IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/eeupol/v21y2020i3p519-540.html

How candidate characteristics affect favorability in European Parliament elections: Evidence from a conjoint experiment in Finland

Author

Listed:
  • Henrik S Christensen

    (Samforsk & Department of Political Science, Ã…bo Akademi University, Ã…bo, Finland)

  • Marco S La Rosa

    (Samforsk & Department of Political Science, Ã…bo Akademi University, Ã…bo, Finland)

  • Kimmo Grönlund

Abstract

Previous literature has studied voter behavior in European Parliament elections. However, it remains unclear how candidate characteristics affect favorability of EP candidates since it cannot be taken for granted that these characteristics work as in national elections. We therefore use a conjoint analysis to examine how gender, left-right ideology, issue focus, political experience, representative focus, citizenship, and attitude towards European integration affected EP candidate favorability during the 2019 campaign in Finland. Results show that while traditional candidate characteristics matter, their impact is dwarfed by effects of traits particular to the EP elections. Hence, it is imperative to observe the particularities of EP elections to understand candidate choice.

Suggested Citation

  • Henrik S Christensen & Marco S La Rosa & Kimmo Grönlund, 2020. "How candidate characteristics affect favorability in European Parliament elections: Evidence from a conjoint experiment in Finland," European Union Politics, , vol. 21(3), pages 519-540, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:eeupol:v:21:y:2020:i:3:p:519-540
    DOI: 10.1177/1465116520929765
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1465116520929765
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1465116520929765?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bullock, John G., 2011. "Elite Influence on Public Opinion in an Informed Electorate," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 105(3), pages 496-515, August.
    2. Carnes, Nicholas & Lupu, Noam, 2016. "Do Voters Dislike Working-Class Candidates? Voter Biases and the Descriptive Underrepresentation of the Working Class," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 110(4), pages 832-844, November.
    3. Leeper, Thomas J. & Hobolt, Sara B. & Tilley, James, 2020. "Measuring Subgroup Preferences in Conjoint Experiments," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 28(2), pages 207-221, April.
    4. Macdonald, Stuart Elaine & Rabinowitz, George & Listhaug, Ola, 1995. "Political Sophistication and Models of Issue Voting," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(4), pages 453-483, October.
    5. Franchino, Fabio & Zucchini, Francesco, 2015. "Voting in a Multi-dimensional Space: A Conjoint Analysis Employing Valence and Ideology Attributes of Candidates," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(2), pages 221-241, May.
    6. Timothy Besley & Olle Folke & Torsten Persson & Johanna Rickne, 2017. "Gender Quotas and the Crisis of the Mediocre Man: Theory and Evidence from Sweden," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(8), pages 2204-2242, August.
    7. Ono, Yoshikuni & Yamada, Masahiro, 2020. "Do voters prefer gender stereotypic candidates? evidence from a conjoint survey experiment in Japan," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(3), pages 477-492, July.
    8. Vivien A. Schmidt, 2013. "Democracy and Legitimacy in the European Union Revisited: Input, Output and ‘Throughput’," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 61(1), pages 2-22, March.
    9. Bansak, Kirk & Hainmueller, Jens & Hopkins, Daniel J. & Yamamoto, Teppei, 2018. "The Number of Choice Tasks and Survey Satisficing in Conjoint Experiments," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(1), pages 112-119, January.
    10. Carson, Jamie L. & Engstrom, Erik J. & Roberts, Jason M., 2007. "Candidate Quality, the Personal Vote, and the Incumbency Advantage in Congress," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 101(2), pages 289-301, May.
    11. Matland, Richard E., 1994. "Putting Scandinavian Equality to the Test: An Experimental Evaluation of Gender Stereotyping of Political Candidates in a Sample of Norwegian Voters," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 24(2), pages 273-292, April.
    12. Hainmueller, Jens & Hopkins, Daniel J. & Yamamoto, Teppei, 2014. "Causal Inference in Conjoint Analysis: Understanding Multidimensional Choices via Stated Preference Experiments," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(1), pages 1-30, January.
    13. Matthew Singer & Christopher Anderson, 2008. "The Sensitive Left and the Impervious Right: Multilevel Models and the Politics of Inequality, Ideology, and Legitimacy in Europe," LIS Working papers 477, LIS Cross-National Data Center in Luxembourg.
    14. repec:hal:journl:halshs-01518283 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Franchino, Fabio & Zucchini, Francesco, 2015. "Voting in a Multi-dimensional Space: A Conjoint Analysis Employing Valence and Ideology Attributes of Candidates," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(02), pages 221-241, May.
    16. Leeper, Thomas J. & Hobolt, Sara & Tilley, James, 2020. "Measuring subgroup preferences in conjoint experiments," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 100944, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    17. Horiuchi, Yusaku & Smith, Daniel M. & Yamamoto, Teppei, 2018. "Measuring Voters’ Multidimensional Policy Preferences with Conjoint Analysis: Application to Japan’s 2014 Election," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(2), pages 190-209, April.
    18. Marsh, Michael, 1998. "Testing the Second-Order Election Model after Four European Elections," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 28(4), pages 591-607, October.
