Running Head: SEEING IS PERCEIVING 1
Seeing is Perceiving:
The Influence of Message Structure, Political Ideology and Time on Audience
Perceptions of Televised Presidential Debates
Robert H. Wicks, Professor, Department of Communication
Patrick Stewart, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science
Austin D. Eubanks, Doctoral Student, Department of Psychological Science
Scott Eidelman, Associate Professor, Department of Psychological Science
J. William Fulbright College of Arts and Sciences
University of Arkansas
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Corresponding Author: Robert H. Wicks
e-mail: [email protected]
479-575-5958 (office)
479-466-6564 (cell)
Paper presented at the International Conference on The U.S. Elections of 2016: Domestic and International Aspects, Lauder School of Government, Diplomacy & Strategy,
Herzliya, Israel, January 8 – 9, 2017.
Running Head: SEEING IS PERCEIVING 2
Abstract
This study explores how presentation style (i.e., content and message structure), predispositions (i.e., ideology) and overall exposure (i.e., time) may influence perceptions of Presidential candidates during the 2016 general election debates. A natural experiment was conducted in which college students watched the first televised Presidential debate between Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and Republican nominee Donald Trump during the fall of 2016. Participants were randomly assigned to one of seven broadcast channel/media conditions (i.e., ABC, CNN, C-SPAN, Fox News, MSNBC, PBS and
NPR). A pretest-posttest experimental design was employed to determine if perceptions of candidates changed based on media condition. Participants rated the candidates using a feeling thermometer along with 19 personal traits. Findings did not reveal a difference based upon medium. The results suggest that favorability toward both candidates generally increased after viewing a debate when controlling for political ideology (i.e., liberal or conservative). On average, participants rated Clinton significantly higher on the feeling thermometer and 15 of 19 traits following the debate performance even though the subject pool predominately self-identified as Republican. Trump also increased on 17 of the 19 traits but the degree of increase was generally less than half that of Clinton.
Implications are discussed.
Keywords: 2016 Clinton vs. Trump, debates, audience perception
Running Head: SEEING IS PERCEIVING 3
Seeing is Perceiving:
The Influence of Message Structure, Political Ideology and Time on Audience
Perceptions of Televised Presidential Debates
The influence of television on voter’s attitudes toward Presidential candidates has grown steadily since the early 1960s with candidates and political advisors discovering its effectiveness in presenting speeches, granting interviews, and through political advertising and other forms of paid programming. Of these, televised presidential debates are amongst the most powerful of communication tools by presenting relatively unmediated communication in a competitive context. In this study, we replicate a 2004 study to consider how audience members perceived candidates during the first 2016 presidential debate. In line with the previous study, we consider the influence of production techniques, political ideology and exposure to the debate itself on participant attitudes and evaluations of the presidential candidate traits, as well as who participants thought won.
General election debates in the United States date back to at least 1858 when former Republican Illinois Congressman Abraham Lincoln and Democratic Senator
Stephen A. Douglas traversed the seven Illinois congressional districts speaking in front of hundreds of citizens during several debates that often lasted more than three hours. In just over a century and a half, audiences have exponentially increased due to mass media exposure through television and the Internet. At the same time, the world has arguably become more complex policy-wise and citizens may have diminished time or abilities to evaluate their candidates and the positions they espouse. For instance, while the general election debates last an hour and a half, with time relatively equally apportioned between
Running Head: SEEING IS PERCEIVING 4 candidates, analysis of the initial presidential primary debates revealed that the eventual
Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton received thirty-one minutes or 29% of the
CNN debate’s total time. GOP nominee and president-elect Donald Trump received a grand total of eleven minutes, or 16% of the FOX News debates total time (Stewart,
Eubanks, & Miller, 2016). While both front-runners received commensurately more time than their four and nine competitors, respectively, the amount of time viewers had to evaluate their choices in a relatively unmediated setting was comparatively paltry.
That is not to say that the candidates were not already well known to the general public. While the eventual Republican Party nominee Donald Trump was an unlikely outsider, he was already famous for being an outspoken billionaire real estate mogul and reality television show host that had only dabbled in politics with his “birther” criticisms of President Barack Obama. While many considered him to be mainly a curiosity at the outset of the campaign, his “Trump” brand recognition, passionate support by a cohesive coterie of followers, and an unwillingness of a dizzying array of sixteen other more- traditionally qualified candidates to confront him on-stage led him to develop the momentum to seize the GOP nomination.
On the Democratic side, early favorite Hillary Clinton was already a national political fixture known for her wonkish competence. A former First Lady, New York
Senator, and Secretary of State, Clinton proved to be a polarizing figure due to, on one hand, her record in politics and her being the first female presidential candidate from a major political party, yet on the other hand, her Beltway baggage in the form of husband and former President, Bill Clinton, among other things. While the former President left office with the highest approval ratings of any President since World War II, he had also
Running Head: SEEING IS PERCEIVING 5 been involved in a variety of high-profile sex scandals before and during his presidency including his impeachment hearings stemming from perjury before a grand jury. This
“Bill” baggage aside, Hillary Clinton brought baggage of her own to the campaign trail, such as her use of a private computer server while Secretary of State, which violated security protocols. Due to festering partisan rancor, and despite praise for her political accomplishments,1 Clinton’s actions received persistent media coverage and proved to be a misstep that Trump would exploit throughout the course of the campaign (“Praise for,”
2016).
As a result, the 2016 presidential debates were highly important yet arguably aberrant due to the nature of this exceptional election. Debates are important political events because a great majority of voters often lack a deep understanding of critical issues and candidate positions (Shaw, 1999). Although citizens tend to defer to their partisan preferences (Benoit, 2013), their opinions may also be influenced by contemporaneous events. Issues such as economic downturns or external threats may lead to voters discounting partisanship to decide upon the candidate best equipped to address the issue.
