Is There an Ideological Asymmetry in the Incumbency Effect? Evidence From U.S. Congressional Elections
Open accessAbstract
The electoral advantage that incumbent legislators enjoy over challengers in the U.S. Congress has been investigated extensively in political science. Very few studies, however, have considered the role of individual differences when it comes to incumbency preferences among voters. Based on theory and research in political psychology, we hypothesized that political conservatives would exhibit stronger preferences than liberals for incumbents over challengers from the same party. Extensive analyses based on more than 150,000 voters from seven election cycles in the United States from 2006 to 2018 support this hypothesis. A significant effect of conservatism on incumbency preferences was observed in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, and it was not attributable to Republican Party identification. This ideological asymmetry is consistent with system justification theory and prior research linking conservatism to risk aversion and status quo bias. Practical implications and directions for future research are discussed.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The asymmetry in system justification can have consequences for affective polarization, including stronger preferences for incumbent candidates and chief executives from one's own party (the 'President-in-power' effect) on the part of conservative versus liberal voters.
“This asymmetry can have consequences for affective polarization, including stronger preferences for incumbent candidates and chief executives from one’s own party (the ‘President-in-power’ effect) on the part of conservative (versus liberal) voters161,162.”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [162]
Cites
Status quo bias in decision making
Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988) · Journal of Risk and Uncertainty · doi:10.1007/bf00055564 · Cited by 5,897 · see citing works
Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1991) · Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.5.1.193 · Cited by 5,019 · see citing works
Political conservatism as motivated social cognition.
Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339 · Cited by 4,904 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Importantly, research in psychology links individual differences in risk-aversion to political conservatism (e.g., Janoff-Bulman, 2009; Jost et al., 2003; Morris et al., 2008).”
BackgroundSelf-citationJost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00402.x · Cited by 2,883 · see citing works
Self-citationThe Politics of Congressional Elections
Jacobson, G. C. (1983) · Cited by 1,713 · see citing works
Partisanship and Voting Behavior, 1952-1996
Bartels, L. M. (2000) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.2307/2669291 · Cited by 1,207 · see citing works
Carney, D. R., Jost, J. T., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2008) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2008.00668.x · Cited by 1,203 · see citing works
Self-citationThe nature of belief systems in mass publics (1964)
Converse, P. E. (2006) · Critical Review · doi:10.1080/08913810608443650 · Cited by 1,173 · see citing works
Contrasting Rational and Psychological Analyses of Political Choice
Quattrone, G. A., & Tversky, A. (1988) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.2307/1962487 · Cited by 883 · see citing works
Ideological Asymmetries and the Essence of Political Psychology
Jost, J. T. (2017) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.12407 · Cited by 709 · see citing works
Self-citationEstimating Incumbency Advantage Without Bias
King, G., & Gelman, A. (1990) · Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) · Cited by 672 · see citing works
The Effects of Campaign Spending in Congressional Elections
Jacobson, G. C. (1978) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.2307/1954105 · Cited by 661 · see citing works
Personality and the Foundations of Political Behavior
Mondak, J. J. (2010) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511761515 · Cited by 641 · see citing works
Understanding Party Identification: A Social Identity Approach
Greene, S. (1999) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/0162-895x.00150 · Cited by 621 · see citing works
Congressional Elections: The Case of the Vanishing Marginals
Mayhew, D. R. (1974) · Polity · doi:10.2307/3233931 · Cited by 596 · see citing works
Mass polarization: Manifestations and measurements
Lelkes, Y. (2016) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfw005 · Cited by 591 · see citing works
Why Did the Incumbency Advantage in U.S. House Elections Grow?
