The Causal Effect of Candidate Extremity on Citizens’ Preferences: Evidence from Conjoint Experiments

Previous studies demonstrate that politicians’ issue positions and rhetorical style have grown increasingly extreme. It remains unclear, however, whether extremity pays off electorally. Using two preregistered conjoint experiments conducted in the United States (N = 2,006) and Israel (N = 1,999), we investigate whether citizens reward or penalize candidates for taking extreme positions (i.e., proposing radical solutions to societal problems) and using an extreme rhetorical style (i.e., communicating in a way that signals rigidity and dogmatism). The results are consistent in showing that extremity is costly for candidates. Across countries, citizens penalize both in-party and out-party candidates for both extreme positions and an extreme rhetorical style, and the average penalty for being extreme is a 16-percentage-point decrease in candidate support. Our results are in line with scholarship demonstrating that citizens disapprove of elite extremity. They also indicate that citizens react independently to elites’ substantive policy positions and their communication style.