Gender Differences in Emotional Reactions to the First 2016 Presidential Debate

Abstract

The first presidential debate of 2016 was historic along a number of dimensions, including the first woman general election candidate and the first general election candidate in history with no political or military experience. Given the presence of the first woman nominee of a major party, along with dramatic gender differences in support for the candidates, we focus on the role of gender in shaping people’s emotional responses to candidate messaging during the debate. Through the use of a controlled experiment, we measure changes in attitudes after exposure to the debate. In addition, we utilize facial expression software to explore real-time reaction to the candidates during the debate. Leveraging data generated during the debate by the facial expression software and as well as responses to pretest and post-test questionnaires, we find that men and women respond differently to candidates’ messaging during the debate and these emotional responses influence post-debate evaluations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Notes

  1. 1.

    The gender gap figures come from a Washington Post-ABC News poll conducted between September 5 and 8, 2016 among a random national sample of 1002 adults. https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/politics/washington-post-abc-news-national-poll-sept-5-8-2016/2090/.

  2. 2.

    Shalby (2016).

  3. 3.

    See also Roseman et al. (2013).

  4. 4.

    In contrast, Kemper’s structural theory of emotion (Kemper 1978) theorizes that individuals’ social position, rather than cultural norms, influence people’s emotional responses in specific social situations. In many situations, emotions predicted by cultural norms overlap with the emotions predicted by social positions.

  5. 5.

    Different emotions produce divergent reactions from people. For instance, anger often induces political participation and may lead voters to take risks, while fear may encourage voters to look for new information, withdraw from action, or avoid risks (see, for example, Huddy et al. 2015; Valentino et al. 2011; Valentino et al. 2018).

  6. 6.

    The first presidential debate did not include opening or closing statements by the candidates. The debate began with Lester Holt introducing the first segment, “Achieving Prosperity.” A transcript of the entire debate can be found here: https://www.npr.org/2016/09/26/495115346/fact-check-first-presidential-debate?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20160926.

  7. 7.

    This study was part of larger study where 177 subjects were recruited, with 91 subjects randomly assigned to the debate condition and 86 assigned to the control condition.

  8. 8.

    For subjects at the southeastern campus, subjects were told that a webcam would be recording their facial expressions during the debate, while subjects on the southwestern campus were not told explicitly that their facial expressions would be recorded during the debate. During the debriefing, subjects on the southwestern campus were told about the recording of their facial expressions.

  9. 9.

    At the southwestern university, students completed the survey, via Qualtrics, on their desktop computers. At the southeastern university, subjects completed a pencil and paper questionnaire. At the completion of the study, students at the southwestern university received the following debriefing: “Thank you for your participation in this research study. The goal of this study is to determine how people react to presidential debates. To examine the impact of the presidential debate, people were randomly assigned to watch the debate or watch a non-political video. During the time that you watched the debate, the video camera on the computer delivering the video recorded your facial reactions. We are using a computer program to extract your emotional reactions to the video and after the emotional data is extracted, we will delete the video recorded during your experimental session. The facial data will never be associated with your name. Again, thank you for your participation”.

  10. 10.

    The video data collected by each webcam was set to a frame rate of 30 frames per second and a camera resolution of 640 × 480 pixels.

  11. 11.

    Students were not exposed to any commentary from PBS anchors. The viewing of the debate began with the moderator’s introductory comments.

  12. 12.

    In Appendix B of ESM, we present the exact question wording for the measures examined in this paper.

  13. 13.

    The most systematic large scale investigation of FACS reliability in spontaneous facial behavior was done by Sayette et al. (2001). In this study, the researchers induced changes in facial expression by using emotion inductions (e.g., olfactory stimulation). The researchers found that high levels of reliability for all but two action units. In addition, concurrent validity has been established by comparing manual FACS coding with computer based approaches (e.g., Cohn et al. 2007; Pantic and Patras 2006.).

  14. 14.

    While Emotient FACET extracts two complex emotions (i.e., frustration and confusion), we do not include these advanced emotions in our analysis. We present a screen shot of the Emotient FACET display in Figure A1 in the Appendix A of ESM.

  15. 15.

    See Chaplin and Aldao (2013)for a review of internalizing and externalizing emotions.

