The first findings of this project show that for understanding voters’ evaluations of politicians involved in moral transgressions, it is necessary to look at both partisan identity centrality and moral identity centrality. The more central the moral identity the more negatively voters evaluate transgressors. The findings show that both American and English voters evaluate politicians engaged in moral violations who belong to their party (ingroup) more positively than politicians who do not (outgroup). However, the ingroup bias is stronger for partisans in the U.S. and Republicans have a stronger ingroup bias than Democrats. The ingroup bias in the transgressor’s likeability evaluation persists in the U.S. among those with higher moral identity internalization, while no such effects are found in England. We think that this difference reflects the differential degrees that electorates in these two countries are polarized along partisan lines and hold animosity towards the partisan outgroup. Results also show considerable partisan heterogeneity in voters’ desire for moral punishment in case of immoral behavior, strongly mediated by perceived severity. Republicans and Democrats differ in how severe they perceive politicians’ immoral behavior.. In the United States voters are more willing to forgive in-party transgressors than those of the out-party and the in-party bias in these intentions to forgive is independent of the moral principle violated. Born-again Christians, however, are more willing than any other group of voters to forgive transgressing politicians, irrespective whether an in-party or an out-party transgressor is involved.
