The American presidency is evolving, and with it public expectations of how often and where the president should communicate. The rhetorical presidency, characterized by inclusive public appeals broadcast in a few media venues, has transitioned to a ubiquitous presidency wherein accessible, personal, and pluralistic communications are the norm. Despite these changes in communication style at the presidential level, scholars have yet to document formally how individuals’ expectations might be changing accordingly. Specifically, what do individuals expect of the frequency of and venues for presidential communication? We investigate established and emergent expectations of presidential communication via a field survey completed in the lead up to the 2016 Iowa Caucuses. The findings indicate that while expectations of presidential communication are shifting with executive behavior, beliefs remain moored to foundational notions of the informational, transparent, and dignified presidency. These shifts have democratic repercussions for the institutional presidency and for citizens.
BargerH. M. (1984). The impossible presidency: Illusions and realities of executive power. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.
2.
BartelsL. M. (1988). Presidential primaries and the dynamics of public choice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
3.
BaumM. A. (2003). Soft news goes to war: Public opinion and American foreign policy in the new media age. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
4.
BaumM. A.KernellS. (2009). How cable ended the golden age of presidential television: From 1969 to 2006. In KernellS.SmithS. S. (Eds.), Principles and practice of American politics: Classic and contemporary readings (4th ed., pp. 311-326). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
5.
BennettW. L. (1998). The uncivic culture: Communication, identity, and the rise of lifestyle politics. PS: Political Science and Politics, 31, 740-761. doi:10.2307/420711
6.
BerelsonB. R.LazarsfeldP. F.McPheeW. N. (1954). Voting: A study of opinion formation in a presidential campaign. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
7.
BerloD. K. (1960). The process of communication: An introduction to theory and practice. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
8.
BuchananB. (1987). The citizen’s presidency: Standards of choice and judgment. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
9.
BucyE. P. (2000). Emotional and evaluative consequences of inappropriate leader displays. Communication Research, 27, 194-226. doi:10.1177/009365000027002004
10.
BucyE. P.NewhagenJ. E. (1999). The emotional appropriateness heuristic: Processing televised presidential reactions to the news. Journal of Communication, 49(4), 59-79. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1999.tb02817.x
11.
BurgoonJ. K. (1993). Interpersonal expectations, expectancy violations, and emotional communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 12, 30-48. doi:10.1177/0261927X93121003
12.
BurgoonJ. K.WaltherJ. B. (1990). Nonverbal expectancies and the evaluative consequences of violations. Human Communication Research, 17, 232-265. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1990.tb00232.x
13.
CampbellA.ConverseP. E.MillerW. E.StokesD. E. (1960). The American voter. New York, NY: John Wiley.
14.
CappellaJ. N.GreeneJ. O. (1982). A discrepancy-arousal explanation of mutual influence in expressive behavior for adult and infant-adult interaction. Communication Monographs, 49, 89-114. doi:10.1080/03637758209376074
15.
CeaserJ. W.ThurowG. E.TulisJ.BessetteJ. M. (1981). The rise of the rhetorical presidency. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 11, 158-171.
16.
ChadwickA. (2013). The hybrid media system: Politics and power. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
17.
CohenJ. E. (2010). Going local: Presidential leadership in the post-broadcast age. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
18.
CookT. E. (2005). Governing with the news: The news media as a political institution (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
19.
DavisR.OwenD. (1998). New media and American politics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
20.
DiddiA.LaRoseR. (2006). Getting hooked on news: Uses and gratifications and the formation of news habits among college students in an Internet environment. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 50, 193-210. doi:10.1207/s15506878jobem5002_2
21.
EastonD.DennisJ. (1973). Governing authorities: The child’s image of government. In DennisJ. (Ed.), Socialization to politics: A reader (pp. 59-81). New York, NY: John Wiley.
22.
EdwardsG. C.III. (1983). The public presidency: The pursuit of popular support. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
23.
EdwardsG. C.III. (2003). On deaf ears: The limits of the bully pulpit. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
24.
ErlandsonD. A.HarrisE. L.SkipperB. L.AllenS. D. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry: A guide to methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
25.
FarnsworthS. J.LichterS. R. (2006). The mediated presidency: Television news and presidential governance. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.
26.
FishelJ. (1985). Presidents & promises: From campaign pledge to presidential performance. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
27.
GrabeM. E.BucyE. P. (2009). Image bite politics: News and the visual framing of elections. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
28.
HartR. P. (1987). The sound of leadership: Presidential communication in the modern age. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
29.
HartR. P. (1999). Seducing America: How television charms the modern voter (Rev. ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30.
HartmannT.GoldhoornC. (2011). Horton and Wohl revisited: Exploring viewers’ experience of parasocial interaction. Journal of Communication, 61, 1104-1121. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01595.x
31.
HerzikE. B.DodsonM. L. (1982). The president and public expectations: A research note. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 12, 168-173.
32.
HolbertR. L.TschidaD. A.DixonM.CherryK.SteuberK.AirneD. (2005). The West Wing and depictions of the American presidency: Expanding the domains of framing in political communication. Communication Quarterly, 53, 505-522. doi:10.1080/01463370500102228
33.
HortonD.WohlR. (1956). Mass communication and parasocial interaction: Observations on intimacy at a distance. Psychiatry, 19, 215-229. doi:10.1080/00332747.1956.11023049
34.
JamiesonK. H. (1988). Eloquence in an electronic age: The transformation of political speechmaking. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
KayeB. K.JohnsonT. J. (2002). Online and in the know: Uses and gratifications of the web for political information. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 46, 54-71. doi:10.1207/s15506878jobem4601_4
37.
KernellS. (2007). Going public: New strategies of presidential leadership (4th ed.). Washington DC: CQ Press.
38.
KinderD. R.PetersM. D.AbelsonR. P.FiskeS. T. (1980). Presidential prototypes. Political Behavior, 2, 315-337. doi:10.1007/BF00990172
39.
KumarM. J. (2007). Managing the president’s message: The White House communications operation. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
40.
LaneR. E.SearsD. O. (1964). Public opinion. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
41.
LangG. E.LangK. (1983). The battle for public opinion. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
42.
McCroskeyJ. C.YoungT. J. (1981). Ethos and credibility: The construct and its measurement after three decades. Communication Studies, 32, 24-34. doi:10.1080/10510978109368075
43.
MedvicS. K. (2013). In defense of politicians: The expectations trap and its threat to democracy. New York, NY: Routledge.
44.
OwenD.DavisR. (2008). Presidential communication in the Internet era. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 38, 658-673. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5705.2008.02669.x
45.
PalmgreenP.RayburnJ. D. (1982). Gratifications sought and media exposure: An expectancy value model. Communication Research, 9, 561-580. doi:10.1177/009365082009004004
ScaccoJ. M.CoeK. (2016). The ubiquitous presidency: Toward a new paradigm for studying presidential communication. International Journal of Communication, 10, 2014-2037.
48.
ScaccoJ. M.CoeK. (in press). Acting “presidential”: The modern campaign meets the ubiquitous presidency. In DentonR. E.Jr. (Ed.), Political campaign communication: Theory, method and practice. New York, NY: Lexington Books.
49.
SimonD. M. (2009). Public expectations of the president. In EdwardsG. C.HowellW. G. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the American presidency (pp. 135-159). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
50.
SundarS. S.LimperosA. M. (2013). Uses and grats 2.0: New gratifications for new media. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 57, 504-525.
51.
TannenbaumP. H.GreenbergB. S.SilvermanF. R. (1977). Candidate images. In KrausS. (Ed.), The great debates: Kennedy vs. Nixon, 1960 (pp. 271-288). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
52.
TrentJ. S.Short-ThompsonC.MongeauP. A.MetzlerM. S. (2013). Diversity in 2008, homogeneity in 2012: The ideal candidate revisited. American Behavioral Scientist, 57, 1539-1557. doi:10.1177/0002764213489017
53.
TulisJ. K. (1996). Revising the rhetorical presidency. In MedhurstM. J. (Ed.), Beyond the rhetorical presidency (pp. 3-14). College Station: Texas A&M University Press.
54.
ValentinoN. A.SearsD. O. (1998). Event-driven political communication and the preadult socialization of partisanship. Political Behavior, 20, 127-154. doi:10.1023/A:1024880713245
55.
ZarefskyD. (2004). Presidential rhetoric and the power of definition. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 34, 607-619. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5705.2004.00214.x