  16. 16.

    See https://help.imotions.com/hc/en-us/articles/205256321-FACET-FAQ. Given the content and format of the debate, we do not anticipate dramatic emotional reactions, as we might expect if subjects are playing a video game or watching an action movie. Therefore, we have measured the micro-expressions of emotion that are more commonly displayed in response to content like the debates by setting the Emotient FACET threshold at 0.05.

  17. 17.

    Three distinct theories have been advanced (i.e., the valence theory, the discrete theory, the appraisal theory) to study the role of emotions (see Marcus 2003 for a review). In this paper, we choose a discrete approach because we are interested in exploring the expression and impact of specific internalizing and externalizing emotions.

  18. 18.

    The complete data set and questionnaires are available via ICPSR. Replication code for the analyses presented here are available via the Political Behavior Dataverse: https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataverse/polbehavior).

  19. 19.

    These moments were chosen a priori to represent different policy areas as well as moments corresponding to each candidate’s strengths and weaknesses (e.g., Hillary Clinton on the email scandal; Donald Trump on releasing his taxes). Given constraints of the software, it was necessary to examine short periods of time (i.e., less than 10 min) rather than the entire debate. The eight moments range in time from 6 minutes and 26 seconds for Moment #3 to 8 minutes and 53 seconds for Moment #2 (see Appendix C of ESM). These 8 moments are the only time periods where we have collected the respondents’ emotional reactions to the ninety-minute debate. Looking across the moments of the debate, people appear to react in meaningful ways to changes in the content of the debate. For instance, expressions of contempt are highest among men and women when Donald Trump is defending his role in the birther controversy (i.e., Moment #5), while expressions of disgust are lowest when both candidates discuss their plans for the combatting ISIS (i.e., Moment #6).

  20. 20.

    For more discussion of the Emotient FACET technology, see Appendix D of ESM.

  21. 21.

    Although 91 subjects participated in the emotions debate conditions, we have complete emotion data for 66 of the 91 subjects. Subjects may be missing from the emotions dataset because their faces may have become obscured during the debate or because they were sitting too far from the computer at different times during the debate. We should note that most studies utilizing software and hardware to automatically code facial expressions utilize small sample sizes. For example, Fasel and Luettin (2003) review studies relying on automatic facial expression analysis and find that the number of subjects in these studies ranged from 8 to 40.

  22. 22.

    Fear is expressed, on average, in 1% of the frames (with a standard error of 0.8), while anger is expressed an average of 6% of the frames (with a standard error of 1.4), contempt is expressed, on average, in 12% of the frames (with a standard error of 1.5), disgust is expressed, on average, in 3% of the frames (with a standard error of 0.60) and sadness is expressed in 6% of the frames, on average (with a standard error of 1.4).

  23. 23.

    We can compare expressions of sadness, anger and disgust (i.e., the emotions where we find significant gender differences) for men and women who identify as Democrats and for men and women who identify as Republicans. Beginning with Democrats, we find women are more likely to express sadness, averaging expressions of sadness in 8.22 frames, compared to 4.45 frames for men, while men express anger (an average of 7.44 frames) and disgust (an average of 5.13 frames) more often than women (an average of 2.89 frames for anger and an average of 1.51 frames for disgust). The number of respondents in each group is small, making it difficult to achieve statistical significance. (The gender differences in expressions of disgust do reach statistical significance at p < 0.05). Turning to Republicans, men express more anger (an average of 15.95 frames) and disgust (an average of 4.96 frames) than women (an average of 2.54 frames for anger and an average of 1.48 frames for disgust), but men and women express similar expressions of sadness (an average of 4.22 frames for men and 3.14 frames for women). For Republicans, the differences between men and women fail to achieve statistical significance. Finally, we examine whether the gender differences in emotional responses persist when we control for the party of the respondent. In particular, we estimated a series of OLS regressions predicting the five different emotions, including gender and partisanship as independent variables. In this analysis, party fails to achieve statistical significance in any of the five models. In contrast, gender continues to significantly influence people’s expressions of anger and disgust, but fails to achieve statistical significance in the model predicting expressions of sadness (although the coefficient is positive, indicating that women are more likely to express sadness). In additional analyses, we reestimated the OLS regressions predicting the five emotions with partisanship, gender, and an interaction between gender and partisanship. In this multiplicative analysis, the interaction term failed to reach statistical significance in any of the five models. We estimated party in two ways; democrats = 1, republicans = 0 (excluding independents) and democrats = 1, independents = 0, republicans = − 1 and the results are unchanged.

