To change or not to change: examining the perception of political "waffling".

Publication: North American Journal of Psychology

Publication Date: 01-JUN-07

Bookmark this article Print this article Link to this article Email this article Digg It! Add to del.icio.us RSS

COPYRIGHT 2007 North American Journal of Psychology

Employing the two-step model of attributional processes (Gilbert & Malone, 1995), this experimental study examined the perception of waffling on college students' (N = 125) impressions of a political candidate and voting inclinations. This study also examined whether individual differences factored into participants' attributions for the political candidate. Perceived wafflers received fewer votes than candidates who were perceived as appropriately changing their views. Democratic candidates were more likely to be perceived as wafflers and received fewer votes than Republican candidates. However, wafflers were not attributed less desirable traits and individual differences played no role in the perception of waffling. These findings support the two-step model and the key role that decisiveness plays in the perceptions of leaders.

"The gift that kept on giving."--Karl Rove's response to John Kerry's statement, "I actually voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it," explaining his vote for additional support for the Iraqi war.

Leadership is by its very nature a perceptual process. How followers perceive a leader has important implications for organizations. Leaders who are perceived as competent are likely to be retained or even advanced to higher positions while those who are perceived as incompetent are apt to be replaced (Yukl, 1998). Additionally, leaders who are judged by others as effective tend to gain more influence and have more degrees of freedom to make changes in organizations.

It is clear that we possess stereotypes and implicit theories about the characteristics that connote effective leadership (Lord & Maher, 1991). There have been dozens of characteristics linked with perceptions of effective leadership, including such traits as self-confidence (Bass, 1990), an internal locus of control (Miller, Kets de Vries & Toulouse, 1982), emotional maturity (McCauley & Lombardo, 1990), integrity (Cox & Cooper, 1989), and decisiveness (Stogdill, 1974).

The current research focuses on decisiveness. Consider a leader such as the President of the United States. The President must constantly make appraisals of situations, examine data, understand the significance of the data, and make appropriate decisions (Renshon, 1998). Typically, successful leaders are viewed as individuals capable of both making decisions and sticking with them. As Crosby (1994) puts it, "Nothing destroys the effectiveness of a leader like gaining a reputation for vacillating on decisions" (p. 33). This is particularly the case when a crisis looms. A leader who can act decisively is viewed as very effective whereas one who falters in his/her decision-making in an emergency is considered less capable (Yukl, 1998). Consistent with this, when US presidents are ranked by historians, one of the critical components is their ability to make a decision and stick with it (Crosby, 1994). Presidents who acted decisively in crisis situations (e.g., Washington, Lincoln, and Roosevelt) are typically viewed very favorably by historians (Schlesinger, 1997).

Thus, decisiveness is a key leadership quality and may, in fact, be a central part of individuals' implicit leadership theories (Eden & Leviatan, 1975). Consistent with this, research by Okechuku (1994) found that in multiple international samples of managers, there were six key characteristics linked with perceptions of managerial effectiveness including supervisory ability, achievement motivation, intellectual ability, self-actualization, self-assurance and decisiveness.

In line with these findings, leaders who try to see every side of an issue are sometimes viewed as having a difficult time making up their minds (Crosby, 1994). A leader who is influenced by others' viewpoints may foster the image that he or she holds the same opinion as the person he or she spoke with last. In other words, the leader can be seen as "waffling." As was evident in the 2004 presidential campaign, labeling a leader as a "waffler" can exert a powerful negative influence on the overall perception of that leader.

According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (2005), to waffle is to equivocate or vacillate, and their Online Thesaurus (2005) lists babble, blabber, blather, drivel, drool, gabble, prate, prattle, and twaddle as synonyms for waffle. During the 2004 presidential campaign, John Kerry was branded as a waffler, and not only did the label stick, it became the buzzword of the presidential campaign. While Kerry and his supporters tried to explain any change in his positions as reasoned responses to new information (e.g., his change of position on voting for additional money for the war), for many, Kerry and waffler became synonymous. For example, in October 2004, a Google search with "Kerry waffling" produced about 35,000 hits. Interestingly, however, when George Bush changed positions on an issue, he was not generally accused of waffling. Thus, the question arises as to why a change in position may be perceived as waffling for one candidate, but a legitimate response to new information for another.

To understand why a change in position may be perceived as waffling for one candidate and a legitimate response to new information for another candidate, one need look no further than the fundamental attribution error (Ross, 1977) and the two-step model of attributional processes (Gilbert & Malone, 1995). The fundamental attribution error is the pervasive tendency to overestimate the role of personal or internal factors and underestimate the role of situational or external factors on others' behaviors (Ross, 1977). As such, the fundamental attribution error alone cannot explain the different perceptions of the candidates. If only the fundamental attribution error were in operation, then all of the candidates should be perceived as "wafflers" (an internal attribution). It is the two-step model that can explain the differential perceptions.

According to the two-step model, individuals automatically make a personal attribution for another's behavior (i.e., they commit the fundamental attribution error). However, with attention, thought, and effort, this personal attribution can be changed to a situational attribution. In support of the two-stage model, research has shown that the fundamental attribution error is less likely to occur when individuals want to be careful and accurate (Webster, 1993) and when they take more time to make a judgment (Burger, 1991). Based upon the two-stage model, one should expect that in the case of a Democratic candidate, a personal attribution will be made as the change in position fits with the waffling image (an internal attribution) as "Democrat" and "waffler" have been associated in the person's mind. Because of this match, there is no need for the individual to take the next effortful step to consider how the situation might have affected the candidate's change of position. However, for a Republican candidate or for a candidate with an unknown political party, there is no strong match between waffling and changing one's position because no Republican or unknown political party leader has been so publicly labeled as a waffler. The connection between party and waffling has only been made for the Democrats.

This said, if one has a desire to be accurate, a willingness to take time, or interestingly, suspiciousness that the target has ulterior motives for his or her behavior (Fein, 1996), one may be less likely to make the fundamental attribution error and perceive the behavior to be waffling.

Given that one's desire to be accurate or willingness to take time can...

Read the full article for free courtesy of your local library.