| In this dissertation, I examine the causes and consequences of perceptions of politicians' character traits. I argue that character traits are best understood as reflections of particular moral foundations. Just as people vary in the moral foundations they endorse, they also vary in the character traits they use to evaluate politicians. As a result, individuals draw different trait inferences about politicians from the issue stances they take. For example, an issue stance that may signal compassion to a supporter of the policy may signal weakness to an opponent of the policy. However, the relationships between issue stances and character traits are not set in stone. I show that by justifying an issue stance in terms of a particular moral foundation, politicians are perceived as exemplifying the traits associated with that foundation. I also show that a politician's choice of which character traits to bolster holds important strategic implications. Politicians are perceived as more conservative when they bolster character traits associated with conservative rather than liberal moral foundations. Finally, I show that trait perceptions influence the types of rumors we are likely to believe about politicians. Overall, my dissertation provides a much needed theoretical framework for understanding character trait perceptions, and new insights into the strategic interplay between politicians and the public. |