  24. 24.

    Again, we examine whether gender differences in emotional expressions across the 8 moments persist when we control for partisanship. In particular, we look at whether the gender differences in expressions of sadness, anger and disgust persist when we compare emotional expressions within Democratic respondents and within republican respondents for each of the 8 moments. Among democrats, we find that women express more sadness than men for each of the 8 moments (although these differences fail to reach statistical significance for any of the eight moments). Democratic men express more anger and disgust than Democratic women for each of the eight moments and these differences reach statistical significance three times for anger and four times for disgust. Among Republicans, we find that women express more sadness than men in only 3 of the 8 moments (although none of the gender differences reach statistical significance for any of the eight moments). Republican men express more anger than Republican women for each of the eight moments, with the difference reaching statistical significance for one of the moments. Finally, Republican men express more disgust than Republican women for 7 of the 8 moments, reaching statistical significance for one of the moments.

  25. 25.

    In Appendix C of ESM, we present the proportion of time each candidate is speaking for each of the eight moments. Clinton spoke more that Trump in only one of the 8 moments during the debate (moment 4, during which the discussion primarily concerned implicit racial bias).

  26. 26.

    See Appendix C of ESM for a full transcript of each of the moments in the debate.

  27. 27.

    See Appendix B of ESM for exact question wording of the dependent variables and see Table A2 for a detailed description of the measures and summary statistics.

  28. 28.

    See Brambor et al. (2005) for a discussion of how to properly specify interaction models.

  29. 29.

    We center all of the non-dichotomous independent variables in our analysis to reduce multicollinearity (Aiken et al. 1991) and increase the ease of interpretation (Williams 2015). The results do not changed markedly when we do not center these variables.

  30. 30.

    We eliminated the interaction term between sadness and gender because of high levels of multicollinearity. In the models predicting Trump’s debate performance and Clinton’s debate performance, VIF is greater than 10 and the tolerance is less than 0.10 for sadnesss and sadness × gender, indicating high levels of multicollinearity between these component terms.

  31. 31.

    Low values are set a 0 and high values are one standard deviation above 0. In estimated the interaction effects, we place all remaining variables at their mean. In addition, the dummy variable for race is set to 0.

  32. 32.

    Since displays of emotions cannot be connected to a specific candidate (e.g.,, we cannot tell whether people are showing disgust when Trump is talking or when Clinton is talking), we cannot be sure if women are disgusted by Clinton or Trump. We do know that levels of disgust for women are not related to the amount of time that Trump or Clinton is talking during the moments during the debate (see Fig. 1). Our findings displayed in Fig. 2c may reflect that (1) women with high levels of disgust are disgusted by Clinton and, therefore, expressions of disgust produce positive views of Trump’s debate performance or (2) women’s expressions of disgust are produced by their disgust that Trump is doing well in the debate and therefore, high levels of disgust are associated with positive assessments of Trump’s debate performance.

  33. 33.

    Assessments of debate performance are electorally relevant. We find a significant relationship between assessments of Trump’s debate performance and people’s intended vote choice as indicated on the post-debate questionnaire (1 = intend to vote for Clinton, − 1 intend to vote for Trump and 0 = intend to vote for someone else) with a χ2 (16, n = 88) = 45.64, p < 0.01. We also find a significant relationship between assessments of Clinton’s debate performance and intended vote choice with a χ2 (14, n = 88) = 31.91, p < 0.01.

  34. 34.

    In the OLS regression predicting post-debate feeling thermometer scores for Trump, the unstandardized coefficient for Trump’s debate performance ratings is 4.87 with a standard error of 0.80 (p < 0.01). In the OLS regression predicting post-debate feeling thermometer scores for Clinton, the unstandardized coefficient for Clinton’s debate performance is 3.13 with a standard error of 0.96 (p < 0.01).

  35. 35.

    As before, we center all of the non-dichotomous independent variables (with the exception of feeling thermometer scores at T1) in our analysis to reduce multicollinearity (Aiken et al. 1991) and increase the ease of interpretation (Williams 2015). And, again, the results do not changed markedly when we do not center these variables.

  36. 36.

    Low values of each emotion are set a 0 and high values are one standard deviation above 0. In estimating the interaction effects, we place all remaining variables at their mean. In addition, the dummy variable for race is set to 0.

  37. 37.

    Once again, it was necessary for us to eliminate the interaction term between sadness and gender because of high levels of multicollinearity. In the models predicting changes in evaluations of Trump and Clinton, VIF is greater than 10 and the tolerance is less than 0.10 for sadnesss and sadness*gender, indicating high levels of multicollinearity between these component terms. In the model predicting changes in feeling thermometer scores for Clinton (pre-debate to post-debate), we find that people who feel sadness become less favorable in their views towards Clinton after watching the debate. Feelings of sadness are not related to changes in people’s impressions of Trump.

  38. 38.

    As the data in Table 4 shows, the interaction coefficient for anger, while positive, does not reach statistical significance.

  39. 39.

    The dependent variable is coded 1 for people who say they will vote for Clinton, − 1 for people who say they will vote for Trump, and 0 for people who prefer an third party candidate or do not have a preference. See Appendix B of ESM for exact question wording.

  40. 40.

    The parameter estimate for Clinton feeling thermometer scores (at the posttest) is 0.08 (with a standard error of 0.02, p < 0.01) and the parameter estimate for Trump feeling thermometer scores is -0.05 (with a standard error of 0.02, p < 0.01). Party identification, gender and race fail to reach statistical significance.

  41. 41.

    We do not look at changes in vote preference because 79.5% of the sample do not change their vote preference from the pretest questionnaire to the posttest questionnaire.

References

  1. Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Allen, J. G., & Haccoun, D. M. (1976). Sex differences in emotionality: A multidimensional approach. Human Relations, 29(8), 711–722.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Archer, J. (2004). Sex differences in aggression in real-world settings: A meta-analytic review. Review of General Psychology, 8(4), 291–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Barreto, M., & Ellemers, N. (2005). The burden of benevolent sexism: How it contributes to the maintenance of gender inequalities. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35(5), 633–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Barrett, L. F., Robin, L., Pietromonaco, P. R., & Eyssell, K. M. (1998). Are women the “more emotional” sex? Evidence from emotional experiences in social context. Cognition and Emotion, 12(4), 555–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Batra, R., & Stayman, D. M. (1990). The role of mood in advertising effectiveness. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(2), 203–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Benoit, W., Blaney, J., & Pier, P. M. (1998). Campaign’96: A functional analysis of acclaiming, attacking, and defending. Santa Barbara: Greenwood Publishing Group.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Benoit, W., & Hansen, G. J. (2004). Presidential debate watching, issue knowledge, character evaluation, and vote choice. Human Communication Research, 30(1), 121–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bonanno, G. A., & Keltner, D. (1997). Facial expressions of emotion and the course of conjugal bereavement. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106(1), 126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Boydstun, A. E., Glazier, R. A., Pietryka, M. T., & Resnik, P. (2014). Real-time reactions to a 2012 presidential debate: A method for understanding which messages matter. Public Opinion Quarterly, 78(S1), 330–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Brader, T. (2005). Striking a responsive chord: How political ads motivate and persuade voters by appealing to emotions. American Journal of Political Science, 49(2), 388–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Brambor, T., Clark, W. R., & Golder, M. (2005). Understanding interaction models: Improving empirical analyses. Political Analysis, 14(1), 63–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Briton, N. J., & Hall, J. A. (1995). Beliefs about female and male nonverbal communication. Sex Roles, 32(1–2), 79–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Brody, L. (2009). Gender, emotion, and the family. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Brody, L. R., & Hall, J. A. (2000). Gender and emotion in context. In M. Lewis, J. M. Haviland-Jones, & L. F. Barrett (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (3rd ed., pp. 395–408). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Cassese, E. C., & Hannagan, R. (2015). Framing and women’s support for government spending on breast cancer research and treatment programs. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 15(1), 69–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Cassese, E. C., & Holman, M. R. (2017). Playing the gender card: Ambivalent sexism in the 2016 presidential race. Resisting women’s political leadership conference, Rutgers, New Brunswick, New Jersey.

