Political scandals are a persistent feature of democratic processes, often generating significant public attention and potentially altering electoral outcomes. This article investigates the relationship between cognitive load and voters' evaluations of political candidates embroiled in scandal. Drawing on cognitive load theory, we propose that the influx of complex and often conflicting information surrounding a scandal increases cognitive load on voters. This heightened load can hinder systematic processing of information, leading to reliance on heuristics and potentially less nuanced candidate evaluations. We review existing literature on political scandals, voter perception, and cognitive psychology to construct a theoretical framework for understanding how voters process scandalous information. This framework suggests that while scandals inherently demand attention, the sheer volume and often contradictory nature of information can lead to mental overload, influencing how integrity and competence are perceived. The implications for campaign strategies, media dissemination, and voter decision-making are discussed.

Cognitive processing, political scandals, candidate perception, voter behavior, political psychology, media framing, public opinion, scandal response, information processing

1. Barnes, T. D., Beaulieu, E., & Saxton, G. (2018). Sex and corruption: How sexism shapes voters’ responses to scandal. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 8(1), 103–121.

2. Basinger, S. J. (2013). Scandals and congressional elections in the post-Watergate era. Political Research Quarterly, 66(2), 385–398.

3. Basinger, S. J., & Rottinghaus, B. (2012). Skeletons in White House closets: A discussion of modern presidential scandals. Political Science Quarterly, 127(2), 213–239.

4. Beilock, S. L., & DeCaro, M. S. (2007). From poor performance to success under stress: Working memory, strategy selection, and mathematical problem solving under pressure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(6), 983–998.

5. Bump, P. (October 2, 2018). The coverup uncovered: How team Trump tried to bury or confuse the Stormy Daniels story. The Washington Post.

6. Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 116–131.

7. Campbell, A., Converse, P., Miller, W., & Stokes, D. (1960). The American voter unabridged edition. University of Chicago Press.

8. Cobb, M. D., & Taylor, A. J. (2015). An absence of malice: The limited utility of campaigning against party corruption. American Politics Research, 43(6), 923–951.

9. Coppins, M. (February 10, 2020). The billion-dollar disinformation campaign to reelect the president. The Atlantic.

10. Crawford, N. (2018). Of suspicious minds: Race, scandal, and the DC mayoralty. Journal of Urban Affairs, 41(5), 679–699.

11. Cwalina, W., & Falkowski, A. (2016). Morality and competence in shaping the images of political leaders. Journal of Political Marketing, 15(2–3), 220–239.

12. Dancey, L. (2012). The consequences of political cynicism: How cynicism shapes citizens’ reactions to political scandals.”. Political Behavior, 34(3), 411–423.

13. Darr, J. P., Kalmoe, N. P., Searles, K., Sui, M., Pingree, R. J., Watson, B. K., Bryanov, K., & Santia, M. (2019). Collision with collusion: Partisan reaction to the Trump-Russia scandal. Perspectives on Politics, 17(3), 772–787.

14. Dewberry, D. R. (2015). The American political scandal: Free speech, public discourse, and democracy. Rowman & Littlefield.

15. Dimock, M. A., & Jacobson, G. C. (1995). Checks and choices: The house bank scandal’s impact on voters in 1992. The Journal of Politics, 57(4), 1143–1159.

16. Drezner, D. W. (February, 18, 2020). The power of Michael Bloomberg. The Washington Post.

17. Druckman, J., & Kam, C. (2011). Students as experimental participants. In J. Druckman, D. Greene, J. Kuklinski, & A. Lupia (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of experimental political science (pp. 41–57). Cambridge University Press.

18. Duduciuc, A. (2012). Morality versus competence in social perception of political candidates. Sfera Politicii, 20(5), 68–74.

19. Entman, R. M. (2012). Scandal and silence: Media responses to presidential misconduct. Polity Press.

20. Esser, F., & Hartung, U. (2004). Nazis, pollution, and no sex: Political scandals as a reflection of political culture in Germany. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(8), 1040–1071.

21. Evans, G., & Anderson, R. (2006). The political conditioning of economic perceptions. The Journal of Politics, 68(1), 194–207.

22. Fahrenthold, D. A. (November 8, 2016). Trump recorded having extremely lewd conversation about women in 2005. The Washington Post.

23. Hamel, B. T., & Miller, M. G. (2018). How voters punish and donors protect legislators embroiled in scandal. Political Research Quarterly, 72(1), 117–131.

24. Hoffman, J. A., von Helversen, B., & Rieskamp, J. (2013). Deliberation’s blindsight: How cognitive load can improve judgments. Psychological Science, 24(5), 869–879.

25. How popular/unpopular is Donald Trump? (December 26, 2019). FiveThirtyEight.

26. Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory: How many types of load does it really need?”. Educational Psychology Review, 23(1), 1–19.

27. Kalyuga, S., & Liu, T. (2015). Guest editorial: Managing cognitive load in technology-based learning environments. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(4), 1–8.

28. Kim, Y. M., & Garrett, K. (2011). On-line and memory-based: Revisiting the relationship between candidate evaluation processing models. Political Behavior, 34(2), 345–368.

29. Lau, R. R., Kleinberg, M. S., & Ditonto, T. M. (2018). Measuring voter decision strategies in political behavior and public opinion research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 82(S1), 911–936.

30. Lipton, E., & Craig, S. (November 14, 2016). Donald Trump’s far-flung holdings raise potential for conflicts of interests. The New York Times.

31. Lodge, M., McGraw, K. M., & Stroh, P. (1989). An impression-driven model of candidate evaluation. American Political Science Review, 83(2), 309–326.

32. Lovelace, J., . B. (October 31, 2020). Trump campaign rallies led to more than 30,000 coronavirus cases, Stanford researchers say. CNBC.

33. Mackuen, M. B., Erikson, R. S., & Stimson, J. A. (1992). Peasants or bankers? The American electorate and the U.S. economy. The American Political Science Review, 86(3), 597–611.

34. Mario, N. E. (2010). The Politics of disgrace: The role of political scandal in America politics. Carolina Academic Press.

35. McDermott, M. L., Schwartz, D., & Vallejo, S. (2015). Talking the talk but not walking the walk: Public reactions to hypocrisy in political scandal.”. American Politics Research, 43(6), 952–974.

36. McGraw, K. M., Lodge, M., & Stroh, P. (1990). On-line processing in candidate evaluation: The effects of issue order, issue importance, and sophistication. Political Behavior, 12(1), 41–58.

37. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our ability to process information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81–97.

38. Mitchell, A., Gottried, J., Shearer, E., & Barthel, M. (February 4, 2016). The 2016 presidential campaign: A news event that’s hard to miss. Pew Research Center.

39. Mitchell, D. (2014). Here today, gone tomorrow? Assessing how timing and repetition of scandal information affects candidate evaluations. Political Psychology, 35(5), 679–701.

40. Nicholson, S. P., & Hansford, T. G. (2014). Partisans in robes: Party cues and public acceptance of supreme court decisions. American Journal of Political Science, 58(3), 620–636.

41. Norris, P., & Inglehart, R. (2019). Cultural backlash: Trump, Brexit, and authoritarian populism. Cambridge University Press.

42. Pereira, M. M., & Waterbury, N. W. (2019). Do voters discount political scandals over time?”. Political Research Quarterly, 72(4), 584–595.

43. Peterson, D. A. M., & Vonnahme, B. M. (2014). Aww, shucky ducky: Voter response to accusations of Herman Cain’s ‘inappropriate behavior.’. PS: Political Science and Politics, 47(2), 372–378.

44. Praino, R., Stockemer, D., & Moscardelli, V. G. (2013). The lingering effects of scandals in congressional elections: Incumbents, challengers, and voters. Social Science Quarterly, 94(4), 1045–1061.

45. Puglisi, R., & Snyder, J. M. (2011). Newspaper coverage of political scandals. Journal of Politics, 73(3), 931–950.

46. Rainie, L., Anderson, J., & Albright, J. (March 29, 2017). The future of free speech, trolls, anonymity and fake news online. Pew Research Center.

47. Rieskamp, J., & Hoffrage, U. (2008). Inferences under time pressure: How opportunity costs affect strategy selection. Acta Psychologia, 127(2), 258–276.

48. Romano, M. K. (2014). Television news coverage of congressional scandals. PS: Political Science and Politics, 47(2), 386–390.

49. Samuels, B. (January 29, 2019). Trump, Putin talked at G20 without US translator, note-taker: Report. The Hill.

50. Saxton, G. W., & Barnes, T. D. (2020). Sex and ideology: Liberal and conservative responses to scandal. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 1–12.

51. Social media fact sheet. (June 12, 2019). Pew Research Center.

52. Sonner, M. W., & Wilcox, C. (1999). Forgiving and forgetting: Public support for Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal. PS: Political Science & Politics, 32(10), 554–557.

53. Summers, J. (October 20 2020). Timeline: How Trump has downplayed the coronavirus pandemic. NPR.

54. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285.

55. Sweller, J., van Merreinboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296.

56. Teachout, Z. (November 17, 2016). Trump’s foreign business ties may violate the constitution. The New York Times.

57. Thompson, J. B. (2000). Political scandal: Power and visibility in the media age. Polity Press.

58. Uscinski, J. E., Klofstad, C., & Atkinson, M. (2016). What drives conspiratorial beliefs? The role of informational cues and predispositions. Political Research Quarterly, 69(1), 57–71.

59. van Gog, T., Paas, F., & Sweller, J. (2010). Cognitive load theory: Advances in research on worked examples, animations, and cognitive load measurements. Educational Psychology Review, 22(4), 375–378.

60. Vavreck, L., Spiliotes, C. J., & Fowler, L. L. (2002). The effects of retail politics in the New Hampshire primary. American Journal of Political Science, 46(3), 595–610.

61. Vivyan, N., Wagner, M., & Tarlov, J. (2012). Representative misconduct, voter perceptions, and accountability: Evidence from the 2009 house of commons expenses scandal.”. Electoral Studies, 31(4), 750–763.

62. von Sikorski, C. (2018). Political scandals as a democratic challenge: The aftermath of political scandals: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Communication., 12(25), 109–3133.

63. von Sikorski, C., & Knoll, J. (2018). All at once or bit by bit? How the serialization of news affects recipients’ attitudes toward politicians involved in scandals. International Journal of Communication., 12(19), 1389–1407.

64. Wlezien, C. (2015). The myopic voter: The economy and U.S. presidential elections. Electoral Studies, 39, 195–204.

65. Wu, T. (September 1, 2017). Is the first amendment obsolete? Knight First Amendment Institute.

66. Zaller, J. (1990). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge University Press.

67. Zaller, J. (1998). Monica Lewinsky’s contribution to political science. PS: Political Science and Politics, 31(2), 182–189.

68. Zaller, J., & Feldman, S. (1990). A simple theory of the survey response: Answering questions versus revealing preferences. American Journal of Political Science, 36(3), 579–616.