The Effect of Populist Messaging on Political Behavior: Evidence from a Survey Experiment in Kenya

This study examines how populist and technocratic framings shape political attitudes and behavior in democratizing contexts, with a focus on Kenya. We define populist framing as the presentation of politics as a moral struggle between two antagonistic groups: “the pure people” and the “corrupt elite” (Mudde & Kaltwasser, 2013; Mudde, 2004; Hawkins et al., 2018; Mudde & Kaltwasser, 2018). Technocratic framing, by contrast, emphasizes expertise, evidence, technical solutions, and rational problem-solving rather than moral, emotional, or populist appeals to policy problems (i.e., unimpassioned, e.g., see Brader, 2020). Although politicians widely use both forms of discourse, we know less about their comparative effects on citizens’ perceptions and choices in recently democratized, developing countries such as those in Africa. The study pursues three goals: 1) Messaging effects: examines how populist and technocratic framings shape candidate appeal, perceived empathy, and voting intention. 2) Prevalence of orientations: establishes the prevalence and distribution of populist attitudes among Kenyan citizens. 3) Measurement contribution: expands and validates an African Populism Index that can be adapted across African democracies and comparable political contexts. Using a survey experiment in Kenya, the study systematically varies the type of messaging respondents receive and measures outcomes immediately after exposure. By comparing the effects of populist versus technocratic appeals, the study aims to identify how these discourses shape political attitudes and support. The expected outcomes are: (1) a clearer understanding of the extent to which populist rhetoric mobilizes support, compared to technocratic appeals; (2) insights into whether emotional, moralized language drives stronger voter engagement than evidence-based policy-oriented communication; (3) measurement contribution via a validated index of populist orientations. Ultimately, the study contributes to debates on democratic accountability by showing how politicians’ communicative choices can affect public opinion and political behavior beyond elections.