献

Combating Hateful Attitudes and Online Browsing Behavior: The Case of Antisemitism Inaccurate forecasting of a randomized controlled trial Discussion and Fairness in a Laboratory Voting Experiment – ADDENDUM Testing the Effect of Information on Discerning the Veracity of News in Real Time (How) Do Information Campaigns Influence Migration Decisions?