When a political candidate is caught in an infidelity scandal, voters judge the politician more harshly if their spouse decides to leave the marriage. A recent experiment also revealed that voters tend to punish politicians from their own political party more severely than those across the aisle. These results were published in the *Journal of Political Marketing*.
Political spouses frequently act as character witnesses for candidates, projecting an image of stability and family values to the public. When a scandal breaks, the spouse is often thrust into the spotlight. Their reaction can serve as a guide for how voters should interpret the controversy. In American politics, examples range from Hillary Clinton’s public defense of Bill Clinton in the 1990s to Melania Trump’s continued presence following allegations against Donald Trump.
The theoretical expectations surrounding spousal responses are split. On one hand, a supportive spouse might signal to the public that the marriage can survive, softening the blow of the scandal. This aligns with traditional gender expectations, sometimes termed benevolent sexism, where women are rewarded by society for remaining loyal in prescribed roles. On the other hand, if a spouse leaves, it could validate the public’s worst suspicions about the candidate’s character.
Political party values also complicate these expectations. Democratic candidates often emphasize social justice and gender equality, meaning an affair could be viewed as a hypocritical violation of those ideals. Republican candidates frequently campaign on traditional family values and moral behavior. An infidelity scandal could similarly damage a conservative politician’s credibility by contradicting their stated platform.
Jason Gainous, a mass communication researcher at the University of Sharjah, led a team of political scientists to examine these dynamics. They wanted to understand whether a wife’s decision to stay with or leave an unfaithful politician changes how voters evaluate him. The research team also sought to determine how a voter’s own political party affiliation influences their judgment of the candidate’s actions.
To test these reactions, the researchers designed an online survey experiment involving adult participants. They included quality control measures to ensure participants were paying attention, discarding automated bot responses and those who completed the survey too quickly or too slowly. This left a final sample of 1,401 individuals who were guided through a three-stage process simulating the unfolding of a political scandal.
First, each person read a fictional biography of a male candidate. The biographies detailed the candidate’s age, education, military service, and political experience. The profiles were identical, except half the participants were told the candidate was a Democrat, and the other half were told he was a Republican.
After reading the biography, participants rated their support for the candidate. They answered questions about how likely they were to vote for him, share his information on social media, donate to his campaign, attend a fundraiser, and trust him. These responses were combined into a general index of candidate support.
In the second stage, participants read a mock news article revealing that the candidate had engaged in an affair with a legislative assistant. The article noted that the politician initially lied to his constituents before admitting to the relationship and expressing regret. After reading this update, the participants evaluated the candidate again. As expected, support for the candidate dropped across the board after the scandal was revealed.
The final stage introduced the key experimental variable. Participants read a second news story detailing the spouse’s reaction to the affair. Half of the group read that the spouse decided to stay in the marriage and support the candidate. The other half read that the spouse chose to separate from the politician. Following this final update, participants rated the candidate a third time using the same set of questions.
The researchers tracked the shifts in support across these three stages to measure how much participants penalized the candidate. The data revealed that voters punished the candidate more severely when his wife chose to leave him. While a supportive spouse did not completely erase the reputational damage of the affair, a separating spouse amplified the negative evaluations. The wife’s departure appeared to confirm the severity of the candidate’s moral failing in the eyes of the voters.
The researchers also measured participants’ adherence to traditional gender roles to see if these beliefs influenced their reactions. Participants who held stronger traditional or sexist views regarding gender were harsher on the candidate in reaction to the spouse’s decision. However, when looking at the overall shift from the initial biography to the final spousal decision, these same individuals were slightly less likely to penalize the candidate overall compared to other voters.
The research team uncovered unexpected patterns regarding political party affiliation. They initially hypothesized that voters would be protective of candidates from their own party and harsher on opponents. Past research often suggests that voters will rationalize the bad behavior of a politician who shares their ideology to protect their party’s electoral success. The results of this experiment showed the exact opposite.
Participants were actually more likely to penalize a candidate who shared their own political affiliation. This penalty was especially pronounced when the spouse left the candidate. Strong Democrats were highly critical of the Democratic candidate in this scenario. Strong Republicans displayed a similar, though slightly less extreme, willingness to punish the Republican candidate when the marriage ended.
Overall, voters were slightly more likely to penalize the Democratic candidate than the Republican candidate for the affair. The researchers accounted for variables like respondent age, education, and income, ensuring that the effects they observed were primarily driven by the experimental changes and political affiliations.
The experiment provides a controlled look at voter behavior, but real-world political landscapes involve additional variables. The study focused exclusively on a heterosexual male politician, which reflects the most common demographic involved in historical political sex scandals. Public reactions might differ if the unfaithful politician were female or if the scandal involved a same-sex relationship.
The specific nature of the affair and the candidate’s apology could also alter public perception in real-world scenarios. The mock scenario combined infidelity with workplace power dynamics and public deception. Future research could isolate these elements to see how different forms of misconduct influence voter forgiveness. Evolving cultural norms around gender and marriage will likely continue to shift how the public interprets these personal controversies.
The study, “Political Evaluations and Spousal Responses to Candidate Infidelity: Should I Stay or Should I Go?,” was authored by Jason Gainous, Alyson Hendricks-Benton, Lauren Reuss, Taylor Sowders, Forest Clevenger, Samuel Stottman, Julia Mattingly, and Bella Beilman.