Presidential Candidates as Viewed by First Time Voters and Its Impact in Choosing a Candidate

This study examined how first-time voters at the University of Science and Technology of Southern Philippines perceived the 2016 presidential candidates and how these perceptions influenced their candidate preferences. Specifically, it analyzed respondents’ demographic profiles (age and gender), perceptions of candidates’ popularity and political literacy, candidate ranking, and the extent to which these factors shaped voting decisions. A descriptive-survey research design was employed, with data gathered from 103 first-time voters using purposive sampling. Descriptive statistics and regression analysis were used to interpret the data. Findings revealed that most respondents were aged 18–19, indicating early-stage electoral participation, with a nearly balanced gender distribution. Among the candidates, Rodrigo Duterte was consistently perceived as both the most popular and politically literate, and he likewise ranked highest in voter preference. Results further showed that political literacy had a stronger influence on candidate evaluation than popularity in specific cases, although emotional appeal and media visibility remained significant factors in shaping perceptions. Regression analysis indicated that voter preferences were not uniformly determined by a single factor but were instead influenced by an interaction of cognitive and affective dimensions. The study concludes that first-time voters’ electoral decisions are shaped by both informational and emotional influences, highlighting the need to strengthen civic education and media literacy programs to promote more informed democratic participation.

First-time voters; political literacy; candidate perception; popularity; electoral behavior

1. Aldrich, J. H., McKelvey, R. D., & Ordeshook, P. C. (2018). A theory of voting. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Albarece, J. M., Montano, R. L., & Dela Cruz, A. P. (2023). Social media influence on political engagement among Filipino youth. Philippine Journal of Communication Studies, 15(1), 45–60. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Boulianne, S. (2020). Twenty years of digital media effects on civic and political participation. New Media & Society, 22(3), 409–426. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818815319 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Caprara, G. V., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2004). Personalizing politics: A congruency model of political preference. American Psychologist, 59(7), 581–594. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.7.581 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Commission on Elections. (2023). Voter statistics report: 2022 national and local elections. https://www.comelec.gov.ph [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Curato, N. (2017). Politics of anxiety, politics of hope: Penal populism and Duterte’s rise to power. Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs, 36(3), 91–109. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Cruz, C., & Tusalem, R. F. (2023). Personality politics and voter preference in the Philippines. Asian Journal of Political Science, 31(2), 145–162. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Dalton, R. J. (2016). The participation gap: Social status and political inequality. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Dayrit, K. M., Albao, J. M., & Cleofas, J. V. (2022). Youth political participation and digital engagement in the Philippines. Journal of Youth Studies, 25(6), 789–805. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2021.1873408 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. Harper & Row. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Esaiasson, P., & Holmberg, S. (1996). Representation from above. Dartmouth Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Galston, W. A. (2001). Political knowledge, political engagement, and civic education. Annual Review of Political Science, 4, 217–234. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.4.1.217 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Jennings, M. K., & Niemi, R. G. (2015). Generations and politics. Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1973). Uses and gratifications research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 37(4), 509–523. https://doi.org/10.1086/268109 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Krook, M. L., & Norris, P. (2014). Beyond quotas: Gender equality in politics. Political Studies, 62(1), 2–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.12019 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Libed, G. D., & Borres, R. J. (2018). Emotional development and decision-making among young voters. Philippine Social Science Journal, 1(1), 23–35. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Mudde, C. (2007). Populist radical right parties in Europe. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Pelizzo, R., & Stapenhurst, R. (2013). Parliamentary oversight tools. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Pew Research Center. (2021). Social media use and political engagement among young adults. https://www.pewresearch.org [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Philippine Statistics Authority. (2023). Youth population statistics in the Philippines. https://www.psa.gov.ph [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). Social identity theory. In The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Teehankee, J. C. (2016). Electoral politics in the Philippines. In Electoral dynamics in Southeast Asia. NUS Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Tufekci, Z. (2017). Twitter and tear gas: The power and fragility of networked protest. Yale University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Vitak, J., Zube, P., Smock, A., Carr, C. T., Ellison, N., & Lampe, C. (2011). It’s complicated: Facebook users’ political participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 16(4), 659–680. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2011.01575.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Methane Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste - Case Study in Cai Rang District, Can Tho City, Vietnam
• Youth Activism, Intentional Integration of Policies to Raise Awareness on Climate Change Action among the Youth
• Breathing Spaces: Environmental & User Experience in Dhanmondi and Zigatola Multistoried Apartments, Dhaka, Bangladesh
• Effects of Solid Waste Disposal on Soil Quality in Makurdi Metropolis, Benue State, Nigeria
• Environmental Impact of Artisanal and Small-Scale Gold Mining in Borgu Local Government Area