    19. Jens Hainmueller & Daniel J. Hopkins, 2015. "The Hidden American Immigration Consensus: A Conjoint Analysis of Attitudes toward Immigrants," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 59(3), pages 529-548, July.
    20. repec:hal:pseptp:halshs-01518283 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Roger Scully & David M. Farrell, 2003. "MEPs as Representatives: Individual and Institutional Roles," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(2), pages 269-288, April.
    22. Ansolabehere, Stephen & Rodden, Jonathan & Snyder, James M., 2008. "The Strength of Issues: Using Multiple Measures to Gauge Preference Stability, Ideological Constraint, and Issue Voting," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 102(2), pages 215-232, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Thomas Däubler & Mihail Chiru & Silje SL Hermansen, 2022. "Introducing COMEPELDA: Comprehensive European Parliament electoral data covering rules, parties and candidates," European Union Politics, , vol. 23(2), pages 351-371, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Henrik Serup Christensen & Lauri Rapeli, 2021. "Immediate rewards or delayed gratification? A conjoint survey experiment of the public’s policy preferences," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(1), pages 63-94, March.
    2. Liza G. Steele & Laird Gallagher, 2025. "Attitudes Toward Immigrants and Refugees During the COVID-19 Pandemic in the U.S," Journal of International Migration and Integration, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 2593-2627, December.
    3. Tukiainen, Janne & Blesse, Sebastian & Bohne, Albrecht & Giuffrida, Leonardo M. & Jääskeläinen, Jan & Luukinen, Ari & Sieppi, Antti, 2024. "What are the priorities of bureaucrats? Evidence from conjoint experiments with procurement officials," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 227(C).
    4. Sam Sims & Clare Routledge, 2025. "Understanding the decision (not) to become a teacher: evidence from survey experiments with undergraduates in the UK and US," CEPEO Working Paper Series 25-15, UCL Centre for Education Policy and Equalising Opportunities, revised Nov 2025.
    5. Anne-Marie Jeannet & Tobias Heidland & Martin Ruhs, 2021. "What asylum and refugee policies do Europeans want? Evidence from a cross-national conjoint experiment," European Union Politics, , vol. 22(3), pages 353-376, September.
    6. Hirofumi MIWA & Yuko KASUYA & Yoshikuni ONO, 2022. "Voters' Perceptions and Evaluations of Dynastic Politics in Japan," Discussion papers 22113, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    7. Jaroslaw Kantorowicz & Elena Kantorowicz-Reznichenko & Gerdien de Vries, 2025. "Public perception of terrorism attacks: A conjoint experiment," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 62(2), pages 310-327, March.
    8. Gosciak, Jennah & Molitor, Daniel & Lundberg, Ian, 2025. "Adaptive Randomization in Conjoint Survey Experiments," SocArXiv 69y2j_v1, Center for Open Science.
    9. Justesen, Mogens K. & Koob, Sigrid & Smid, Sina, 2025. "Clientelism and programmatic redistribution: Evidence from a conjoint survey experiment in Brazil," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    10. Sayaka Usui & Benjamin K. Blevins, 2025. "Investing in the Future of Djibouti: A Choice-based Conjoint Analysis for Youth Employment Preferences," SAGE Open, , vol. 15(1), pages 21582440251, March.
    11. Avidit Acharya & Jens Hainmueller & Yiqing Xu, 2026. "Learning Preferences from Conjoint Data: A Structural Deep Learning Approach," Papers 2604.10845, arXiv.org, revised May 2026.
    12. Abby Córdova & Lucía Tiscornia, 2025. "Law enforcement at the margin of the law: Information provision and support for militarization in Mexico," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 62(5), pages 1428-1446, September.
    13. Krawczyk, Michal & Blasco, Andrea & Gajderowicz, Tomasz & Giergiczny, Marek, 2024. "Support for temporary protection of displaced populations in the EU: A conjoint experiment," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    14. Alberto López Ortega, 2024. "Do political duos diminish discriminatory voter preferences? Evidence from a combined conjoint experiment," European Union Politics, , vol. 25(1), pages 106-129, March.
    15. Joop Adema & Lasha Chargaziia & Yvonne Giesing & Sarah Necker & Panu Poutvaara, 2025. "What Drives Refugees’ Return After Conflict?," RFBerlin Discussion Paper Series 2565, ROCKWOOL Foundation Berlin (RFBerlin).
    16. Barceló, Joan & Sheen, Greg Chih-Hsin & Tung, Hans H. & Wu, Wen-Chin, 2022. "Vaccine nationalism among the public: A cross-country experimental evidence of own-country bias towards COVID-19 vaccination," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 310(C).
    17. Becker, Malte & Krüger, Finja & Heidland, Tobias, 2022. "Country, culture or competition: What drives attitudes towards immigrants in Sub-Saharan Africa?," Kiel Working Papers 2224, Kiel Institute for the World Economy.
    18. Yoshiaki Kubo & Isamu Okada, 2022. "COVID-19 health certification reduces outgroup bias: evidence from a conjoint experiment in Japan," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-11, December.
    19. Gallagher,Allen William Andrew & Ruiz,Isabel & Vargas Silva,Carlos Ivan, 2022. "Policy Preferences in Response to Large Migration Inflows," Policy Research Working Paper Series 10055, The World Bank.
    20. Mark D. Ramirez, 2021. "Unmasking the American death penalty debate: Race, context, and citizens’ willingness to execute," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(4), pages 1931-1946, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:eeupol:v:21:y:2020:i:3:p:519-540. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.