Conducting a conjoint survey experiment with 4,730 adults, Peter Chai and colleagues found that voters punish sexual violence most severely. Bribery also incurs substantial costs, while adultery and nepotism are penalised less. Meanwhile, male candidates attract heavier punishment for sexual misconduct, whereas female candidates face lighter penalties for nepotism
How do scandals affect support for political candidates? A large body of research on political accountability and candidate evaluation in democracies suggests that scandals do matter. The literature highlights two key points for research design. First, we should distinguish among different scandal types. Second, candidate characteristics, especially gender, condition how voters respond. Most studies find that scandals reduce electoral support. The size of the penalties across different scandal types, and how they differ for male and female candidates, however, vary across countries and studies.
For example, one study finds that in the UK, sexual harassment scandals impose a greater electoral cost than misreporting of funds, plagiarism, or extramarital affairs. The study also finds that voters punish male candidates more heavily than female candidates for sexual harassment. Another study shows that in Brazil, corruption scandals appear to affect male and female candidates similarly. In Mexico, by contrast, female politicians face harsher penalties.
Candidate characteristics, especially gender, condition how voters respond to different types of scandals of which the candidates are accused
Despite this growing literature, evidence from non-Western democracies, including Japan, remains limited. To address this gap, my co-authors Mitsuhito Aso, Charles Crabtree and I conducted an online conjoint survey experiment with 4,730 respondents in Japan. We varied candidate attributes and included several hypothetical scandal types, including sexual violence, sexual harassment, bribery, adultery, and nepotism, to estimate how each affects a candidate’s chance of election.
Our results point to two main findings. First, all scandals reduce candidate support, but the size of the penalty varies considerably by type. Voters punish sexual violence most severely, bribery incurs substantial costs, while adultery and nepotism carry smaller electoral costs. Second, these penalties are not gender-neutral. Voters punish sexual misconduct more harshly when the candidate is male, while nepotism appears less costly for female candidates. These patterns, particularly the severe penalties for sexual scandals and the greater punishment of male candidates for sexual scandals, are largely consistent with the findings in the UK study mentioned earlier.
Therefore, the literature suggests that female candidates do not face a uniform disadvantage relative to male candidates in the electoral consequences of scandals. At the same time, voters also appear to apply different standards when evaluating male and female candidates in other respects.
Female candidates do not face a uniform disadvantage relative to male candidates in the electoral consequences of scandals
For example, recent research on visual presentation shows that in Japan, wearing masks in public life reduces support for female, but not male, politicians. Also, female candidates receive fewer votes when they do not smile in campaign photos. As a result, although female candidates tend to face lower electoral costs for certain scandals, they may encounter disadvantages in other dimensions. Moreover, barriers to women’s entry and recruitment into politics can operate well before voters make their choices.
Our study points to several directions for future research. First, as with most survey experiments, concerns about external validity remain. For example, media coverage and framing may shape voter responses to scandals in real-world settings, which merit further research. Second, social desirability bias may induce respondents to understate their tolerance for certain types of misconduct. Also, highlighting challenges for future survey design, the scandal labels may bundle multiple cues, such as criminality, norm violations, and degrees of coercion. Finally, other forms of transgression, such as slush fund scandals and controversial ties to religious groups, both salient issues in recent Japanese elections, also deserve closer attention.
Finally, voter heterogeneity may matter in important ways, and the voter’s gender may moderate sanctioning behaviour. For instance, a study finds that in the US, female voters appear more sensitive to female senators' behaviour than to that of male senators. Another study finds that in the UK, female voters tend to punish female candidates more harshly for misconduct. Also in the UK, male voters appear more lenient toward male perpetrators of sexual misconduct.
Voters do not uniformly punish wrongdoing. Rather, their responses are shaped by gendered expectations about who should be held accountable
A promising avenue for future research on political accountability and candidate evaluation would therefore be to examine the electoral costs of different scandal types and how these scandals are conditioned by candidate and voter characteristics. Another would be to compare these penalties across countries, including Asian contexts.
The takeaway from our research, however, is simple: in democratic politics, voters do not uniformly punish wrongdoing. Rather, their responses are shaped by gendered expectations about who should be held accountable, and how.
