The Legislative Effects of Campaign Personalization An Analysis on the Legislative Behavior of Successful German Constituency Candidates

• Author: Dominic Nyhuis,Thomas Zittel
• DOI: 10.1177/0010414020938103
• Published date: 01 February 2021
• Date: 01 February 2021
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414020938103

Comparative Political Studies

2021, Vol. 54(2) 312 –338

© The Author(s) 2020

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0010414020938103

journals.sagepub.com/home/cps

Article

The Legislative

Effects of Campaign

Personalization

An Analysis on the

Legislative Behavior

of Successful German

Constituency Candidates

Thomas Zittel1 and Dominic Nyhuis2

Abstract

Personalized campaign styles are of increasing importance in contemporary

election campaigns at all levels of politics. Surprisingly, we know little

about their implications for the behavior of successful candidates once

they take public office. This paper aims to fill this gap in empirical and

theoretical ways. It shows that campaign personalization results in

legislative personalization. Legislators that ran personalized campaigns

are found to be more likely to deviate in roll call votes and to take

independent positions on the floor. These findings result from a novel

dataset that matches survey evidence on candidates’ campaign styles in the

2009 German Federal Elections with the legislative behavior of successful

candidates in the 17th German Bundestag (2009–2013). Combining data

from the campaign and legislative arenas allows us to explore the wider

consequences of campaign personalization.

1Goethe-University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany

2Institute of Political Science, Leibniz University Hannover, Hannover, Germany

Corresponding Author:

Thomas Zittel, Department of Social Sciences, Goethe-University Frankfurt, Theodor-W.-

Adorno-Platz 1, PEG / PF 40, Frankfurt, 60629, Germany.

Email: zittel@soz.uni-frankfurt.de

938103CPSXXX10.1177/0010414020938103Comparative Political StudiesZittel and Nyhuis

research-article2020

Zittel and Nyhuis 313

Keywords

personalization, candidates, constituency campaigns, legislative behavior,

electoral systems

Introduction: The Scope of the Personalization of

Politics

The personalization of politics is considered a major trend in established

democracies (Karvonen, 2010; McAllister, 2007). Electoral politics is thought

to be increasingly centered on individual candidates, both at the national as

well as at the constituency level (Balmas et al., 2014; Zittel, 2015). In this

paper, we make an original contribution to this debate by asking whether

campaign personalization results in legislative personalization, where suc-

cessful constituency candidates who ran personalized campaigns are more

likely to take independent positions in legislative contexts in an effort to seek

personal votes.

With this research question, we contribute to a wider debate about the

scope of the personalization in politics. While early research focused on voter

perceptions and choices (e.g., Kaase, 1994), subsequent work adopted a

broader perspective on the issue (Pedersen & Rahat, 2019; Rahat & Sheafer,

2007). This involved personalization in the media (Holtz-Bacha et al., 2014;

Kriesi, 2012), in party politics (Cross et al., 2018), in electoral system design

(Renwick & Pilet, 2015), and in campaign behavior (Zittel & Gschwend,

2008). We further advance this research agenda by asking about the legisla-

tive ramifications of constituency level campaign personalization and

whether candidates who ran personalized campaigns are more likely to adopt

an independent stance in legislative contexts. Doing so, we focus on an

important implication of electoral personalization since legislative choices

affect our daily lives in direct and far reaching ways. Our research question

also points to a potential backlash of electoral personalization with important

implications for effective party government in European politics.

The campaign behavior of constituency candidates that we advance from

in this paper has been a visible subject in previous research (Carty et al.,

2003; Chiru, 2015; De Winter & Baudewyns, 2015; Eder et al., 2015; Giebler

& Wüst, 2011; Karlsen & Skogerbø, 2015; Papp & Zorigt, 2016; Selb &

Lutz, 2015; van Erkel et al., 2017; Vandeleene et al., 2019; Zittel, 2015;

Zittel & Gschwend, 2008). The findings that result from it enhanced our

understanding of the variation in candidates’ campaign efforts and styles, as

well as the sources of individual differences. The important question about

the legislative implications of campaign personalization however remains

unexplored. This is a major gap, not only with regard to our understanding