Scandals involving elected officials often gain a great deal of media attention. But do voters actually care if politicians are honest or not? In new research, Bence Hamrak looks at the electoral consequences of making an apology or denial for politicians facing accusations of sexual misconduct. Using survey experiments, he finds that voters do not reward politicians who apologize under any condition – and may even electorally punish those that use them –  suggesting that they do not care much about remorse. 

Over the past few decades, the public has witnessed numerous high-profile sex scandals, particularly in the wake of the #MeToo movement. Many scandals have involved US presidents and other prominent politicians (Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, Matt Gaetz). A striking feature of these scandals is that during scandals, politicians almost never apologize.

This is surprising given that politicians are often held accountable for their actions, both in their public and private lives and are closely scrutinized by the media. In theory, if politicians are caught in their wrongdoing and then exposed as dishonest, negative public reactions should be even greater. In reality, however, the fact that politicians still deny the accusations even if eventually they are likely to be found guilty suggests that public reactions to scandals may be shaping politicians’ choices.

Our research suggests that one plausible reason for this behavior is the lack of electoral punishment for dishonesty. Apologies, in the end, trigger more electoral backlash than denials, even when the conditions otherwise would “favor” apologies, such as when voters perceive that the accusations are not serios, or when voters learn evidence about the guiltiness of the politicians during the scandal.

Why don’t politicians apologize? 

To understand why politicians don’t apologize, we conducted a series of experiments testing how citizens react to different, hypothetical scandal communication types and sex scandal scenarios.

In theory, voters generally care about two key aspects of scandals:

• Guilt: If the politician committed the immoral action or crime.
• Honesty: If the politician is telling the truth about the scandal.

Given these considerations, politicians accused of sex scandals have two main options:

• Denial: Creates doubt about the accusations
• Apology: Signals honesty and remorse.

However, these strategies are mutually exclusive: denial may reduce the perception of guilt but is unable to address honesty, while an apology inherently confirms the wrongdoing.

To test how these trade-offs play out in voters’ reactions, we designed a series of experiments. To account for the shifting importance of voter considerations about innocence versus honesty, we varied the severity of the allegations (ranging from extramarital affairs to sexual assault and rape). To control for the effect that apologies reveal guilt (unlike denials), we introduced evidence at different stages of the scandal—either before or after the politician had the chance to respond to the accusations.

This meant that we could test, first, if apologies hurt hypothetical politicians even if the accusation is deemed less problematic in the eye of the public – so the question of honesty might become relatively more important compared to guilt. Second, we could also determine if apologies become more beneficial compared to denials when citizens’ certainty about the truthfulness of the accusations is high.

Photo by mark tulin on Unsplash

Voters do not reward apologies

Our results (shown in Figure 1) are striking because voters do not reward apologies under any conditions. As expected, more serious scandals favor denials increasingly more compared to apologies. However, even in the “mildest” scandals, apologies harm the politicians. Voters do not reward apologies after the evidence is revealed, suggesting that they do not care much about remorse. Voters also don’t reward apologies even if evidence of their wrongdoing does eventually come to light, meaning that the politician was proved to be honest.

Figure 1 – Support for the hypothetical politician’s resignation

Note: Left figure shows respondents’ support for the hypothetical politician’s resignation (0-100 percent, y-axis) who were accused of a scandals with different level of seriousness (see x-axis) and responded either with an apology (grey dots) or denial (black dots). Data is taken from the experimental sample Wave 1 (n=7,880). Right figure shows the effect of the politicians’ response in different scenarios when evidence emerges (y-axis). The point estimates show the relative effect of the communication scenarios on respondents’ resignation support (0-100 percent, x-axis) compared to a simple situation when the respondents read only the evidence but no communication (zero line). Data is taken from the experimental sample Wave 3 (n=1,244). 

Meanwhile, denials were rewarded, or were at least not punished, even in the face of strong evidence. Denials that are made after evidence is produced can nonetheless reduce electoral sanctions and denials made before the evidence emerges do not result in an additional backlash —suggesting voters do not care if politician is a liar. 

What this means for politicians

Our findings suggest that apologies may contradict the aggressive, masculine style of politics that voters might expect from leaders. An apology might be interpreted as a sign of weakness by voters. Another possibility is that in the eyes of the public, apologies are seen as fabricated and insincere rather than being genuine and remorseful. Citizens might think politicians only use apologies in a calculated way, to control damage. 

Our research indicates that honesty is not a rewarded political virtue, while lying is considered “business as usual”. Given the lack of electoral incentives, we would expect politicians to double down on denials, and evade responsibility. Citizens, in general, seem unwilling to encourage a less toxic public display of political scandals, where repair and remorse is emphasized. Scandals which are highlighted by the media could remain a source of further divisions and polarization rather than opportunities for resolution and justice.

• This article is based on the paper, “Why Politicians Won’t Apologize: Communication Effects in the Aftermath of Sex Scandals”, in the British Journal of Political Science.
• Subscribe to LSE USAPP’s email newsletter to receive a weekly article roundup.
• Please read our comments policy before commenting. 
• Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of USAPP – American Politics and Policy, nor the London School of Economics.