Cox, G. W., & Katz, J. N. (1996) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.2307/2111633 · Cited by 559 · see citing works
Strategic Politicians and the Dynamics of U.S. House Elections, 1946–86
Jacobson, G. C. (1989) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.2307/1962060 · Cited by 497 · see citing works
The Advantage of Incumbency in Congressional Elections
Erikson, R. S. (1971) · Polity · doi:10.2307/3234117 · Cited by 453 · see citing works
The Incumbency Advantage in U.S. Elections: An Analysis of State and Federal Offices, 1942–2000
Ansolabehere, S. D., & Snyder, J. M. (2002) · Election Law Journal Rules Politics and Policy · doi:10.1089/153312902760137578 · Cited by 403 · see citing works
Ansolabehere, S. D., Snyder, J. M., & Stewart, C. H., III (2000) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.2307/2669290 · Cited by 384 · see citing works
National Economic Voting in U.S. Presidential Elections
Nadeau, R., & Lewis‐Beck, M. S. (2001) · The Journal of Politics · doi:10.1111/0022-3816.00063 · Cited by 362 · see citing works
Strategy and Choice in the 1982 Congressional Elections
Jacobson, G. C., & Kernell, S. (1982) · PS Political Science & Politics · doi:10.1017/s1049096500060479 · Cited by 360 · see citing works
It’s Nothing Personal: The Decline of the Incumbency Advantage in US House Elections
Jacobson, G. C. (2015) · The Journal of Politics · doi:10.1086/681670 · Cited by 335 · see citing works
The Case of the Vanishing Marginals: The Bureaucracy Did It
Fiorina, M. P. (1977) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055400259376 · Cited by 309 · see citing works
A Theory of System Justification
JOST, J. T. (2020) · doi:10.2307/j.ctv13qfw6w · Cited by 308 · see citing works
Self-citationA Theory of System Justification
Jost, J. T. (2020) · doi:10.4159/9780674247192 · Cited by 308
Self-citationIncumbency, Campaign Spending, and the Decline of Competition in U.S. House Elections
Abramowitz, A. I. (1991) · The Journal of Politics · doi:10.2307/2131719 · Cited by 299 · see citing works
Personality Traits and Participation in Political Processes
Gerber, A. S., Huber, G., Doherty, D., Dowling, C. M., Raso, C. N., & Ha, S. E. (2011) · The Journal of Politics · doi:10.1017/s0022381611000399 · Cited by 294 · see citing works
Press Coverage and Political Accountability
Snyder, J. M., & Strömberg, D. (2010) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/652903 · Cited by 294 · see citing works
Cox, G. W., & Katz, J. N. (2002) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511606212 · Cited by 288 · see citing works
Explaining Challenger Quality in Congressional Elections
Bond, J. R., Covington, C. R., & Fleisher, R. (1985) · The Journal of Politics · doi:10.2307/2130894 · Cited by 281 · see citing works
One Good Term Deserves Another: The Advantage of Incumbency in Congressional Elections
Cover, A. D. (1977) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.2307/2110580 · Cited by 268 · see citing works
Preempting Quality Challengers in House Elections
Krasno, J. S., & GREEN, D. P. (1988) · The Journal of Politics · doi:10.2307/2131385 · Cited by 263 · see citing works
Hennes, E. P., Nam, H. H., Stern, C., & Jost, J. T. (2012) · Social Cognition · doi:10.1521/soco.2012.30.6.669 · Cited by 245 · cited 3× · see citing works
“manage uncertainty, threat, and social conformity (Hennes et al., 2012; Jost, 2020).”
BackgroundSelf-citationJohannes, J. R., & McAdams, J. C. (1981) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.2307/2110817 · Cited by 233 · see citing works
Candidate Quality, the Personal Vote, and the Incumbency Advantage in Congress
Carson, J. L., Engstrom, E. J., & Roberts, J. M. (2007) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055407070311 · Cited by 226 · see citing works
To Provide or Protect: Motivational Bases of Political Liberalism and Conservatism
Janoff‐Bulman, R. (2009) · Psychological Inquiry · doi:10.1080/10478400903028581 · Cited by 216 · see citing works
Prior, M. (2006) · The Journal of Politics · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00452.x · Cited by 194 · see citing works
The Oxford Handbook of Social Cognition
(2013) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199730018.001.0001 · Cited by 182 · see citing works
Campaign Spending and Incumbency: An Alternative Simultaneous Equations Approach
Erikson, R. S., & Palfrey, T. R. (1998) · The Journal of Politics · doi:10.2307/2647913 · Cited by 181 · see citing works
Hainmueller, J., & Kern, H. (2008) · Electoral Studies · doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2007.10.006 · Cited by 166 · see citing works
Achieving Statistical Significance with Control Variables and Without Transparency
Lenz, G., & Sahn, A. (2020) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1017/pan.2020.31 · Cited by 163 · see citing works
Baby Books and Ballots: The Impact of Congressional Mail on Constituent Opinion
Cover, A. D., & Brumberg, B. S. (1982) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055400187040 · Cited by 157 · see citing works
Better the Devil You Know Than the Saint You Don't? Risk Propensity and Vote Choice in Mexico
Morgenstern, S., & Zechmeister, E. J. (2001) · The Journal of Politics · doi:10.1111/0022-3816.00060 · Cited by 138 · see citing works
Dahlbäck, O. (1990) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/0191-8869(90)90150-p · Cited by 137 · see citing works
On the Decline of Competition in Congressional Elections
Ferejohn, J. (1977) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.2307/1956960 · Cited by 111 · see citing works
House Re-elections and Senate Defeats: The Role of the Challenger
Hinckley, B. (1980) · British Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1017/s0007123400002337 · Cited by 91 · see citing works
Ansolabehere, S. S., & Schaffner, B. F. (2017) · Harvard Dataverse · doi:10.7910/dvn/gdf6z0 · Cited by 88 · see citing works
The Rising Incumbent Reelection Rate: What's Gerrymandering Got to Do With It?
