The Influence of Message Structure, Political Ideology and Time on Audience
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
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