🔎 What question was asked?
A long-standing puzzle in democratic accountability is whether voters punish and reward incumbents only for policy outcomes or also for the intentions behind those actions. Incumbents often act intending to produce beneficial outcomes, yet imperfect control can lead good intentions to produce bad results. The outcome–intention hypothesis predicts that voters reward incumbents for both good outcomes and good intentions.
🧪 How voter responses were tested
- A series of incentivized experiments placed participants in the role of voters.
- Participants experienced either a better or a worse policy outcome.
- Participants were randomly assigned to additionally receive information about the incumbent’s intended policy outcome.
📈 Key findings
- Voters reward incumbents for good outcomes.
- Voters also reward incumbents for good intentions even when outcomes vary.
- Introducing group competition changes those responses: under competition, voters only reward the good intentions of in-group incumbents, not out-group incumbents.
💡 Why this matters
These results show that retrospective accountability is more nuanced than simple outcome-based voting: intentions matter, but social context and group ties shape whether intention-based forgiveness or reward is extended. This has implications for theories of retrospective voting, electoral accountability, and partisan or group-based biases in democratic evaluation.
