Why Celebrity Endorsements May Not Capture Voter Sentiments

In recent years, celebrity culture has merged with politics as stars increasingly leverage their platforms to endorse political candidates. From Twitter/X shout-outs to campaign events, these endorsements are viewed as powerful tools for shaping public sentiment.

However, recent election outcomes have left many surprised and may reveal that celebrity endorsements often fail to capture the broader political landscape. While celebrity voices bring attention to particular issues, they frequently miss the diverse and nuanced viewpoints across the electorate, creating a partial and sometimes misleading picture of democracy.

The Mass Communication Dynamic: Amplification vs. Representation

It’s essential to consider how messages are shaped and distributed within mass communication frameworks. Agenda-setting theory, for example, posits that the media doesn’t dictate what people should think but rather which issues they should prioritize (McCombs & Shaw, 1972).

In endorsing certain candidates or ideologies, celebrities help set the agenda by highlighting specific issues from their own perspectives. This influence is further explained by Bandura’s social cognitive theory, which states that people learn behaviors and attitudes by observing influential role models (Bandura, 1986). As celebrities endorse political candidates or policies, they effectively encourage their followers to adopt similar viewpoints, thus shaping discourse around these topics.

While these endorsements highlight key issues, they may skew public perception by amplifying a narrow set of values relevant primarily to the celebrity or their industry. This amplification of personal viewpoints aligns with the “spotlight effect,” a social cognitive bias in which individuals overestimate the impact of their actions on others (Ross et al., 1977).

In this context, the "spotlight effect" essentially means that when a celebrity endorses a candidate or a policy, they may believe that their endorsement will significantly impact their followers and the general public, when in reality, this impact may be more limited. This can lead to a “false consensus effect,” in which celebrities—and their followers—assume that their beliefs reflect those of the majority.

However, agenda-setting doesn’t always correspond with widespread public opinion. According to the spiral of silence theory, people may feel pressured to conform to the perceived dominant opinion, notably when influential figures advocate for it (Noelle-Neumann, 1974). This effect may silence opposing voices, creating the illusion that a celebrity-endorsed candidate enjoys broader support than they actually do.

For instance, a high-profile endorsement might generate significant social media support, creating the impression of near-universal backing. However, this view often overlooks quieter voices across diverse demographics who may feel differently yet lack a similar platform to express their views.

Social Media and the Echo Chamber Effect

Social media platforms exacerbate this echo chamber effect, where endorsements often gain momentum among like-minded followers, reinforcing established views. Algorithms that prioritize content based on user interactions mean that followers of a celebrity endorsing a particular candidate are more likely to see similar content, creating a reinforcing loop of endorsement and belief. This selective exposure process, outlined in social cognitive theory, suggests that people consciously or unconsciously seek information that aligns with their pre-existing beliefs, limiting exposure to alternative viewpoints (Bandura, 1986).

Furthermore, recent studies highlight how media fragmentation and polarized news consumption create echo chambers that intensify partisan divides. This process reinforces pre-existing beliefs, often limiting the reach of celebrity endorsements outside of specific audiences (Kearney & Levine, 2020).

Total number of followers for the top five endorsers of each candidate.

Source: Jamie Krenn

Despite the vast follower counts, each celebrity’s influence tends to remain within their fanbase, reinforcing existing views rather than shifting the broader political landscape. Although the wide reach may create the appearance of broad support, it does not necessarily indicate consensus across the general electorate—as we found out last week.

Media Essential Reads

How TV Lies to Us About Romance and Attraction

Do UV Tanning Beds Really Prolong Lifespan?

Celebrity Endorsements and the “False Consensus Effect”

This selective exposure effect is closely related to the “false consensus effect,” a cognitive bias where individuals overestimate how widely their beliefs are shared by others (Ross et al., 1977). Celebrities surrounded by like-minded peers may assume that their political opinions reflect a wider societal view. In reality, celebrity endorsements often have the potential to create a distorted picture of public sentiment due to this false consensus, urging us to be cautious and critical in our analysis.

For instance, LeBron James’ endorsement of Kamala Harris in 2024 resonated strongly with his fanbase. Still, its influence was confined mainly to his established audience, potentially alienating fans with opposing views. Conversely, Elon Musk’s support for Donald Trump might have appealed to his technology-focused followers, but it may have also swayed broader audiences due to his influential position on Twitter/X.

Missed Connections: Why Celebrity Endorsements Don’t Capture Democracy

One key reason celebrity endorsements often fail to align with the broader electorate’s preferences is the significant gap in lived experiences between celebrities and the average voter. Many celebrities live in urban, affluent areas, which shape their concerns and priorities—often different from voters in rural or economically struggling regions.

Cognitive dissonance theory highlights the discomfort people experience when their views conflict with those portrayed by influential figures they admire (Festinger, 1957). As a result, voters may find it challenging to relate to the issues championed by celebrities, which can seem disconnected from their realities, like job security or healthcare costs.

Moreover, developmental psychology underscores the importance of perspective-taking, which involves understanding and considering others’ viewpoints. This aspect is sometimes lacking in celebrity endorsements, as they may project issues that resonate within celebrity circles but overlook the varied concerns of everyday citizens (Eisenberg & Lennon, 1983). For instance, issues like climate change or social justice, while necessary, may not connect with voters who are more focused on economic or local concerns. This highlights the need for a more comprehensive approach to celebrity endorsements.

Key Limitations of Celebrity Endorsements in Politics

Celebrity endorsements often fall short as an indicator of public opinion for several reasons:

1. Lack of Nuance and Diversity in Political Perspectives: Many endorsements are one-dimensional, focusing on a limited range of issues without acknowledging political discourse’s broader, multifaceted nature. This narrow focus may fail to connect with voters who prioritize various issues.
2. Absence of Grassroots Engagement: Unlike grassroots movements, which engage communities directly, celebrity endorsements are typically top-down and lack the local relevance needed to resonate with all demographics. Authentic political engagement often requires face-to-face interaction and attention to local needs, which celebrity endorsements often need to improve.
3. Polarization and Disconnect from “Middle America”: Celebrities tend to adopt polarized viewpoints that resonate with their primary audiences, which may alienate moderate or undecided voters. This effect, in turn, limits the reach and impact of endorsements, particularly among demographics that feel ignored by celebrity messaging.
4. Perceived Inauthenticity and “Out-of-Touch” Sentiment: Celebrity lifestyles and perspectives can feel disconnected from average people, leading many to view these endorsements as inauthentic. When endorsements seem misaligned with the realities of everyday citizens, they may be dismissed as out of touch with broader concerns.

Towards a More Inclusive Democracy

Despite extensive celebrity endorsements, the surprising outcomes of recent elections underscore the limitations of relying on celebrities as political influencers. Although celebrities like Taylor Swift and Elon Musk have impressive social media reach, totaling millions of followers, more visibility is needed to equate to broad political representation. Celebrity endorsements may create awareness, but they often fail to resonate with all demographics, especially those who feel overlooked.

A balanced democracy requires consideration of diverse voices, including those beyond the spotlight. While celebrities can raise awareness, authentic democratic engagement involves listening to the voices of all citizens, including those without a platform. How to capture a complete sentiment in the future remains unseen, and although they are supportive of their efforts, celebrities may not be the most accurate barometer.