Friedman, J. N., & Holden, R. T. (2009) · The Journal of Politics · doi:10.1017/s0022381609090483 · Cited by 81 · see citing works
Loss Aversion and Status Quo Label Bias
Moshinsky, A., & Bar‐Hillel, M. (2010) · Social Cognition · doi:10.1521/soco.2010.28.2.191 · Cited by 77 · see citing works
An Asymmetrical “President-in-Power” Effect
MORISI, D., JOST, J. T., & SINGH, V. (2019) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055418000850 · Cited by 73 · see citing works
Self-citationIndividual Differences in Group Loyalty Predict Partisan Strength
Clifford, S. (2016) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-016-9367-3 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
Risk Attitudes, Candidate Characteristics, and Vote Choice
Kam, C. D., & Simas, E. N. (2012) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfs055 · Cited by 69 · see citing works
Redmond, P. H., & Regan, J. (2015) · European Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2015.03.002 · Cited by 60 · see citing works
Risk Attitudes and the Incumbency Advantage
Eckles, D. L., Kam, C. D., Maestas, C. D., & Schaffner, B. F. (2013) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-013-9258-9 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
Eidelman, S., & Crandall, C. S. (2014) · Advances in experimental social psychology · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-800284-1.00002-3 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
The mayor's advantage: Causal evidence on incumbency effects in German mayoral elections
Freier, R. (2015) · European Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2015.07.005 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
Partisanship and Incumbency in Presidential Elections
Weisberg, H. F. (2002) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1023/a:1022558810957 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
Reassessing the Incumbency Effect
Stonecash, J. M. (2008) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511756184 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
The Paradox of Less Effective Incumbent Spending: Theory and Tests
Moon, W. (2006) · British Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1017/s0007123406000378 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
Bisbee, J. H., & Honig, D. (2021) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055421000691 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Campaign Spending in U. S. Senate Elections
Abramowitz, A. I. (1989) · Legislative Studies Quarterly · doi:10.2307/439955 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
Morris, M. W., Carranza, E., & Fox, C. R. (2008) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02217.x · Cited by 34 · see citing works
McGregor, R. M., Moore, A. A., Jackson, S., Bird, K. S., & Stephenson, L. B. (2017) · Representation · doi:10.1080/00344893.2017.1354909 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Carson, J. L., & Roberts, J. M. (2011) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199559947.003.0007 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Morisi, D. (2018) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfy033 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Self-citationIncumbency advantage in multi-member districts: Evidence from congressional elections in Chile
Salas, C. (2016) · Electoral Studies · doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2016.03.002 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Serra, G. (1994) · American Politics Research · doi:10.1177/1532673x9402200401 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Political Accountability, Legislator Gender, and the Status Quo Bias
Sheffer, L. (2019) · Politics & Gender · doi:10.1017/s1743923x19000825 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Voters Don't Care Much About Incumbency
Brown, A. R. (2014) · Journal of Experimental Political Science · doi:10.1017/xps.2014.6 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts
Jost, J. T., Baldassarri, D. S., & Druckman, J. N. (2022) · Nature Reviews Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44159-022-00093-5 · Cited by 276 · see citing works
Self-citationHow to measure the status quo bias? A review of current literature
Godefroid, M.-E., Plattfaut, R., & Niehaves, B. (2023) · Management Review Quarterly · doi:10.1007/s11301-022-00283-8 · Cited by 101 · see citing works
Liaquat, U., Jost, J. T., & Balcetis, E. (2023) · Social Issues and Policy Review · doi:10.1111/sipr.12093 · Cited by 55 · see citing works
Self-citationLiberals and conservatives share information differently on social media
Chang, H.-C. H., Druckman, J. N., Ferrara, E., & Willer, R. (2025) · PNAS Nexus · doi:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgaf206 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Candidate visibility, voter knowledge, and the incumbency advantage in preferential-list PR
Bräuninger, T., Däubler, T., & Pilet, J. (2023) · Party Politics · doi:10.1177/13540688231178265 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
How COVID-19 affects voting for incumbents: Evidence from local elections in France
Morisi, D., Cloléry, H., King, G. K. K., & Schaub, M. (2021) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0297432 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Self-citationRisk Preferences in the Delegation Process
Schwaninger, M., Mühlböck, M., & Sauermann, J. (2023) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-023-09908-4
- Authors
- Morisi, D., Jost, J. T., Panagopoulos, C., & Valtonen, J.
- Affiliations
- Collegio Carlo Alberto (IT)
- New York University (US)
- Northeastern University (US)
- University of Helsinki (FI)
- Corresponding author
- Morisi, Davide
- Venue
- Social Psychological and Personality Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2021-10-26
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1069-1079
- ISSN
- 1948-5506 (ISSN-L)
- 1948-5514
- OpenAlex
- W3209840346
- Cited by
- 7
- References
- 70
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2
- FWCI
- 4.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Locations
- Social Psychological and Personality Science (publishedVersion)
- Työväentutkimus Vuosikirja (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Politics and Representation
- Keywords
- incumbency advantage, ideological asymmetry, political conservatism, partisanship, system justification theory, status quo bias, risk aversion, congressional elections, United States Congress, voter preferences
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