While the steady stream of political advertising can overwhelm other political events such as speeches and debates (Tedesco & Kaid, 2003), these debates remain important as perhaps the only mechanism available to obtain relatively unmediated information that is beyond the control of the candidate or strategists. In other words, neither stagecraft nor preparation can obscure candidate characteristics in the relatively
1 Those praising Clinton included not only Democrats but also Republicans including former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, Jeb Bush, Condoleezza Rice, Tom Ridge and Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Running Head: SEEING IS PERCEIVING 6 unpredictable environment of a debate. As a result, debates can be particularly important in close races because voters, especially those remaining undecided, evaluate candidates both on leadership traits related to what they think about a candidate as well as how they feel about a candidate.
Believing that a candidate is qualified, intelligent or competent would suggest that a voter perceives the candidate as having leadership traits allowing them to not only execute an effective legislative agenda but also be capable of dealing with the complex policy issues that often arise unexpectedly and must be dealt with competently. Voters may also sense that a candidate is caring, sincere and honest. These traits may be related to affective feelings toward the candidates and expectations that the candidate will be compassionate and trustworthy. Or to put it another way, successful campaigns develop appeals that relate to both the hearts and the minds of the voters (Brader, 2006) by highlighting their leadership traits (Abelson, Kinder, Peters, & Fiske, 1982; Cuddy,
Fiske, & Glick, 2008; Fiske, Cuddy, & Glick, 2007; Kinder, Peters, Abelson, & Fiske,
1980).
Because debates provide the only mechanism by which citizens may evaluate candidates head to head, we consider three critical features of debates: First, despite the debates being carried on numerous media outlets including broadcast/cable/satellite television networks and radio networks, the content in terms of dialogue (i.e., questions and responses from candidates) is uniform. However, production decisions are made by program directors at each cable channel or network. So while audience members may hear the same debate of all outlets, what they see may vary depending upon the channel or network selected. In the first debate in 2016, ABC provided the camera shots that were
Running Head: SEEING IS PERCEIVING 7 utilized by all of the channels or networks.2 Technical directors at each network selected individual shots and were therefore free to include split screen shots that present candidates side-by-side, switched camera shots which may include wide shots and reaction shots, or a combination of the two. Previous research suggests that camera angle and shot variation have an impact on audience perceptions of the candidates (Cho, Shah,
Nah, & Brossard, 2009; Gong & Bucy, 2015; Shah, Hanna, Bucy, Wells, & Quevedo,
2015; Wicks, 2007). Wicks (2007) found that C-SPAN and PBS were more prone to use split screens during the third 2004 presidential debate while the other networks were more likely to employ numerous switched camera shots. Specifically, viewers are influenced through the reaction shots of the candidates (Gong & Bucy, 2016; Seiter &
Harry Weger, 2005; Seiter, Weger Jr, Jensen, & Kinzer, 2010) as well as that of the host and the audience (Haumer & Donsbach, 2009; Nabi & Hendriks, 2003).
Second, predispositions of audience members may influence perception and information processing. At the most basic level, Democratic or Republican partisans may perceive that her or his candidate, based on party affiliation, has performed better. This partisan social identity has proved to be exceptionally strong, and serves as an easy decision heuristic, especially when little is known about the competing candidates
(Campbell, Converse, Miller, & Stokes, 1960; Haslam, Reicher, & Platow, 2010; Marcus,
Neuman, & MacKuen, 2000).
2 In the first general election Presidential debate and the Vice Presidential debate, ABC provided the cameras. NBC provided cameras for the second debate and Fox for the third debate. Each network (including C-SPAN) used their own technical directors to produce the program. Personal communication with Hope Wiggington, Commission on Presidential Debates, December 15, 2016 (www.debates.org).
Running Head: SEEING IS PERCEIVING 8
However, as the 2016 Presidential campaign demonstrated, the traditional role of
Political Parties role is changing. Political outsider Donald Trump, is a former Democrat turned Republican devoid of political experience in any elective office. Independent
Bernie Sanders, who caucuses with the Democrats in the US Senate remained a formidable presence in the race until July with a loyal following remaining at the nominating convention. 2016 certainly demonstrated some separation between the traditional Republican/Conservative versus Democrat/Liberal split in resisting norms during election seasons. Thus, we use ideology in this report as opposed to party identification as a variable.
Third, audience perceptions of candidates change over the course of the debate.
While significant change rarely occurs amongst strong partisans over the course of a general election date, especially late in the electoral process (Benoit, 2013), audience members may employ complex cognitive and affective processes to analyze messages and choose their preferred candidate based upon contemporaneous information. This is especially the case when the candidate behaves impolitely (Dailey, Hinck, & Hinck,
2005), is uncertain (Gong & Bucy, 2016), or acts in inappropriate manner (Bucy &
Newhagen, 1999; Gong & Bucy, 2016).
This study aims to replicate, in structure if not in context, the findings of Wicks’
(2007) field experiment pertaining to the 2004 third presidential debate between
President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry. This debate is believed to be the first one in which the split-screen shot was presented as a production option. Findings from this study found that differences in camera shots viewed by study participants influenced perceptions of the candidates’ leadership traits. However, as noted already the two
Running Head: SEEING IS PERCEIVING 9 electoral contexts could not be more different. The 2004 presidential election was a relatively low information affair with traditional candidates and an incumbent president.
On the other hand, the 2016 election between Trump and Clinton was between two historically groundbreaking and very different candidates in a charged political environment. We therefore explore whether (1) production attributes, (2) audience predispositions based on ideology, and, (3) information processing over time may influence perceptions and attitudes about candidates. To study this we conducted a field experiment that investigates information source as a between-subject variable and political ideology and what we characterize as contemporaneous information processing as within-subject variables.
Literature Review
The Increasing Importance of Debates in the Modern Debate Era
Debates over the decades have varied in their appeal to voters with some attracting minimal interest and corresponding small audiences and others attracting large followings. In the early years of television and prior to the adoption of the state primary election system, nominating conventions offered viewers the opportunity to witness some of the working of the processes associated with selecting a candidate. As the suspense dissipated with the advent and adoption of the primary system in the 1970s, debates became one of the remaining mechanisms by which citizens could witness candidates acting on their feet. But unlike political speeches and advertising, debates pose risks to candidates who must confront allegations leveled by both opponents and tough questions by journalists who are immediately followed by media critics who instantly declare a
Running Head: SEEING IS PERCEIVING 10 winner (e.g., Holbrook 1996; Lemert, William, Bernstein, Rosenberg, W, & Nestvold,
1991).
In 2004, pool coverage was supplied by Fox, ABC, CBS and NBC. During the third debate on October 13, 2004 between George W. Bush and John Kerry, each network was free to switch between shots or produce effects such as split screens of the candidates or shots featuring both candidates together on camera. During the debates, C-
SPAN and PBS differed significantly in their presentation styles from each other, and also from each of the other three networks. C-SPAN utilized its so-called Podium Watch, presenting a split screen of the two candidates throughout the entire debate with the network logo appearing at the bottom right of the screen and the word live in the upper right corner. A summary of the question being answered appeared at the bottom of the C-
SPAN screen.
PBS focused almost exclusively on the person speaking, rarely employing split- screen shots. The only graphic employed was for the PBS regional station group, AETN
(Arkansas Educational Television Network). ABC, CNN, and Fox News were most similar in their presentation techniques. ABC, CNN, and Fox News focused frequently on the individual candidate speaking. Split-screen shots were employed with regularity by these three networks, as were shots presenting both candidates within the same scene.
Each of the three also included a graphic identifying the network and a superimposed description of the event, such as 2004 Presidential Debate.
Differences in reception processes were investigated using a natural experiment conducted during the third debate in 2004 (Wicks, 2007). The study revealed that positive feelings toward John Kerry increased for those viewing the debate on C-SPAN and PBS.
Running Head: SEEING IS PERCEIVING 11
Furthermore, perception of Kerry’s friendliness was decreased for participants watching the debate on C-SPAN compared to the other groups. With respect to Bush, analysis revealed the PBS group—in which 68% of the participants identified themselves as
Republicans—reported the greatest mean decline in perceptions of Bush’s strength. This suggests that focusing primarily on the speaker, as PBS did in its presentation, has the potential effect of altering a candidate’s appearance of strength.
The 2016 Presidential Debates
Several debates of 2016 shattered records as audience members tuned in to witness contests that featured the flamboyant Republican businessman Donald Trump and the surprisingly inspiring Independent New Hampshire Senator Bernie Sanders. The
August 6, 2015 Republican primary debate drew about 24 million viewers. Interest continued throughout the primary season as the March 3, 2016 Republican debate in
Detroit hosted by Fox News attracted about 16.9 million viewers including 5.5 million in the important 25 to 54 year old age group (Flores, 2016, March 4).
The Democrat’s most highly watched occurred during the first of the season in
October of 2015 on CNN which drew 15.8 million viewers. Interest in the Democratic candidates seemed to wane as the CNN hosted Democratic between Clinton and Sanders on March 6, 2016 in Flint, MI drew just 5.5 million viewers and 1.8 million 25- to 54- year olds (Stelter, 2016, March 7). Taken together, however, the 2016 Presidential campaign was one in which the debates attracted remarkably large audiences and featured strikingly different candidates in the form of Hillary Clinton, a seasoned an accomplished
Washington insider and first female nominee by a major party. Opposing her was the brash billionaire business tycoon and reality show host who had a mixed record of
Running Head: SEEING IS PERCEIVING 12 success in the business world3 and was devoid of any political experience whatsoever, but offered the attraction associated with shaking things up as an outsider.
Message Content and Structure
Processing political information begins when people are exposed to stimuli in the form of images, symbols or sounds that enter the sensory organs. For processing to occur, the perceiver must invest cognitive energy in the form of attention; meaning she or he must be consciously aware of the message and consider it (Cowan, 1995). To attract and retain attention, candidates in the past staged campaign events including whistle stop train tours and elaborate nominating conventions that prominently featured videos, celebrities and balloons and confetti upon candidate acceptance of a nomination. Thus political events designed for presentation on electronic media outlets must contain strong visuals to hold the attention of the audience (Grabe & Bucy, 2009). Getting and maintaining the attention of the audience is crucial both for political candidates and media outlets seeking to maximize audience size.
The mechanism used by the media to attract the attention of the audience is based on a combination of content and structure variables (Geiger & Newhagen, 1993). The media use structural characteristics to engage audience members and initiate processing.
The style of music and pacing, shot selection, editing techniques, special effects and narrative sequencing may lead viewers to become more or less involved with the information (Lang, Zhou, Schwartz, Bolls, & Potter, 2000). In one study, differential effects of related and unrelated cuts on attention, capacity and audio and visual memory
3 These business failures included casinos in Atlantic City (Taj Mahal, Trump Plaza and Trump Marina), Trump University, and Trump Airlines. His failed business brands included Trump Vodka, Trump Steak, Trump Magazine, Trump Mortgage, Trump: The Game (board game) and GoTrump.com (travel agency) (“10 Donald Trump,” 2016, October 11 ).
Running Head: SEEING IS PERCEIVING 13 for information contained in the TV messages were tested. Reaction times were slower immediately following unrelated cuts than when following related cuts (Lang, Geiger,
Strickwerda & Sumner, 1993). This means that production devices intended to attract the attention of the audience may actually interfere with information processing. Hence, whether deliberate or inadvertent, production techniques can influence message reception.
Thus, visuals perform an important role in Presidential campaigns by conveying credibility, believability, truthfulness and knowledge (Wicks, 2007; Moriarity &
Popovich, 1991). Televised images of nonverbal behavior during debates can supply important information that is processed instantaneously, influencing how the candidates are perceived (Shah et al., 2015) and likely affect how trait perceptions are remembered long after the words have been forgotten. Messaris (1994) asserts images are perceived as direct copies of reality and that under certain circumstances can produce strong responses among audience members. He notes the perception among audience members that an image is genuine, when in actuality it takes advantage of camera angle, proximity, identification, and image (Messaris, 1997).
Research Focus
The preceding discussion suggests that the content and structure of images may play a significant role in how political information is processed leading to the formation of perceptions about candidates. A large body of scholarship has addressed the impact of images on the impression of voters with respect to selecting a President (e.g., Grabe &
Bucy, 2009; Jamieson, 1996; Lammers, 1982; Stewart, et al. 2009). Likewise, significant research has demonstrated that production techniques such as edits and cuts can influence
Running Head: SEEING IS PERCEIVING 14 processing of media messages (e.g., Lang, et al., 1993; Lang, et al., 2000). Indeed, a growing body of research has endeavored to understand the influence of different production techniques on viewer perceptions of Presidential candidates during debates.
Chief amongst these was Wicks’ 2004 study that used a field experiment to explore the effect of network production choices during the course of a debate on participant perceptions of presidential candidate candidates (Wicks, 2007). For this reason, the research focus is expressed as research questions as opposed to hypotheses.
Changes in how televised debates are presented may have an impact on how voters perceive candidates. Between 1960 and 1996 broadcast networks and cable channels presented a common feed with identical images and camera shots to present to viewers. Beginning in 2004, the broadcast networks and cable channels were free to use their own directors to carry the debates using various camera angles, reaction shots, wide shots, close-ups and split-screens.
As newcomers such as Fox News and MSNBC began to gain viewing audiences, programmers began experimenting with new ways to present televised debates. During the 2004 debate, differences in perception were reported based on differences in presentation style including changes measured with respect to feelings and traits of a candidate and certain character traits (e.g., qualified, intelligent or competent).
Wicks (2007) found that participants felt more positively (i.e., warmer) on a feeling thermometer toward John Kerry following his debate performance on PBS and C-
SPAN, which featured split screen format. Furthermore, following the debate, participants perceived Kerry as more positively on the traits of successful and friendliness, and George W. Bush more positively on the attribute of strength, depending
Running Head: SEEING IS PERCEIVING 15 on viewing condition. However, unlike previous research (Wicks, 2007), very few differences were found in 2016 with respect to presentation style among the six broadcast networks and cable channels; each entity primarily utilized the side-by-side split screen format as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Example of split screen formatting used primarily throughout the debate.
This leads us to the first research questions:
RQ1A: Will differences in production techniques (e.g., camera shots and angles of
each cable channel or broadcast network) influence audience members’
perceptions of feelings associated with the candidates?
RQ1B: Will differences in production techniques (e.g., camera shots and angles of
each cable channel or broadcast network) influence audience members’
perceptions of the traits associated with the candidates?
It is also possible that political ideology (i.e., conservative versus liberal) influences perception of the candidates. For this reason, we pose the following research questions:
RQ2A: Will differences in political ideology (i.e., conservative versus liberal) of
the participants influence their perceptions of the feelings associated with
Running Head: SEEING IS PERCEIVING 16
the candidates?
RQ2B: Will differences in political ideology (i.e., conservative versus liberal) of
the participants influence their perceptions of the traits associated with the
candidates?
We also consider the effect of time. In this, we analyze differences in prescreen survey ratings and post-debate survey ratings to see if perceptions of the candidates change significantly over time. Therefore, we consider the research questions:
RQ3A: Will time influence perception of feelings associated with the candidates
between the prescreen survey and post-debate survey?
RQ3B: Will time influence perception of traits associated with the candidates
between the prescreen survey and post-debate survey?
Finally, we consider if the aforementioned factors of production techniques and participant ideology impact viewer endorsement of which candidate “won” the debate.
Thus, our final research question is:
RQ4: Will differences in production techniques, participant political ideology,
and/or the interaction thereof influence viewer perception of who won the
debate?
Methodology and Procedures
Data Collection
A field experiment was conducted at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, to study the first debate on September 26, 2016. The debate was held at Hofstra University and was moderated by NBC News anchor Lester Holt and focused on achieving prosperity, America’s direction, and securing America. The candidates answered specific
Running Head: SEEING IS PERCEIVING 17 questions on jobs, race relations, taxes and the prospect of cyberattacks.
To recruit participants, approximately 2,000 undergraduate students in communication, political science and psychology classes were contacted in September
2016 to act as potential participants in a study about the 2016 Presidential debates.
Instructors of more than 100 different course sections announced in class and notified students by email that they would be eligible to participate in a debate study that would enable them to receive class extra credit for participating.
Between August 29 and September 26, 2016, a total of 610 participants filled out the online pre-debate survey and were randomly assigned to one of seven rooms (each room with a different network). Those who completed the prescreen questionnaire were invited to participate in viewing portion of the study and were directed to report to his or her assigned room on the night of the debate. Three-hundred and sixty-three participants arrived to view the debate,4 however, 21 participants did not properly label their post- debate survey so their prescreen and post-debate data were unable to be matched, leaving a usable sample of 342 participants. As a result, seven viewing (or listening) cells (ABC,
FOX News, MSNBC,5 CNN, NPR, CBS, C-SPAN) ranged in size from 42 to 57 participants each.
Demographics and Descriptors of the Participants
The participants were composed of 220 females and 122 males. The mean age was 19.52, with a range of 17 to 53 (only 10 participants were over 24 years old). Two-
4 The prescreen and post-debate surveys each included a statement outlining risks and benefits associated with participating as specified by the University IRB protocols.
5 MSNBC cut away to the parent network NBC as the debate began.
Running Head: SEEING IS PERCEIVING 18
hundred-eighty-three were Caucasian, 22 were African American, 15 were Hispanic, 9
were Asian, 4 were Native American, and 7 were “other.”6 Approximately 77% reported
being registered voters with 163 self-identifying as Republicans, 100 as Democrats, 46 as
Independents, and 33 as Libertarians, Greens, or “other” (including no party affiliation).
Aside from categorical party identification, participants also reported their overall, social,
and economic ideologies (separately) on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = very liberal; 7 =
very conservative). Each ideology type was normally distributed; as illustrated in Table 1,
overall and economic ideologies were both slightly right of center and social ideology
was slightly left of center.
Table 1 Party identification and ideology distribution by room and overall Party Identification (n) Ideology M(SD) Network GOP DEM IND Other Overall Social Economic ABC 25 11 7 3 4.76 (1.61) 4.13 (1.67) 5.11 (1.65) FOX 12 17 5 8 3.83 (1.74) 3.24 (1.78) 4.31 (1.83) MSNBC 26 10 7 7 4.54 (1.51) 4.10 (1.88) 4.80 (1.63) CNN 22 14 10 2 4.25 (1.67) 3.90 (1.69) 4.54 (1.76) NPR 20 13 6 4 4.05 (1.65) 3.40 (1.68) 4.74 (1.84) CBS 30 18 6 3 4.51 (1.91) 4.09 (2.03) 4.88 (1.68) CSPAN 28 17 5 6 4.14 (1.79) 3.68 (2.03) 4.86 (1.80) Total 163 100 46 33 4.31 (1.72) 3.81 (1.86) 4.76 (1.74)
Procedures during the Debate
Because debate coincided with the dinner hour, participants were asked to bring
beverages and were offered free snacks as they entered their assigned rooms. Moderators
read instructions and protocols to the participants and explained that they should remain
seated and refrain from using cell phones or other electronic devices during the debate.
6 Any deviation from stated sample size is indicative of participants declining to respond to the given item.
Running Head: SEEING IS PERCEIVING 19
Each network presented the debate in total and each was free to select from the range of shots and camera angles arranged by the production company retained by the
Commission on Presidential Debates who sponsored the event. Several participants elected to withdraw from the NPR conditional, perhaps as a consequence of the non- visual nature of the stimuli.
Each of the six video news channels presented images selected by their own production staff. Participants watched the entire 90-minute debate on the assigned broadcast or cable channel then completed a post-debate survey and were dismissed as they completed the assignment. The research protocols did not involve physical risk or deception so debriefing was deemed unnecessary. Participants, however, were encouraged to contact members of the research team if they had questions before, during or after the experimental procedures.
Results
Feeling Thermometer Ratings (RQ1A, RQ2A, RQ3A)
A One-way Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted to assess if structural production variables had a significant impact on post-debate feeling thermometer ratings, statistically controlling for participants’ overall political ideology and pre-debate attitudes towards the candidates.7
Research Question 1A queried whether structural production variables (e.g., varying camera angles, shot selection and other production techniques) employed by
7 Post-debate feeling thermometer was entered as the dependent variable with prescreen feeling thermometer for the respective candidate and overall political ideology as covariates. By utilizing an ANCOVA rather than a Repeated-Measures ANOVA, the analysis asks the theoretical question, “would a person watching on Network A be expected to change their attitude more than a person watching on Network B, given they had the same initial attitudes?”
Running Head: SEEING IS PERCEIVING 20 broadcast networks and cable channels during the first 2016 Presidential debate may influence perceptions of the participants following the debate. In both the prescreen survey and the post-debate survey, participants were asked to rate their feelings towards the candidates using a feeling thermometer with a 101 degree scale ranging from
Unfavorable/Cold (0) to Favorable/Warm (100). Table 2 presents the results for the feeling thermometers for Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump respectively. In both cases, feelings towards the candidates did not significantly differ by network (see Table 2) suggesting that structural production variables had little impact on perceptions of warmth or coldness of the candidates toward the candidates.
8 Research Question 2A focused on whether political ideology (i.e., existing political attitudes and predispositions) on the part of the participants would influence information processing strategies leading to positive or negative perceptions of the candidates. Significant differences were revealed based on ideology. As Table 2 reveals, ideology significantly influenced feelings toward Clinton and Trump (Clinton: F =
22.46., p < .001; Trump: F = 4.99, p = .026). As expected, (generally speaking) liberal- leaning participants had higher ratings for Hillary Clinton and lower ratings for Donald
Trump, and the reverse was true for conservative-leaning participants.
Research Question 3A focuses on whether a difference would be found in feelings towards the candidates between the prescreen survey and post-debate survey, controlling
8 Though previous research analyzed party affiliation as opposed to continuous self-report ideology on a liberal – conservative spectrum, as noted earlier, the 2016 election proved to have less traditional party roles. Indeed, just over 21% of left- and right-leaning participants (i.e., 1-3 and 5- 7, respectively, where 1 = very liberal and 7 = very conservative) reported party affiliations that do not align with the typical ideology – party expectations (e.g., ideologically left of center, but identified as a Republican). Separate analyses were conducted with party affiliation in place of ideology and no substantive differences were noted. Due to decreased power of these by party analyses and lack of findings, these analyses are not discussed.
Running Head: SEEING IS PERCEIVING 21 for political ideology. Each candidate was rated significantly more favorably after the debate; Hillary Clinton increased by 17.05 points while Donald Trump increased by 6.91 points (both on average).
Table 2 Post Debate Feeling Thermometers
Network (B) Ideology (W) Trait T1-T2 (W) Difference
F Sig. F Sig. F. Sig. Clinton 1.19 ns 22.46 ** 94.23 ** 17.05 Trump 0.46 ns 4.99 0.026 32.35 ** 6.91 Note. Trait T1-T2 is the prescreen rating covariate, indicating a significant increase from T1 to T2 for both candidates. ** p < .001
Candidate Trait Ratings (RQ1B, RQ2B, RQ3B)
Participants also evaluated the candidates on a battery of 19 traits using a 7-point
Likert-type scale anchored with (1 = not at all) and (7 = extremely). The traits were
Qualified, Sophisticated, Honest, Believable, Successful, Attractive, Friendly, Sincere,
Excitable, Aggressive, 9 Strong, Active, Competent, Intelligent, Caring, Trustworthy,
Agreeable, Generous and Humorous. For each candidate, reliability amongst the 19 items was sufficiently high (each α > .95) to average the items into a composite trait index that acts as a single measure indicating overall ratings of the candidates’ traits. In addition, each of the 19 items were analyzed individually to assess RQ1B, RQ2B, RQ3B, with these traits and trait indices as the dependent variables.
The trait index and each individual traits were analyzed using the same ANCOVA
9 Aggressive is a trait that can be somewhat ambiguous (i.e., to some “aggressive” may be a positive trait, while others may view it as a negative trait). Analyses were run excluding aggressive from the trait index and no substantive differences were found; all analyses reported herein include all 19 trait items. However, interpretations of individual aggressive analyses should be interpreted with caution.
Running Head: SEEING IS PERCEIVING 22 as the feeling thermometer analyses (i.e., post-debate rating as the dependent variable, network as a fixed factor, and ideology and prescreen ratings as covariates). Table 3 presents the results of analyses for the traits and trait index for Hillary Clinton and
Donald Trump. First, the trait indices revealed the same pattern as the feeling thermometers; there was no significant difference between networks (RQ1B), the expected significant differences for ideology ((RQ2B) Clinton: F = 15.14, p < .001;
Trump: F = 2.96, p = .086), and a significant increase after the debate compared to the prescreen ratings ((RQ3B) increases: MHC = 0.57; MDT = 0.26).
Looking at the individual traits for Hillary Clinton, there was only a significant difference between networks (RQ1B) for the trait successful (F = 3.52, p = .046). Post-hoc pairwise comparisons10 revealed only a marginally significant difference (p = .088) between NPR and C-SPAN; no other network comparisons were significantly different.
For Donald Trump, there were only significant main effects for network (RQ1B) on the traits excitable, active, and humorous. However, pairwise comparisons revealed no significant differences between any two networks. Main effects for ideology (RQ2B) were found for nearly all traits for both candidates. Significant differences were not found for
Clinton on the traits of aggressive and excitable; for Trump the lack of effects were for the traits aggressive and humorous. This indicates differences in participants’ ideologies did not lead to differences in ratings for these particular traits.
10 All pairwise comparisons utilized the Bonferroni correction to adjust for familywise error rate across multiple comparisons
Running Head: SEEING IS PERCEIVING 23
Finally, comparing the main effect for time ((RQ3B) i.e., differences in prescreen
and post-debate ratings), each trait for both candidates was significantly different after
the debate. For Clinton, the mean change ranged from -0.08 (aggressive) to 0.97
Table 3 Trait indices and individual traits for candidates.
Network (B) Ideology (W) Trait T1-T2 (W) Differences Clinton Trump Clinton Trump Clinton Trump HC DT
Variable F Sig. F Sig. F. Sig. F Sig. F Sig. F. Sig. (T2 - T1)
Index 1.31 ns 1.20 ns 15.14 ** 2.96 0.086 127.39 ** 349.07 ** 0.57 0.26 Qualified 1.46 ns 0.20 ns 14.55 ** 22.83 ** 94.73 ** 173.22 ** 0.89 0.38 Sophisticated 0.68 ns 0.72 ns 16.84 ** 16.99 ** 59.07 ** 167.98 ** 0.89 0.38 Honest 0.99 ns 0.39 ns 32.60 ** 20.49 ** 69.50 ** 113.48 ** 0.81 -0.12 Believable 0.80 ns 0.52 ns 22.30 ** 9.81 0.002 59.44 ** 201.06 ** 0.97 0.21 Successful 2.17 0.046 1.14 ns 19.94 ** 12.34 ** 63.20 ** 131.31 ** 0.08 0.06 Attractive 1.15 ns 0.53 ns 5.39 0.021 8.71 0.003 103.01 ** 138.19 ** 0.44 0.42 Friendly 0.43 ns 0.75 ns 17.89 ** 21.41 ** 102.84 ** 108.60 ** 0.43 0.11 Sincere 1.06 ns 0.89 ns 9.68 0.002 11.25 0.001 101.22 ** 165.77 ** 0.84 0.35 Excitable 1.70 ns 2.32 0.03 0.82 ns 4.18 0.042 73.87 ** 145.45 ** 0.41 0.52 Aggressive 0.72 ns 1.72 ns 1.23 ns 2.65 ns 30.98 ** 82.19 ** -0.08 0.01 Strong 0.25 ns 1.20 ns 10.33 0.001 5.39 0.021 56.77 ** 156.20 ** 0.41 0.28 Active 0.59 ns 2.07 0.06 11.80 0.001 8.51 0.004 52.74 ** 115.86 ** 0.25 0.36 Competent 0.98 ns 1.18 ns 23.68 ** 8.83 0.003 69.71 ** 168.78 ** 0.65 0.26 Intelligent 0.85 ns 1.71 ns 15.24 ** 10.30 0.001 76.85 ** 206.30 ** 0.72 0.23 Caring 0.92 ns 0.30 ns 9.32 ** 16.53 ** 81.56 ** 167.70 ** 0.80 0.14 Trustworthy 1.06 ns 0.73 ns 20.39 0.003 9.86 0.002 104.56 ** 204.51 ** 0.60 0.38 Agreeable 1.43 ns 0.83 ns 19.21 ** 16.78 ** 69.55 ** 165.92 ** 0.75 0.31 Generous 1.05 ns 0.61 ns 20.66 ** 15.61 ** 81.84 ** 114.51 ** 0.56 -0.02
Humorous 1.95 ns 2.90 0.01 15.55 ** 1.37 ns 35.86 ** 95.76 ** 0.57 0.78
Note. Index is the average of all 19 traits. Trait T1-T2 is the prescreen rating covariate.
** p < .001 (believable), with aggressive being the only trait that decreased after the debate (see
Table 3 for all differences). Trump’s trait differences ranged from -0.12 (honest) to 0.78
(humorous) with honest and generous being the only traits to decrease after the debate.
Who won the debate? (RQ4)
At the end of the post-debate survey, participants were asked whom they believed
Running Head: SEEING IS PERCEIVING 24 won the debate (See Table 4). A Multinominal Logistic Regression was conducted to assess if viewer perception of who won the debate differed as a function of network, controlling for (or as a function of) overall political ideology. No significant differences were found for network (χ2 = 16.108, p = .186), but there was a significant effect for ideology (χ2 = 86.94, p < .001). Further analysis of parameter estimates (comparing participants who endorsed Trump or Clinton to participants who responded as
“undecided” as to who won) indicate ideology was not a significant predictor for perceptions of Donald Trump as the winner of the debate (p = .307), but (left-leaning) ideology was a significant predictor for perceiving Hillary Clinton as the winner (βideology
= -.632, p < .001).
Table 4 Perceptions of who "won" the debate by room Room Clinton Trump Undecided ABC 9 16 21 FOX 5 22 15 MSNBC 14 23 13 CNN 10 22 16 NPR 16 19 8 CBS 15 28 13 CSPAN 14 28 14 Total 83 158 100
As shown in Figure 2, left-leaning participants were less likely to be undecided
(i.e., overwhelmingly endorsed Clinton as the winner), but right-leaning participants were split between (but favoring) endorsement of Trump or being undecided.
Running Head: SEEING IS PERCEIVING 25
Figure 2. Participants’ perception of who “won” the debate by overall political ideology
Discussion
In this report, we sought to discover whether production features of debates, ideology of participants and time would influence perceptions of audience members. Our study was guided in part by previous research revealing that production features were capable of influencing perceptions of audience members (Wicks, 2007). While these production devices varied in 2004 between broadcast networks and cable channels, that was not the case in 2016. For the most part, although each network or channel was free to select from a wide range of shots, directors opted primarily for the side-by-side split screen format as shown in Figure 1 making the programs of the different outlets virtually indistinguishable (with the exception of electronically generated identifiers).
Running Head: SEEING IS PERCEIVING 26
Production Techniques
The lack of variance of production techniques (i.e., consistent split screen framing across all the networks) is reflected in the lack of differences between the rooms for viewer perceptions. What few individual main effects were found were statistically, but not particularly practically significant. Thus, we attribute the few differences based on traits and the corresponding lack of informative post hoc evidence suggests these were mainly a function of chance.
Ideology
Unsurprisingly, ideology and time were important variables in this study of the first Presidential debate. As noted earlier, Hillary Clinton represented a well-seasoned and prepared candidate representing the liberal part of the political spectrum. Donald
Trump espoused a good bit of conservative doctrine such as restraint on spending but also drifted into new territory such as building a southern wall to prevent illegal immigration, returning manufacturing jobs that had gone to China and Mexico and jailing his opponent for allegedly purging email documents from a private server she had maintained as
Secretary of State. Generally speaking, liberal-leaning participants had higher ratings for
Hillary Clinton and lower ratings for Donald Trump, and the reverse was true for conservative-leaning participants.
Time
Perhaps due to the remarkable nature of the campaign and the distinct nature of these candidates, mere exposure and time may have galvanized support for these candidates in the days and weeks leading up to the first debate. Hillary Clinton improved on the feeling thermometer by more than17 points between the times when the
Running Head: SEEING IS PERCEIVING 27 participants completed the initial survey to immediately following the debate. The pattern was in the same direction for Donald Trump who improved by nearly seven. Those in our study also came away from the debates feeling the candidates improved almost wholly on the 19 traits. We consider several explanations:
First, the first debate represented the first opportunity for citizens to see the candidates head to head. It is possible the participants agreed with the majority of political pundits and media commentators who immediately awarded the debate to
Clinton. Our left-leaning participants generally saw a clear victory for Clinton while right-leaning participants were split between being undecided and declaring Trump the winner. This may have had the effect of improving perceptions of both candidates over time but more so for Hillary Clinton.
Second, media agenda setting theory posits that while the media are not capable of telling people what to think, media messages have an enormous influence on what people think about (Shaw & McCombs, 1972). Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump commanded an abundance of media attention even before receiving their respective party’s the nominations. Following the conventions, partisan coverage of the candidates was presented virtually nonstop. Right- and left-leaning cable channels (e.g., Fox News and MSNBC) presented round the clock coverage promoting the virtues of the candidate they supported while denigrating the one they opposed. Citizens could easily find an outlet that not only reflected their political outlet but may have also shaped and reinforced it.
Unlike the study on which this is modeled (Wicks, 2004), we found little evidence that production techniques had an influence on perceptions of debates owing to lack of
Running Head: SEEING IS PERCEIVING 28 difference in presentation strategies. But while production differences appear to have little influence on perceptions, personal beliefs and ideology appear to influence message interpretation. But most important, time appears to be an important variable. Given that time for many is occupied not only by messages emanating from traditional media as studied in this report, future researchers may wish to investigate how social media such as Twitter and Facebook, now used so freely and frequently by political individuals and partisan political causes, may also be important in understanding how and why citizens see the political world around them in the ways they do.
Running Head: SEEING IS PERCEIVING 29
References
“10 Donald Trump,” (2016, October 11). 10 Donald Trump business failures. Retrieved
December 12, 2016 from http://time.com/4343030/donald-trump-failures/
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.
Benoit, W. (2013). Political election debates: Informing voters about policy and
character Lexington Books.
Browning, R. X. (2014). The C-SPAN archives: An interdisciplinary resource for
discovery, learning, and engagement Purdue University Press.
Bruner, J. S. (1957). On perceptual readiness. Psychological Review, 64, 123-152.
Bucy, E. P., & Newhagen, J. E. (1999). The emotional appropriateness heuristic:
Processing televised presidential reactions to the news. Journal of Communication,
49(4), 59-79.
Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American
voter. New York: Wiley.
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.
Cowan, N. (1995). Attention and memory: An integrated framework. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Cuddy, A. J., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2008). Warmth and competence as universal
dimensions of social perception: The stereotype content model and the BIAS map.
Running Head: SEEING IS PERCEIVING 30
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 61-149.
Cuddy, J. C. Cuddy, Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2007). The BIAS Map: Behaviors from
intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
92(4), 632 – 648. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.4.631
Dailey, W. O., Hinck, E. A., & Hinck, S. S. (2005). Audience perceptions of politeness
and advocacy skills in the 2000 and 2004 presidential debates. Argumentation and
Advocacy, 41(4), 196-210.
Dougherty, C., Kiley, J., & Johnson, B. (2016, July). 2016 campaign: Strong interest,
widespread dissatisfaction: As convention nears, most Republicans see a party
divided. Retrieved December 12, 2016 from http://www.people-
press.org/2016/07/07/2-voter-general-election-preferences/
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition:
Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(2), 77-83.
Flores, R. (2016, March 4). Fox News Republican debate smashes 2016 viewership
record. Retrieved December 10, 2016 from (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fox-
news-republican-debate-smashes-2016-viewership-record/).
Geiger, S., & Newhagen, J. (1993). Revealing the black box: Information processing and
media effects. Journal of Communication, 43 (4), 42 - 50.
Gong, Z. H., & Bucy, E. P. (2015). Image bite analysis of presidential debates. In
Browning: Robert X. (Ed.), Exploring the C-SPAN archives: Advancing the research
agenda. (). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.
Running Head: SEEING IS PERCEIVING 31
Gong, Z. H., & Bucy, E. P. (2016). When style obscures substance: Visual attention to
display appropriateness in the 2012 presidential debates.
. Communication
Monographs, 1-24.
Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., & Platow, M. J. (2010). The new psychology of leadership:
Identity, influence and power. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
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.
Holbrook, T. M. (1996). Do campaigns matter? Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Jamieson, K. H. (1996). Packaging the president: A history and criticism of presidential
campaign advertising (4th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Kinder, D. R., Peters, M. D., Abelson, R. P., & Fiske, S. T. (1980). Presidential
prototypes. Political Behavior, 2(4), 315-337.
Kraus, S. (1996). Winners of the first 1960 televised debate between Kennedy and Nixon.
Journal of Communication, 46 (4), 78 – 96.
Kraus, S. (1996). Winners of the first 1960 televised debate between Kennedy and Nixon.
Journal of Communication, 46 (4), 78 – 96.
Lammers, W. W. (1982). Presidential attention-focusing activities. In D. A. Graber (Ed.),
The president and the public (pp. 145 – 171). Philadelphia, PA: Institute for the
Study of Human Issues.
Lang, A., Geiger, S., Strickwerda, M., & Sumner, J. (1993). The effects of related and
unrelated cuts on television viewers; attention, processing capacity, and memory.
Communication Research, 20, 4 - 29.
Running Head: SEEING IS PERCEIVING 32
Lang, Z., Zhou, S., Schwartz, N., Bolls, P. D., & Potter, R. F. (2000). The effects of edits
on arousal, attention, and memory for television messages: When an edit is an edit
can an edit be too much? Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 44, 94
-109.
Lemert, J. B., William R. E., Bernstein, J. M., Rosenberg, W. L., & Nestvold, K.J.,
(1991). News Verdicts, the Debates, and Presidential Campaigns. New York:
Praeger.
Marcus, G. E., Neuman, W. R., & MacKuen, M. (2000). Affective intelligence and
political judgment. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
McCombs, M & Shaw, D (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public
Opinion Quarterly. 36 (2): 176 – 187. doi:10.1086/267990
Messaris, P. (1994). Visual "literacy": Image, mind, and reality. Boulder, CO: Westview
Press.
Messaris, P. (1997), Visual persuasion: The role of images in advertising. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Messaris, P. (1998). Visual aspects of media literacy. Journal of Communication, 48 (1),
70 – 80.
Messaris, P., & Abraham, L. (2001). The role of images in framing news stories. In S. D.
Reese, O. H. Gandy, Jr., & A. E. Grant (Eds.), Framing public life (pp. 215 -
226). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Moriarty, S. E., & Popovich, M. N. (1991). Newsmagazine visuals and the 1988
presidential election. Journalism Quarterly, 68 (3), 371 – 380.
Nabi, R. L., & Hendriks, A. (2003). The persuasive effect of host and audience reaction
Running Head: SEEING IS PERCEIVING 33
shots in television talk shows. Journal of Communication, 53(3), 527-543.
“Our Mission,” (nd). Retrieved December 12, 2016 from
http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=about-cpd
“Praise for,” (2016). Praise for Hillary Clinton, Correct the Record. Retrieved December
12, 2016 from http://correctrecord.org/praise-for-hillary-clinton/.
Seiter, J. S., & Weger, H. Jr. (2005). Audience perceptions of candidates' appropriateness
as a function of nonverbal behaviors displayed during televised political debates. The
Journal of Social Psychology, 145(2), 225-236.
Seiter, J. S., Weger Jr, H., Jensen, A., & Kinzer, H. J. (2010). The role of background
behavior in televised debates: Does displaying nonverbal agreement and/or
disagreement benefit either debater? The Journal of Social Psychology, 150(3), 278-
300.
Shah, D. V., Hanna, A., Bucy, E. P., Wells, C., & Quevedo, V. (2015). Examining social
media influence: The power of television images in a social media age: Linking
biobehavioral and computational approaches via the second screen. The ANNALS of
the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 659, 225-307.
The Kennedy-Nixon Debates (2010). Accessed December 10, 2016 from
http://www.history.com/topics/us-presidents/kennedy-nixon-debates
Shaw, D. R. (1999). A study of presidential event effects from 1952 to 1992. Journal of
Politics, 61, (2), 337 – 422.
Shrum, L. J. (2006). Perception. In J. Bryant & P. Vorderer (Eds.), Psychology of
entertainment (pp. 55-70). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Stephey, M. J. (2016). Top 10 memorable debate moments. Retrieved December 10,
Running Head: SEEING IS PERCEIVING 34
2016 from
http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/completelist/0,29569,1844704,00.
html.
Stelter, B. (2016, March 7). Democratic debate draws far fewer viewers than GOP face-
off. Retrieved December 10, 2016 from
http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/07/media/cnn-democratic-debate-flint-ratings/).
Stewart, P. A., Eubanks, A. D., & Miller, J. (2016). "Please clap": Applause, laughter,
and booing during the 2016 GOP presidential primary debates. PS: Political Science
& Politics, 49(4) 696 – 700.
Tedesco, J. C., & Kaid, L. L., (2003). Style and effects of Bush and Gore spots. In L. L.
Kaid, J. C. Tedesco, D. G. Bystrom, & M S. McKinney (Eds.), The millennium
election: Communication in the 2000 Campaign (pp. 5 - 16). Lanham, MD:
Rowman & Littlefield.
The American Presidency Project (1976, October 6). Gerald Ford: XXXVIII President of
the United State: 1974 – 1977. Retrieved December 10, 2016 from
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=6414
“The League,” (2011). The League of Women Voters and candidate debates: A changing
relationship. Retrieved December 12, 2016 from http://lwv.org/content/league-
women-voters-and-candidate-debates-changing-relationship
“Who is Running” (2016, July 26). Who is running for President? Retrieved December
10, 2016 from http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/2016-
presidential-candidates.html?_r=0).
Running Head: SEEING IS PERCEIVING 35
Wicks, R. H. (2007). Does presentation style of presidential debates influence young
voters' perceptions of candidates? American Behavioral Scientist, 50(9), 1247-1254.