  18. Chaplin, T. M., & Aldao, A. (2013). Gender differences in emotion expression in children: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 139(4), 735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Cheavens, J. S., & Ritsche, L. A. (2014). Hope theory. In M. M. Tugade, M. N. Shiota, & L. D. Kirby (Eds.), Handbook of positive emotions (pp. 396–412). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Civettini, A., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2005). A feeling person’s game: Affect and voter information processing and learning in a campaign. In Annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC.

  21. Coats, E. J., & Feldman, R. S. (1996). Gender differences in nonverbal correlates of social status. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(10), 1014–1022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Cohn, J. F., & Ekman, P. (2005). Measuring facial action. In J. Harrigan, R. Rosenthal, K. R. Scherer, & K. Scherer (Eds.), The new handbook of methods in nonverbal behavior research (pp. 9–64). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Cohn, J. F., Ambadar, Z., & Ekman, P. (2007). Observer-based measurement of facial expression with the Facial Action Coding System. In J. A. Coan & J. J. B. Allen (Eds.), The handbook of emotion elicitation and assessment. Oxford University Press series in affective science (pp. 203–221). New York, NY: Oxford University.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Craig, S. D., D’Mello, S., Witherspoon, A., & Graesser, A. (2008). Emote aloud during learning with AutoTutor: Applying the facial action coding system to cognitive–affective states during learning. Cognition and Emotion, 22(5), 777–788.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Dimberg, U., & Lundquist, L.-O. (1990). Gender differences in facial reactions to facial expressions. Biological Psychology, 30(2), 151–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Dolan, K. (2008). Is there a “gender affinity effect” in American politics? Information, affect, and candidate sex in US House elections. Political Research Quarterly, 61(1), 79–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1976). Measuring facial movement. Environmental Psychology and Nonverbal Behavior, 1(1), 56–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Ekman, P., & Rosenberg, E. L. (Eds.). (1997). What the face reveals: Basic and applied studies of spontaneous expression using the facial action coding system (FACS). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Enten, H. (2016). Americans’ distaste for both Trump and Clinton is record-breaking. Five Thirty Eight. Retrieved July 13, 2017. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-distaste-for-both-trump-and-clinton-is-record-breaking/.

  31. Fasel, B., & Luettin, J. (2003). Automatic facial expression analysis: A survey. Pattern Recognition, 36(1), 259–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Fischer, A. H., & Roseman, I. J. (2007). Beat them or ban them: The characteristics and social functions of anger and contempt. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(1), 103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Fridkin, K. L., Kenney, P. J., Gershon, S. A., Shafer, K., & Woodall, G. S. (2007). Capturing the power of a campaign event: The 2004 presidential debate in Tempe. The Journal of Politics, 69(3), 770–785.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Fujita, F., Diener, E., & Sandvik, E. (1991). Gender differences in negative affect and well-being: The case for emotional intensity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6(3), 427–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Geer, J. G. (1988). The effects of presidential debates on the electorate’s preferences for candidates. American Politics Quarterly, 16(4), 486–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Grunau, R. V., & Craig, K. D. (1987). Pain expression in neonates: Facial action and cry. Pain, 28(3), 395–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Harshman, R. A., & Paivio, A. (1987). “ Paradoxical” sex differences in self-reported imagery. Canadian Journal of Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie, 41(3), 287–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Hatemi, P. K., McDermott, R., Eaves, L. J., Kendler, K. S., & Neale, M. C. (2013). Fear as a disposition and an emotional state: A genetic and environmental approach to out-group political preferences. American Journal of Political Science, 57(2), 279–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Heshmati, S., Sbarra, D. A., & Mason, A. E. (2017). The contemptuous separation: Facial expressions of emotion and breakups in young adulthood. Personal Relationship, 24, 453–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Hillygus, D. Sunshine, & Jackman, S. (2003). Voter decision making in election 2000: Campaign effects, partisan activation, and the Clinton legacy. American Journal of Political Science, 47(4), 583–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Hochschild, A. R. (1975). The sociology of feeling and emotion: Selected possibilities. Sociological Inquiry, 45(2–3), 280–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Holbrook, M. B., & Batra, R. (1987). Assessing the role of emotions as mediators of consumer responses to advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(3), 404–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Huddy, L., Mason, L., & Aarøe, L. (2015). Expressive partisanship: Campaign involvement, political emotion, and partisan identity. American Political Science Review, 109(1), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Hullett, C. R., Louden, A. D., & Mitra, A. (2003). Emotion and political cognition: A test of bipolar, two-dimensional, and discrete models of emotion in predicting involvement and learning. Communication Monographs, 70(3), 250–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Hutcherson, C. A., & Gross, J. J. (2011). The moral emotions: A social–functionalist account of anger, disgust, and contempt. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(4), 719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Jarman, J. W. (2005). Political affiliation and presidential debates: A real-time analysis of the effect of the arguments used in the presidential debates. American Behavioral Scientist, 49(2), 229–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Kam, C. D., Archer, Allison M. N., & Geer, J. G. (2017). Courting the women’s vote: The emotional, cognitive, and persuasive effects of gender-based appeals in campaign advertisements. Political Behavior, 39, 51–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Kemper, T. D. (1978). A social interactional theory of emotions. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Kring, A. M., & Gordon, A. H. (1998). Sex differences in emotion: Expression, experience, and physiology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(3), 686–703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Lanoue, D. J., & Schrott, P. R. (1989). Voters’ reactions to televised presidential debates: Measurement of the source and magnitude of opinion change. Political Psychology, 10(2), 275–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Lemert, J. B. (1993). Do televised presidential debates help inform voters? Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 37(1), 83–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Lodge, M., & Taber, C. S. (2013). The rationalizing voter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Luomala, H. T., & Laaksonen, M. (2000). Contributions from mood research. Psychology & Marketing, 17(3), 195–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Marcus, G. E. (2003). The psychology of emotion and politics. In D. O. Sears, L. Huddy, & R. Jervis (Eds.), Oxford handbook of political psychology (pp. 182–221). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Marcus, G. E., MacKuen, M., Wolak, J., & Keele, L. (2006). The measure and mismeasure of emotion. In D. Redlawsk (Ed.), Feeling politics: Emotion in political information processing (pp. 31–45). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Marcus, G. E., Russell Neuman, W., & MacKuen, M. (2000). Affective intelligence and political judgment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  58. McDuff, D., El Kaliouby, R., Kodra, E., & Picard, R. (2013). Measuring voter’s candidate preference based on affective responses to election debates. In 2013 Humaine Association conference on affective computing and intelligent interaction (ACII) (pp. 369–374). IEEE.

  59. McKinney, M. S., & Carlin, D. B. (2004). Political campaign debates. In L. L. Kaid (Ed.), Handbook of political communication research (pp. 203–234). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Miller, A. H., & MacKuen, M. (1979). Learning about the candidates: The 1976 presidential debates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 43(3), 326–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Munro, G. D., Ditto, P. H., Lockhart, L. K., Fagerlin, A., Gready, M., & Peterson, E. (2002). Biased assimilation of sociopolitical arguments: Evaluating the 1996 US presidential debate. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 24(1), 15–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Pantic, M., & Patras, I. (2006). Dynamics of facial expression: Recognition of facial actions and their temporal segments from face profile image sequences. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B (Cybernetics), 36(2), 433–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Patterson, T. E. (1993). Out of Order. New York: Knopf Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Petersen, M. B. (2010). Distinct emotions, distinct domains: Anger, anxiety and perceptions of intentionality. The Journal of Politics, 72(2), 357–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Petty, R. E., DeSteno, D., & Rucker, D. D. (2001). The role of affect in attitude change. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.), Handbook of affect and social cognition (pp. 212–233). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Redlawsk, D. (Ed.). (2006). Feeling politics: Emotion in political information processing. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Roseman, I. J., Johnston, B. M., Garguilo, S., Floman, J. L., Bryant, A. D., Johnston, G., & Nugen, M. K. (2013). Emotions mediate perception of candidates in presidential debates. In Poster presented at the 25th annual convention, Eastern Psychological Association, New York, NY.

  68. Rozin, P., Lowery, L., Imada, S., & Haidt, J. (1999). The CAD triad hypothesis: A mapping between three moral emotions (contempt, anger, disgust) and three moral codes (community, autonomy, divinity). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(4), 574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Sayette, M. A., Cohn, J. F., Wertz, J. M., Perrott, M. A., & Parrott, D. J. (2001). A psychometric evaluation of the facial action coding system for assessing spontaneous expression. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 25(3), 167–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Schill, D., & Kirk, R. (2017). Angry, passionate, and divided: Undecided voters and the 2016 presidential election. American Behavioral Scientist, 61(9), 1056–1076.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Schrott, P. R., & Lanoue, D. J. (2013). The power and limitations of televised presidential debates: Assessing the real impact of candidate performance on public opinion and vote choice. Electoral Studies, 32(4), 684–692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Shalby, C. (2016). A brief history of the Trump campaign’s controversies with women. The Los Angeles Times, October 9, 2016. http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-campaign-insults-women-20161009-snap-htmlstory.html. Accessed August 4, 2017.

  73. Simon, R. W., & Nath, L. E. (2004). Gender and emotion in the United States: Do men and women differ in self-reports of feelings and expressive behavior? American Journal of Sociology, 109(5), 1137–1176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Stapley, J. C., & Haviland, J. M. (1989). Beyond depression: Gender differences in normal adolescents’ emotional experiences. Sex Roles, 20(5–6), 295–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Steeper, F. T. (1978). Public response to Gerald Ford’s statements on eastern Europe in the second debate. In G. F. Bishop, R. G. Meadow, & M. Jackson-Beeck (Eds.), The presidential debates: Media, electoral, and policy perspectives (pp. 84–86). New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Stelter, B. (2016). Debate breaks record as most-watched in U.S. History. CNN Media. (September 27, 2016). Retrieved July 18, 2017. http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/27/media/debate-ratings-record-viewership/index.html.

  77. Suhay, E., & Erisen, C. (2017). The role of anger in the biased assimilation of political information. Political Psychology, 39, 793–810.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Teixeira, T., Wedel, M., & Pieters, R. (2012). Emotion-induced engagement in internet video advertisements. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(2), 144–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Tracy, J. L., Weidman, A. C., Cheng, J. T., & Martens, J. P. (2014). The fundamental emotion of success, power, and status. In M. Tugade, L. Shiota, & L. Kriby (Eds.), Handbook of positive emotions (pp. 294–310). New York: Guildford.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Valentino, N. A., Brader, T., Groenendyk, E. W., Gregorowicz, K., & Hutchings, V. L. (2011). Election night’s alright for fighting: The role of emotions in political participation. The Journal of Politics, 73(1), 156–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Valentino, N. A., Wayne, C., & Oceno, M. (2018). Mobilizing sexism: The interaction of emotion and gender attitudes in the 2016 US presidential election. Public Opinion Quarterly, 82, 213–235.

    Google Scholar 

  82. William, R. (2015). Interpreting interaction effects: Interaction effects and centering. Retrieved May 25, 2018 from http://www.nd.edu/~rwilliam/stats2/l53.pdf.

  83. Yawn, M., & Beatty, B. (2000). Debate-induced opinion change: What matters? American Politics Quarterly, 28(2), 270–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 2017 American Political Science Association Meeting. The data collection for this project was supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1650397. We would like to thank the following students who helped with the debate experiments: Zachary Arlington, Ryan Deutsch, Joshua Galvan, Sammy Goldenberg, Micah Kyler and especially Manny Gutierrez. Abigail Bowen, Bailey Fairbanks, Chanel Harley, Liam Hayes, Justin Kingsland, Matthew Montgomery, Reagan Griggs Prichett, Abdelrahman Rashdan and Adnan Rasool.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah Allen Gershon.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 396 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (PDF 61 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fridkin, K.L., Gershon, S.A., Courey, J. et al. Gender Differences in Emotional Reactions to the First 2016 Presidential Debate. Polit Behav (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-019-09546-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Debates
  • Emotions
  • Political attitudes
  • Gender