All of the People, All of the Time: An Analysis of Public Reaction to the Use of Deception by Political Elites Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Jakob A. Miller, B.A. Graduate Program in Political Science The Ohio State University 2017 Dissertation Committee: Thomas Nelson, Advisor Michael Neblo Nathaniel Swigger Copyright by Jakob A. Miller 2017 Abstract Despite the public's uniformly dismal assessment of politicians' honesty, they react by punishing some offences and seemingly ignoring others. I use data from multiple survey experiments as well as an examination of electoral polling data to show that public reaction to accusations of deception against politicians is guided by the principle of expectancy violations. I find that when deception is expected, it does not draw cognitive focus from members of the public, thereby causing the public to punish only lies they find unusual. In this way, a reputation as a liar may produce a sort of inoculation effect: that is, the fact that a politician is often accused of lying may contribute to public tolerance of them continuing to do so. ii Dedication To my family, for their unfailing love and support. Bless you. iii Acknowledgements I would first like to thank my committee. Thomas Nelson helped me to sort my ideas into an organized whole, and Michael Neblo and Nathaniel Swigger provided vital feedback and encouragement. I would also like to thank William Minozzi, who helped me get this project started in the first place. I would also like to thank my friends and colleagues, especially Sergio P. D´ıaz Sierra, for listening to far too many variations of `It's all expectations!'. Gabriella Lloyd, Carolyn Morgan, Lauren Ratliff, Kailash Srinivasan, Peter Tunkis | thank you. Thanks to Kathleen McGraw for her time spent in running the American Politics Dissertation Workshop, and to all the participants thereof for their advice. Finally, my family was a never-ending well of support throughout my entire time in graduate school. Without their support and encouragement, I would never have succeeded. I love you all. iv Vita 2007 . Homeschool: The Abeka Academy 2011 . B.A. Political Science, The Ohio State University 2013 to present . Graduate Teaching Associate, The Ohio State University Field of Study: Major Field: Political Science v Table of Contents Abstract ....................................... ii Dedication ...................................... iii Acknowledgements ................................. iv Vita ......................................... v List of Tables .................................... x List of Figures ................................... xii Chapter 1: Introduction .............................. 1 Motivation .................................... 1 A History Of Political Lying .......................... 3 Historical Context ............................... 5 Modern Day ................................... 6 Purpose and Scope ............................... 7 The Role of Expectations ........................... 8 A Model Of The Deception Reaction Process . 10 Mediated Reality ............................. 12 Expectancy Violations .......................... 14 Dual Process Models ........................... 17 Affect Primacy Models .......................... 18 Recall Models ............................... 19 Expectation Effects and Deception ................... 21 vi Conceptualizing Reaction ........................... 23 Summary .................................... 24 Chapter 2: A History of the Study of Political Deception . 26 Introduction ................................... 26 Origins of the Field ............................... 27 Types of Research ............................. 28 The Importance of Lying ......................... 30 Effects of Field Origins ............................. 32 Elite Dominance ............................. 33 Historical ................................. 34 Practical ..................................... 36 Detection and Correction in Public-Focused Research . 38 Detection ................................. 39 Correction ................................. 42 Summary ................................. 43 The Study of Reaction ............................. 44 Endogeneity ................................ 45 Assumptions ................................ 46 The Need for a New Approach ......................... 48 Real-World Applicability ......................... 48 Academic Research ............................ 50 Normative Concerns ........................... 51 Practical Benefits ............................. 53 Summary ................................. 54 Conclusion .................................... 55 Chapter 3: The Role of Expectations in Political Deception . 57 Introduction ................................... 57 vii Experimental Design Logic ........................... 59 Direct Manipulation of Subject Expectations . 59 Generalized Inheritance .......................... 61 Hypotheses ................................... 63 Methods ..................................... 66 Sample Source ............................... 66 Sample Details .............................. 68 Data and Collection ........................... 69 Treatment in Detail ............................ 73 Results ...................................... 77 Study 1 .................................. 77 Study 2 .................................. 81 Conclusion .................................... 88 Chapter 4: A Picture of the Public ........................ 90 Introduction ................................... 90 Expectations at the Mass Level ........................ 92 Study Context ................................. 94 Background ................................ 95 Corruption ................................... 100 The Celebrity Apprentice . 104 Clinton Advertising Dominance . 107 Specific Reactions ............................. 110 Data ....................................... 113 Polling ................................... 113 Measuring Punishment . 115 Corruption ................................. 116 State-Level Partisanship . 118 viii Clinton Ad Dominance . 120 Measuring Celebrity Apprentice Viewership . 122 Results ...................................... 124 Corruption ................................. 124 Effects on Poll Results . 124 Effects on Poll Responsitivity . 127 Celebrity Apprentice Viewership . 129 Effects on Overall Poll Results . 129 Effects on Poll Responsitivity . 131 Clinton Advertising Dominance . 134 Effects on Poll Results . 134 Effects on Poll Responsitivity . 137 Effects on Specific Reaction . 140 Discussion .................................... 142 Conclusion .................................... 144 Chapter 5: Conclusion ............................... 146 Summary .................................... 146 List of Findings .............................. 147 Final Thoughts ................................. 154 Media ................................... 154 Politicians ................................. 156 Democracy ................................ 156 The Public ................................. 157 References ...................................... 158 Appendix A: Experimental Material . 178 Appendix B: Sources Used for Poll Variable Formation . 180 ix List of Tables Table 1. Summary Statistics of Experimental Samples . 69 Table 2. Regression results examining the multiplicative relationship between experimental condition and estimated honesty of politicians on overall feel- ing thermometer rating of Adams (Study 2) . 86 Table 3. State-level Corruption Measures . 119 Table 4. Regression results examining the effect of political corruption on Trump polling results .............................. 127 Table 5. Regression results examining the effect of political corruption at the state level on total campaign change . 128 Table 6. Regression results examining the effect of Celebrity Apprentice View- ership on Trump polling results . 131 Table 7. Regression results examining the effect of Celebrity Apprentice popu- larity at the state level on total campaign change . 133 Table 8. Regression results examining the effect of Clinton advertising domi- nance on Trump polling results . 137 Table 9. Regression results examining the effect of Clinton advertising domi- nance on Clinton polling results . 138 Table 10. Regression results examining the effect of Clinton-affiliated advertising dominance at the state level on total campaign change . 140 x Table 11. Regression results examining the effect of Clinton-affiliated advertising dominance at the state level on reactions to specific dishonesty . 142 xi List of Figures Figure 1. Diagram of a deception report. .................... 11 Figure 2. Diagram of a deception report, II. ................... 22 Figure 3. Scholarly work on political deception over time. 35 Figure 4. Percentage of survey respondents that say they trust government `always' or `most of the time'. ......................... 36 Figure 5. Percentage of survey respondents that say they trust government `always' or `most of the time', broken down by party. 65 Figure 6. Study 1 Base Lying Differential .................... 78 Figure 7. Study 1 Lying Differentials, By Senator Party (Republican Subjects Only) ...................................... 79 Figure 8. Study 1 Lying Differentials, By Senator Party, Democratic Subjects Only ....................................... 80 Figure 9. Study 2 Base Lying Differentials, By Treatment Subject . 81 Figure 10. Study 2 Lying Differentials,