In the APSA Public Scholarship Program, graduate students in political science produce summaries of new research in the American Political Science Review. This piece, written by Jack Wippell, covers the new article by Tabitha Bonilla, “The Influence of Partisanship on Assessments of Promise Fulfillment and Accountability.”
Does partisanship undermine accountability? In her recent APSR article, Tabitha Bonilla examines how partisan biases influence voter perceptions of accountability and promise-keeping. Accountability is one of democracy’s fundamental principles, rooted in the expectation that elected officials will fulfill their campaign promises. But with increasing polarization, do voters still evaluate candidates objectively, or does partisanship color their assessments? Bonilla uncovers a troubling pattern—partisan loyalty skews how voters judge promise-keeping. Voters are more likely to forgive officials from the same party for their failures, while opponents face harsh scrutiny regardless of their actions.
Bonilla starts by outlining how existing research on partisanship generally shows that voters’ political affiliations influence their processing of information. While some studies argue that voters evaluate political figures based on evidence and performance, others suggest that they instead favor information that aligns with their existing beliefs and dismiss conflicting views. Similarly, research on accountability emphasizes that voters assess elected officials based on promise fulfillment, but Bonilla suggests these expectations may no longer hold in a hyper-partisan context.
To explore these dynamics, Bonilla designs two survey experiments. In the first experiment, she introduces respondents to a hypothetical elected official who has made policy promises around immigration. The official is described as either fulfilling, partially fulfilling, or breaking their promise on immigration. The second experiment introduces another issue, human trafficking, which has less party division. Here, Bonilla also includes hypothetical candidates with no party affiliation, allowing her to isolate the effects of partisanship and issue polarization on accountability assessments.
The first experiment reveals a striking pattern. Bonilla finds that when respondents evaluate officials from their own parties, they are more likely to reward fulfilled promises and forgive partially kept promises. For example, a Democrat who promises to prevent federal funding for a border wall and takes steps to oppose it, even without full success, is evaluated positively by
Democratic respondents. In contrast, respondents are much harsher on officials from the opposing party and evaluate their performance unfavorably regardless of whether they fulfill, partially fulfill, or break their promises.
A more nuanced dynamic emerges when Bonilla examines how voters assess officials from their own and the opposing party differently on “approval” versus “performance.” When asked about general approval of the politician, respondents are unwilling to grant favorable ratings to officials from the opposing party, regardless of promise fulfillment. However, when evaluating specific performance—that is, whether the official kept or broke their promise—voters show a bit more consistency. Here, while still biased, they are more willing to acknowledge when those from other parties fulfill promises. While voters recognize broken promises, accountability doesn’t escape partisanship.
“As voters grow more attached to their party identities, they may be less willing to hold the officials in their own party accountable, while reserving harsh judgments for those in the opposing parties regardless of their actions.”Bonilla’s second experiment focuses on the less polarized issue of human trafficking. Supporters of both parties generally agree about the need to act against human trafficking, compared to more contentious issues like immigration. This allows Bonilla to explore whether issue type affects partisan bias. Here, both Democrats and Republicans reward officials for fulfilling anti-trafficking promises and are more forgiving of partial fulfillment across party lines. Yet, officials in the same party continue to consistently receive higher ratings. Notably, introducing a nonpartisan candidate does reduce bias slightly, as voters feel less compelled to align evaluations with party identification. This suggests that issue framing and candidate positioning can moderate, though not eliminate, partisan distortions in accountability.
This research holds important implications for our understanding of democratic accountability in the United States, especially in an increasingly polarized political climate. As voters grow more attached to their party identities, they may be less willing to hold the officials in their own party accountable, while reserving harsh judgments for those in the opposing parties regardless of their actions. When people only cheer for their own party, rather than evaluate its ability to deliver on promises, this becomes problematic for a fair democracy.
- Jack Wippell is a PhD Student in the Department of Sociology at The Ohio State University. His research interests cover political sociology, social movements, and culture, and his current focus is on the emergence, spread and mobilization of far-right extremism across the United States and Europe. He also has interests at the intersection of computational and qualitative methodologies.
- BONILLA, TABITHA. 2024. “The Influence of Partisanship on Assessments of Promise Fulfillment and Accountability.” . American Political Science Review, 1–19.
- About the APSA Public Scholarship Program.