It turns out that your google cache page doesn't render the page, but the retrieved source does actually contain all of the content. If you view page source, you get:

How Candidates Can Signal Sincerity in an Era of Cynicism

---------------------------------------------------------

[[Download data and study materials from OSF]](https://osf.io/rj3aw/)

Principal investigators:

Scott Clifford

University of Houston

*Email:* scliffor\@central.uh.edu

*Homepage:* <https://scottaclifford.com/>

Elizabeth Simas

University of Houston

*Email:* ensimas\@uh.edu

*Homepage:* <https://www.elizabethsimas.com/>

\

*Sample size:* 769

*Field period:* 01/03/2020-06/26/2020

Abstract

Partisan polarization has reached historical highs, while politicians'
credibility has reached historical lows. For example, recent polls
suggest that as few as 8% of Americans think that politicians believe
most of the stances that they take on issues. This extreme level of
cynicism threatens to break a fundamental link in representation. If
candidates cannot credibly convey their positions, then voters cannot
evaluate them on policy. Yet, we know little about the strategies
politicians might take to convey the credibility of their claims. In
this paper, we investigate whether politicians can signal credibility by
taking extreme positions or by justifying their stances in moral terms.
Across three experiments, we show that moral justifications tend to
enhance credibility, while extreme positions do not. In a fourth study,
we show that while extreme stances increase polarization in candidate
ratings, moral justifications do not. Taken together, our findings
suggest that moral justifications are a useful strategy to enhance
credibility without contributing to rising levels of polarization.

Hypotheses

- H1: Candidates taking extreme issue positions will be perceived as more sincere.

- H2: Issue stances justified with moral language will be
perceived as more sincere.

Experimental Manipulations

A within-subjects vignette experiment. Respondents will be asked to
evaluate three hypothetical politicians, each taking a stance on a
particular issue. Within each candidate profile, the stance will be
randomly assigned to one of four conditions in a 2x2 design. The stance
will be either extreme or moderate and moral or pragmatic.

Outcomes

An index of the following questions:

- Do you think this candidate truly believes in {stance}, or is just
saying what some people want to hear?

- In your opinion, how committed do you think this candidate is to
{stance}?

- In your opinion, how likely is it that this candidate will be a
leader on {stance}?

- In your opinion, how likely do you think it is that this candidate
will flip-flop on {stance} in the future?

Summary of Results

As expected, the moral justification is perceived as significantly more
credible than the pragmatic justification (b = .02, p = .002). The
extreme position, on the other hand, is seen as slightly, but not
significantly less credible than the more moderate position (b = -.007,
p = .295). Thus, consistent with Study 1, moral justifications increase
credibility, but extreme positions do not. Additionally, we find no
evidence of an interaction between the treatments.

References

Paper presented at the the 2019 Texas American Politics Symposium
(TAPS).