Advertisement

Facing Your Competition: Findings from the 2016 Presidential Election

  • Patrick A. StewartEmail author
  • Elena Svetieva
  • Austin Eubanks
  • Jason M. Miller
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter expands on the literature concerning media coverage of competition for political office. More specifically, we consider how visual presentation choices of the candidates and their display behavior intersect to influence public perception. We do so by summarizing research carried out concerning visual priming and visual framing during the 2016 presidential election. We first consider the visual frames of presidential candidates in competitive contexts, namely the primary and general election debates. Specifically, we recount findings from a content analysis of the visual frames used during the first two primary debates for each political party, as well as the findings from two field experiments during the general election concerning participant response to the different frames presented by networks during the first debate and available to them during the third debate and how this influenced trait evaluations. We conclude by discussing the interactive influence of the visual presentation styles chosen by networks, the facial displays by the candidates, and the larger context of the election on public perceptions.

References

  1. Abelson, R. P., Kinder, D. R., Peters, M. D., & Fiske, S. T. (1982). Affective and semantic components in political person perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(4), 619–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. App, B., McIntosh, D. N., Reed, C. L., & Hertenstein, M. J. (2011). Nonverbal channel use in communication of emotion: How may depend on why. Emotion, 11(3), 603–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Azari, J. R. (2016). How the news media helped to nominate trump. Political Communication, 33(4), 677–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bargh, J. (1994). The four horsemen of automaticity: Intention, awareness, efficiency, and control as separate issues. In R. S. Wyer & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition: Applications (pp. 1–40). New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  5. Barner-Barry, C. (1986). An introduction to nonparticipant observational research techniques. Politics and the Life Sciences, 5(1), 139–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beattie, G. (2016). Rethinking body language: How hand movements reveal hidden thoughts. New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  7. Benoit, W. L. (2013). Political election debates: Informing voters about policy and character. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  8. Bucy, E. P. (2000). Emotional and evaluative consequences of inappropriate leader displays. Communication Research, 27(2), 194–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bucy, E. P. (2017). Media biopolitics: The emergence of a subfield. In S. A. Peterson & A. Somit (Eds.), Handbook of biology and politics (pp. 284–303). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bucy, E. P., & Newhagen, J. E. (1999). The micro- and macro-drama of politics on television: Effects of media format on candidate evaluations. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 43(2), 193–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bull, P. E. (1987). Posture and gesture (Vol. 16). New York, NY: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  12. Chance, M. R. A. (1967). Attention structure as the basis of primate rank orders. Man, 2(4), 503–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cho, J., Shah, D. V., Nah, S., & Brossard, D. (2009). “Split screens” and “spin rooms”: Debate modality, post-debate coverage, and the new videomalaise. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 53(2), 242–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cornwell, J. F., Bajger, A. T., & Higgins, E. T. (2015). Judging political hearts and minds: How political dynamics drive social judgments. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(8), 1053–1068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dowdle, A. J., Adkins, R. E., Sebold, K., & Cuellar, J. (2016). Forecasting presidential nominations in 2016: #WePredictedClintonANDTrump. PS: Political Science & Politics, 49(4), 691–695.Google Scholar
  16. Druckman, J. N. (2003). The power of television images: The first Kennedy‐Nixon debate revisited. Journal of Politics, 65(2), 559–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. (1989). Human ethology. New York, NY: Aldine De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  18. Engle, E. M., & Lord, R. G. (1997). Implicit theories, self-schemas, and leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 40(4), 988–1010.Google Scholar
  19. Fein, S., Goethals, G. R., & Kugler, M. B. (2007). Social influence on political judgments: The case of presidential debates. Political Psychology, 28(2), 165–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gakhal, B., & Senior, C. (2008). Examining the influence of fame in the presence of beauty: An electrodermal ‘neuromarketing’study. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 7(4–5), 331–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gong, Z. H., & Bucy, E. P. (2015). Image bite analysis of presidential debates. In R. X. Browning (Ed.), Exploring the C-SPAN archives: Advancing the research agenda (pp. 45–75). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Gong, Z. H., & Bucy, E. P. (2016). When style obscures substance: Visual attention to display appropriateness in the 2012 presidential debates. Communication Monographs, 83(3), 349–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Grabe, M. E., & Bucy, E. P. (2009). Image bite politics: News and the visual framing of elections. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hassin, R. R., Uleman, J. S., & Bargh, J. A. (Eds.). (2005). The new unconscious. Oxford Series in Social Cognition and Social Neuroscience. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Haumer, F., & Donsbach, W. (2009). The rivalry of nonverbal cues on the perception of politicians by television viewers. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 53(2), 262–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Iyengar, S., & Kinder, D. R. (1987). News that matters: Agenda-setting and priming in a television age. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  27. Iyengar, S., & McGrady, J. (2007). Media politics: A citizen’s guide. New York, NY: WW Norton.Google Scholar
  28. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  29. Kinder, D. R., Peters, M. D., Abelson, R. P., & Fiske, S. T. (1980). Presidential prototypes. Political Behavior, 2(4), 315–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Koppensteiner, M., & Grammer, K. (2010). Motion patterns in political speech and their influence on personality ratings. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(3), 374–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Koppensteiner, M., Stephan, P., & Jäschke, J. P. M. (2016). Moving speeches: Dominance, trustworthiness and competence in body motion. Personality and Individual Differences, 94(74), 101–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kwan, L. Y., Yap, S., & Chiu, C. (2015). Mere exposure affects perceived descriptive norms: Implications for personal preferences and trust. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 129(127), 48–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lanoue, D. J., & Schrott, P. R. (1991). The joint press conference: The history, impact, and prospects of American presidential debates. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  34. Laustsen, L., & Petersen, M. B. (2016). Winning faces vary by ideology: How nonverbal source cues influence election and communication success in politics. Political Communication, 33(2), 188–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lawrence, R. G., & Boydstun, A. E. (2016). What we should really be asking about media attention to Trump. Political Communication, 34(1), 1–4.Google Scholar
  36. Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (2002). Leadership and information processing: Linking perceptions and performance. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Masters, R. D. (1975). Politics as a biological phenomenon. Social Science Information, 14(2), 7–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Masters, R. D. (1988). Nice guys DON’T finish last: Aggressive and appeasement gestures in media images of politicians. In M. R. A. Chance (Ed.), Social fabrics of the mind (pp. 277–295). New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  39. Masters, R. D. (1989). The nature of politics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Masters, R. D., Frey, S., & Bente, G. (1991). Dominance & attention: Images of leaders in German, French, & American TV news. Polity, 23(3), 373–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mazur, A. (2005). Biosociology of dominance and deference. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  42. McKinney, M. S., & Warner, B. R. (2013). Do presidential debates matter? Examining a decade of campaign debate effects. Argumentation and Advocacy, 49(4), 238–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Murray, G. R., & Murray, S. M. (2011). Caveman executive leadership: Evolved leadership preferences and biological sex. In G. Saad (Ed.), Evolutionary psychology in the business sciences (pp. 135–163). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Murray, G. R., & Schmitz, J. D. (2011). Caveman politics: Evolutionary leadership preferences and physical stature. Social Science Quarterly, 92(5), 1215–1235.Google Scholar
  45. Mutz, D. C. (2007). Effects of “in-your-face” television discourse on perceptions of a legitimate opposition. American Political Science Review, 101(4), 621–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mutz, D. C. (2015). In-your-face politics: The consequences of uncivil media. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mutz, D. C., & Reeves, B. (2005). The new videomalaise: Effects of televised incivility on political trust. American Political Science Review, 99(1), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nabi, R. L., & Hendriks, A. (2003). The persuasive effect of host and audience reaction shots in television talk shows. Journal of Communication, 53(3), 527–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Newton, J. S., Masters, R. D., McHugo, G. J., & Sullivan, D. G. (1987). Making up our minds: Effects of network coverage on viewer impressions of leaders. Polity, 20(2), 226–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Norton, M. I., & Goethals, G. R. (2004). Spin (and pitch) doctors: Campaign strategies in televised political debates. Political Behavior, 26(3), 227–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Patterson, M. L. (2017). Nonverbal communication. In Reference module in neuroscience and biobehavioral psychology (pp. 1–10). Cambridge, MA: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  52. Patterson, M. L., Churchill, M. E., Burger, G. K., & Powell, J. L. (1992). Verbal and nonverbal modality effects on impressions of political candidates: Analysis from the 1984 presidential debates. Communication Monographs, 59(3), 231–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Patterson, T. E. (2016, June 20). Pre-primary news coverage of the 2016 presidential race: Trump’s rise, Sanders’ emergence, Clinton’s struggle. HKS Working Paper No. 16-023. Retrieved from https://shorensteincenter.org/pre-primary-news-coverage-2016-trump-clinton-sanders/
  54. Salter, F. K. (2007). Emotions in command: Biology, bureaucracy, and cultural evolution. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Pub.Google Scholar
  55. Scheufele, D. A., Kim, E., & Brossard, D. (2007). My friend’s enemy: How split-screen debate coverage influences evaluation of presidential debates. Communication Research, 34(1), 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schubert, J. N., Stewart, P. A., & Curran, M. A. (2002). A defining presidential moment: 9/11 and the rally effect. Political Psychology, 23(3), 559–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sides, J., & Vavreck, L. (2014). The gamble: Choice and chance in the 2012 presidential election. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Spisak, B. R., Nicholson, N., & van Vugt, M. (2011). Leadership in organizations: An evolutionary perspective. In G. Saad (Ed.), Evolutionary psychology in the business sciences (pp. 165–190). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Stewart, P. A., Eubanks, A. D., Dye, R. G., Eidelman, S., & Wicks, R. H. (2017). Visual presentation style 2: Influences on perceptions of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton based on visual presentation style during the third 2016 presidential debate. American Behavioral Scientist, 61(5), 545–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Stewart, P. A., Eubanks, A. D., & Miller, J. (Forthcoming). Visual priming and framing of the 2016 GOP and Democratic Party presidential primary debates. Politics and the Life Sciences.Google Scholar
  61. Stewart, P. A., & Mosely, J. (2009). Politicians under the microscope: Eye blink rates during the first bush-kerry debate. White House Studies, 9(4), 373–388.Google Scholar
  62. Sullivan, D. G., & Masters, R. D. (1988). ‘Happy warriors’: Leaders’ facial displays, viewers’ emotions, and political support. American Journal of Political Science, 32(2), 345–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sullivan, D. G., & Masters, R. D. (1994). Biopolitics, the media, and leadership: Nonverbal cues, emotions, and trait attributions in the evaluation of leaders. In A. Somit & S. A. Peterson (Eds.), Research in biopolitics: Biopolitics in the mainstream (2nd ed., pp. 237–273). Somerville, MA: Emerald Group Publishing, Ltd.Google Scholar
  64. Todorov, A., Mandisodza, A. N., Goren, A., & Hall, C. C. (2005). Inferences of competence from faces predict election outcomes. Science, 308(5728), 1623–1626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. van Vugt, M., & Ahuja, A. (2011). Naturally selected: The evolutionary science of leadership. New York, NY: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  66. Verrier, D. (2012). Evidence for the influence of the mere-exposure effect on voting in the Eurovision song contest. Judgement and Decision Making, 7(5), 639–643.Google Scholar
  67. Vigil, J. M. (2010). Political leanings vary with facial expression processing and psychosocial functioning. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13(5), 547–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wicks, R. H. (2007). Does presentation style of presidential debates influence young voters’ perceptions of candidates? American Behavioral Scientist, 50(9), 1247–1254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wicks, R. H., Stewart, P. A., Eubanks, A. D., Eidelman, S., & Dye, R. G. (2017). Visual presentation style 1: A test of visual presentation styles and candidate evaluation during the first 2016 presidential debate. American Behavioral Scientist, 61(5), 533–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patrick A. Stewart
    • 1
    Email author
  • Elena Svetieva
    • 2
  • Austin Eubanks
    • 1
  • Jason M. Miller
    • 3
  1. 1.University of ArkansasFayettevilleUSA
  2. 2.University of ColoradoColorado SpringsUSA
  3. 3.The University of KansasLawrenceUSA

Personalised recommendations