INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9* black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. ProQuest Information and Leaming 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA 800-521-0600 UMI* UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA GRADUATE COLLEGE VIDEOSTYLE AND WEBSTYLE IN 2000: COMPARING THE GENDER DIFFERENCES OF CANDIDATE PRESENTATIONS IN POLITICAL ADVERTISING AND ON THE INTERNET A Dissertation SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy By MARY CHRISTINE BANWART Norman, Oklahoma 2002 UMI Number: 3045842 UMI* UMI Microform 3045842 Copyright 2002 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. 00x1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 ®Copyright by MARY CHRISTINE BANWART 2002 All Rights Reserved. VIDEOSTYLE AND WEBSTYLE IN 2000: COMPARING THE GENDER DIFFERENCES OF CANDIDATE PRESENTATIONS IN POLITICAL ADVERTISING AND ON THE INTERNET A Dissertation APPROVED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATION BY r Acknowledgments As with any extensive and important project, one cannot tackle the challenge alone. Throughout the course of my doctoral program and in the design, implementation, and analysis of this project, I am fortunate to have been given the support, guidance, and advice from a special team of individuals to whom I offer my respect and gratitude. First and foremost, Lynda Lee Kaid has represented the true nature of a mentor and advisor. Dr. Kaid supported and encouraged my desire to develop and build a research agenda focusing on women and politics, providing me with the tools to develop a firm research foundation. She exemplifies the truest blend of commitment to research, teaching, and service to the discipline, continuing to extend political communication scholarship through her own work as well as through the encouragement of her students' research. Her contributions to the accomplishment of my doctoral program and her research inspirations continue to guide and challenge me. Sandra Ragan has also provided much encouragement and support throughout my doctoral program, particularly in the final year. Her willingness to assist in navigating through the complexities of the program and to serve as my co­ advisor are sincerely acknowledged and appreciated. IV Table of Contents List of Tables ................................................vii List of Appendices............................................. ix Abstract ......................................................... x I . INTRODUCTION................................................ 1 Women as Political Candidates ........................... 4 Purpose .................................................... 8 II. A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.............................. 11 Political Image Building ............................... 12 Components in Candidate Image ...................... 15 Female Candidate Images : Facing Stereotypical Expectations? ...................... 18 Televised Political Advertising ....................... 33 Negative Political Spot A d s .......................... 3 9 Gender and Political Spot A d s ....................... 47 Campaigning via the Inter n e t............................68 Theoretical Foundations ................................. 82 Communication Styles and Patterns: Gendered Schemas and Perceptions? .......................... 82 Videostyle............................................. 55 Multiple Channel Comparison ....................... 106 Research Questions ..................................... 109 III. METHOD ..................................................... 110 Content Analysis ........................................ Ill S a m p l e .................................................113 Categories............................................ 117 Coding Process ...................................... 128 Analysis of Results..................................131 IV. RESULTS ...................................................132 Videostyles of Female and Male Candidates in Gubernatorial, Senate, and Congressional Races in 2000 ......................................... 132 Verbal Content ...................................... 132 Nonverbal Content ................................... 140 V Production Content .................................. 141 Webstyles of Female and Male Candidates in Gubernatorial, Senate, and Congressional Races in 2000 ......................................... 143 Verbal Content ....................................... 144 Nonverbal Content ................................... 148 Production Content .................................. 150 Interactive Content ................................. 150 Comparisons of the Videostyles and Webstyles of Candidates in Gubernatorial, Senate, and Congressional Races in 2000 ......................... 152 Verbal Content ....................................... 152 Nonverbal Content ................................... 165 V. DISCUSSION ................................................ 172 Videostyle: Significant Differences in Female and Male Political Advertising in 2000 ............ 174 Female Candidate Videostyle ........................ 175 Male Candidate Videostyle .......................... 191 Webstyle: Significant Differences in Female and Male Candidate Web Sites in 2000 .............. 205 Female Candidate Webstyle .......................... 206 Male Candidate Webstyle ............................ 212 Videostyle v. Webstyle: Significant Differences in Female and Male Self-Presentation Styles in 2000 . 217 Limitations...............................................229 Directions for Future Research ........................ 231 REFERENCES ......................................................235 ENDNOTES ........................................................ 264 VI List of Tables 1. Videostyle: Cross Tabulation Results of Significant Strategies by Gender ................................... 324 2. Issues Discussed by Gender in Candidate Spot Ads ...326 3. Most Frequently Discussed Issues in Candidate Spot Ads by Gender ............................................ 327 4. Total Number of Issues Discussed in Candidate Spot Ads by Gender ............................................ 327 5. Character Traits Emphasized by Gender in Candidace Spot A d s .................................................. 328 6. Appeal Strategies Used by Gender in Candidate Spot A d s .................................................. 329 7. Feminine, Masculine, Incumbent, and Challenger Appeal Strategies Used in Candidate Spot Ads by Gender .... 330 8. Types of Verbal Appeals Used by Gender in Candidate Spot Ads: Attack Appeals, General Appeals, and Group Appeals ............................................ 331 9. Nonverbal Strategies Used by Gender in Candidate Spot A d s .................................................. 333 10. Production Strategies Used by Gender in Candidate Spot A d s .................................................. 335 11. Webstyle: Cross Tabulation Results of Significant Strategies by Gender ................................... 337 12. Issues Discussed by Gender on Candidate Web Sites .. 338 13. Most Frequently Discussed Issues on Candidate Web Sites by Gender ......................................... 33 9 14. Total Number of Issues Discussed on Candidate Web Sites by Gender .......................................... 339 15. Character Traits Emphasized by Gender on Candidate Web S i t e s ................................................. 340 Vll 16. Appeal Strategies Used by Gender on Candidate Web S i t e s ...................................................341 17. Feminine, Masculine, Incumbent, and Challenger Appeal Strategies Used on Candidate Web Sites by Gender . 342 18. Types of Verbal Appeals Used by Gender on Candidate Web Sites: Attack Appeals, Group Appeals, Sectional A p p e a l s ................................................ 343 19. Nonverbal Strategies Used by Gender on Candidate Web S i t e s .............................................. 345 20. Production Strategies Used by Gender on Candidate Web S i t e s .............................................. 347 21. Interactive Strategies Used by Gender on Candidate Web S i t e s .............................................. 348 22. Videostyle/Webstyle: