This study explores whether visual presentation style (i.e., camera shot variation) may influence perceptions of Presidential candidates during televised debates. In a field experiment, 341 randomly assigned college students viewed or listened to one of seven broadcast network or cable/satellite channel conditions during the first televised Presidential debate between Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and Republican nominee Donald Trump. A feeling thermometer and 19 leadership and personal traits were assessed during the time leading up to the debate and again immediately afterward. No differences were found based on presentation style, likely reflecting lack of variance in visual differences between the networks and broadcast channels. However, participant political ideology was significantly related to postdebate feelings toward each candidate. Judgments of Clinton’s professional and personal traits increased as was also the case albeit less significantly for Trump. Reasons for these changes in perceptions of the candidates following the debate are explored.
AbelsonR. P.KinderD. R.PetersM. D.FiskeS. T. (1982). Affective and semantic components in political person perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 619-630. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.42.4.619
2.
BenoitW. L. (2013). Political election debates: Informing voters about policy and character. New York, NY: Lexington Books.
3.
BenoitW. L.BlaneyJ. R.PierP. (2000). Acclaiming, attacking, and defending: A functional analysis of U.S. nominating convention keynote speeches. Political Communication, 17, 61-84. doi:10.1080/105846000198512
4.
BraderT. (2006). Campaigning for hearts and minds: How emotional appeals in political ads work. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
5.
ChoJ.ShahD. V.NahS.BrossardD. (2009). “Split screens” and “spin rooms”: Debate modality, post-debate coverage, and the new videomalaise. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 53, 242-261. doi:10.1080/08838150902907827
6.
GongZ. H.BucyE. P. (2015). Image bite analysis of presidential debates. In BrowningR. X. (Ed.), Exploring the C-SPAN archives: Advancing the research agenda (pp. 45-75). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.
7.
GongZ. H.BucyE. P. (2016). When style obscures substance: Visual attention to display appropriateness in the 2012 presidential debates. Communication Monographs, 83, 349-372. doi:10.1080/03637751.2015.1119868
8.
GrabeM. E.BucyE. P. (2009). Image bite politics: News and the visual framing of elections. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
9.
HaumerF.DonsbachW. (2009). The rivalry of nonverbal cues on the perception of politicians by television viewers. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 53, 262-279. doi:10.1080/08838150902907918
10.
JamiesonK. H.WaldmanP. (2004). The press effect: Politicians, journalists, and the stories that shape the political world. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
11.
KinderD. R.PetersM. D.AbelsonR. P.FiskeS. T. (1980). Presidential prototypes. Political Behavior, 2, 315-337. doi:10.1007/BF00990172
12.
LammersW. W. (1982). Presidential attention-focusing activities. In GraberD. A. (Ed.), The president and the public (pp. 145-171). Philadelphia, PA: Institute for the Study of Human Issues.
13.
LangA.GeigerS.StrickwerdaM.SumnerJ. (1993). The effects of related and unrelated cuts on television viewers’ attention, processing capacity, and memory. Communication Research, 20, 4-29. doi:10.1177/009365093020001001
14.
LangA.ZhouS.SchwartzN.BollsP. D.PotterR. 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 & Electronic Media, 44, 94-109. doi:10.1207/s15506878jobem4401_7
15.
McCombsM. E.ShawD. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176-187. doi:10.1086/267990
NabiR. L.HendriksA. (2003). The persuasive effect of host and audience reaction shots in television talk shows. Journal of Communication, 53, 527-543. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2003.tb02606.x
18.
NortonM. I.GoethalsG. R. (2004). Spin (and pitch) doctors: Campaign strategies in televised political debates. Political Behavior, 26, 227-248. doi:10.1023/B:POBE.0000043454.25971.6a
19.
SeiterJ. S.WegerH.Jr. (2005). Audience perceptions of candidates’ appropriateness as a function of nonverbal behaviors displayed during televised political debates. Journal of Social Psychology, 145, 225-236. doi:10.3200/SOCP.145.2.225-236
20.
SeiterJ. S.WegerH.Jr.JensenA.KinzerH. J. (2010). The role of background behavior in televised debates: Does displaying nonverbal agreement and/or disagreement benefit either debater?Journal of Social Psychology, 150, 278-300. doi:10.1080/08934210600626856
21.
ShahD. V.HannaA.BucyE. P.WellsC.QuevedoV. (2015). The power of television images in a social media age: Linking biobehavioral and computational approaches via the second screen. ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 659, 225-307. doi:10.1177/0002716215569220
22.
ShawD. R. (1999). A study of presidential campaign event effects from 1952 to 1992. Journal of Politics, 61, 387-422. doi:10.2307/2647509
23.
StewartP. A.SalterF. K.MehuM. (2009). Taking leaders at face value: Ethology and the analysis of televised leader displays. Politics and the Life Sciences, 28(1), 48-74. doi:10.2990/28_1_48
24.
TedescoJ. C.KaidL. L. (2000). Style and effects of the Bush and Gore spots. In KaidL. L.TedescoJ. C.BystromD. G.McKinneyM. S. (Eds.), The millennium election: Communication in the 2000 campaign (pp. 5-16). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
25.
WicksR. H. (2007). Does presentation style of presidential debates influence young voters’ perceptions of candidates?American Behavioral Scientist, 50, 1247-1254. doi:10.1177/0002764207300054
