Visual Cues and the Candidate Evaluation Process

  • Victor C. Ottati
  • Megan Deiger
Part of the Social Psychological Applications to Social Issues book series (SPAS)


There was a time when politicians conveyed their message to the American public predominantly through newspaper and radio communication. This is no longer the case today. Most American citizens encounter political events through their television sets, and television news plays a central role in bringing political events to the attention of the American electorate (Ansolabeher, Behr, & Iyengar, 1993). The increasing importance of television has influenced many facets of the political communication process. For one thing, politicians must learn to project a positive image if they are to succeed in gaining (and maintaining) their political office. As noted by Masters, Frey, & Bente (1991), television emphasizes the visible and especially nonverbal cues of political leadership. Given these considerations, it is not surprising that President Reagan sought the expertise of Tuesday Team Incorporated—a prominent Madison Avenue group that specializes in creating attractive televised images.


Facial Expression Judgment Task Physical Attractiveness Candidate Evaluation Issue Position 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ansolabehere, S., Behr, R., & Iyengar, S. (1993). The media game: American politics in the television age. New York, MacMillan Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  2. Berscheid, E. (1981). A review of the psychological effects of physical attractiveness. In G. W. Lucker, K. A. Ribbens, & J. A. McNamara (Eds.), Psychological aspects of facial form (pp. 1–23). Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Human Growth.Google Scholar
  3. Bodenhausen, G. V., Kramer, G. P., & Susser, K. (1994). Happiness and stereotypic thinking in social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 621–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Budesheim, T.L. & DePaulo, S. J. (1994). Beauty or beast?: The effects of appearance, personality, and issue information on evaluations of political candidates. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 339–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bugental, D. E., Kaswan, J. W., & Love, L. R. (1970). Perception of contradictory meanings conveyed by verbal and nonverbal channels. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 647–655.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bugental, D. B., Henker, B., & Whalen, C. K. (1976). Attributional antecedents of verbal and vocal assertiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 405–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Conover, P. J. & Feldman, S. (1984). How people organize the political world: A schematic model. American Journal of Political Science, 28, 95–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In David Apter (Ed.), Ideology and Discontent. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  10. Dion, K. K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 285–290.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eagly, A. H., Ashmore, R. D., Makhijani, M. G., & Longo, L. C. (1991). What is beautiful is good, but…: A meta-analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 109–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ekman, P. (1993). Facial expression and emotion. American Psychologist, 48, 384–392.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ekman, P., Davidson, R. J., & Friesen, W. V. (1990). The Duchenne smile: Emotional expression and brain physiology II. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 342–353.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ekman, P., O’Sullivan, M., Friesen, W. V., & Scherer, K. R. (1991). Face, voice, and body in detecting deception. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 15, 125–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1981). Attitudes and voting behavior: An application of the theory of reasoned action. In G. M. Stephenson & J. M. Davis (Eds.), Progress in Applied Social Psychology, Chichester, U.K.: Wiley.Google Scholar
  16. Fiske, S. T. & Neuberg, S. L. (1989). A continuum model of impression formation from category-based to individuating responses: Influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. In Mark P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 23). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  17. Frank, M. G., Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1993). Behavioral markers and recognizability of the smile of enjoyment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 83–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Iyengar, S. & Ottati, V. (1994). Cognitive perspective in political psychology. In R. S. Wyer & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition, Volume 2: Applications (pp. 143–188). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  19. Lodge, M., McGraw, K., & Stroh, P. (1989). First impressions count: An information processing account of candidate evaluation. American Political Science Review, 83, 399–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Masters, R. D. (1990). Evolutionary Biology and Political Theory. American Political Science Review, 84, 195–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Masters, R. D. (1991). Individual and Cultural Differences in Response to Leaders’ Nonverbal Displays. Journal of Social Issues, 47, 151–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Masters, R. D., Frey, S., & Bente, G. (1991). Dominance and Attention: Images of Leaders in German, French and American TV News. Polity 23, 373–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Masters, R. D. & Sullivan, D. G. (1989). Nonverbal displays and political leadership in France and the United States. Political Behavior, 11, 121–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Masters, R. D., Sullivan, D. G., Lanzetta, J. T, McHugo, G. J., & Englis, B. G. (1986). Journal Social Biological Structure, 9, 319–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McHugo, G. J., Lanzetta, J. T, & Bush, L. K. (1991). The Effect of Attitudes on Emotional Reactions to Expressive Displays of Political Leaders. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 15, 19–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McHugo, G. J., Lanzetta, J. T, Sullivan, D. G., Masters, R. D., & Englis, B. G. (1985). Emotional reactions to a political leader’s expressive displays. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1513–1529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mehrabian, A. & Ferris, S. R. (1967). Inference of attitudes from nonverbal communication. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 31, 248–252.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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, 226–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. O’Sullivan, M., Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1988). The effect of comparisons on detecting deceit. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 12, 203–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ottati, V. (1990). Determinants of political judgments: The joint influence of normative and heuristic rules of inference. Political Behavior, 12, 159–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ottati, V., Terkildsen, N., & Hubbard, C. (1997). Happy faces elicit heuristic processing in a televised impression formation task: A cognitive tuning account. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.Google Scholar
  32. Riggle, E. D., Ottati, V., Wyer, R. S., Kuklinski, J., & Schwarz, N. (1992). Bases of political judgments: The role of stereotypic and nonstereotypic information. Political Behavior, 14, 67–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rosenberg, S. W., Bohan, L., McCafferty, P., & Harris, K. (1986). The image and the vote: The effect of candidate presentation on voter preference. American Journal of Political Science, 30, 108–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rosenberg, S. W. & McCafferty, P. (1987). The image and the vote: Manipulating voters’ preferences. Public Opinion Quarterly, 51, 31–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rosenberg, S. W., Kahn, S., & Tran, T. (1991). Creating a political image: Shaping appearance and manipulating the vote. Political Behavior, 13, 345–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sigelman, C. K., Thomas, D. B., Sigelman, L., & Ribich, F. D. (1986). Gender, physical attractiveness, and electability: An experimental investigation of voter biases. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 229–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sullivan, D. G. (1996). Emotional Responses to the Nonverbal Behavior of French and American Political Leaders. Political Behavior, 18, 311–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sullivan, D. G. & Masters, R. D. (1988). Happy Warriors: Leaders’ Facial Displays, Viewers’ Emotions, and Political Support. American Journal of Political Science, 32, 345–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sullivan, D. G. & Masters, R. D. (1990). Perceptions of Leadership in the 1988 Presidential Election: Viewers’ Emotional Responses to Candidates’ Expressive Displays and Attitudes Towards Them. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, April, 1990.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Victor C. Ottati
    • 1
  • Megan Deiger
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyLoyola University of ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations