Visual Presentation Style 2: Influences on Perceptions of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton Based on Visual Presentation Style During the Third 2016 Presidential Debate

Abstract

A field experiment was conducted to analyze the third and final 2016 presidential debate. Randomly assigned participants watched the debate in the format of mainly solo camera shots that alternate between the candidates (i.e., switched feed), or with both candidates framed side-by-side on screen (i.e., split screen feed). Though viewer feelings of positivity toward the candidates did not differ, visual presentation style had a significant effect on trait judgments for Donald Trump overall. Participants watching Trump on the switched camera feed perceived him as significantly more Sophisticated, Honest, Attractive, Sincere, Strong, Active, Intelligent, Trustworthy, and Generous. There was not an effect for Hillary Clinton’s trait ratings overall, though she was perceived as significantly more Strong, Competent, and Intelligent by those watching the switched feed. This suggests that visual presentation style significantly influenced viewer perceptions. Political ideology was a significant predictor of all but one of the traits for each candidate.

Keywords

2016 Clinton versus Trump debates visual presentation style audience perception

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

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, 619-630. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.42.4.619

App

McIntosh

D. N.

Reed

C. L.

Hertenstein

M. J.

(2011). Nonverbal channel use in communication of emotion: How may depend on why. Emotion, 11, 603-617. doi:10.1037/a0023164

Barnhurst

K. G.

Steele

C. A.

(1997). Image-bite news: The visual coverage of elections on U.S. television, 1968-1992. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 2(1), 40-58.

Beattie

(2016). Rethinking body language: How hand movements reveal hidden thoughts. New York, NY: Routledge.

Benoit

W. L.

(2013). Political election debates: Informing voters about policy and character. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

Bucy

E. P.

(2000). Emotional and evaluative consequences of inappropriate leader displays. Communication Research, 27, 194-226.

Bucy

E. P.

(2011). Nonverbal communication, emotion, and political evaluation. In Doveling

von Scheve

Konijn

E. A.

(Eds.), The Routledge handbook of emotions and mass media (pp. 195-220). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

Bucy

E. P.

Newhagen

J. E.

(1999). The micro- and macrodrama of politics on television: Effects of media format on candidate evaluations. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 43, 193-210. doi:10.1080/08838159909364484

Bull

P. E.

(1987). Posture and gesture (Vol. 16). New York, NY: Pergamon Press.

10.

Chance

M. R. A.

(1967). Attention structure as the basis of primate rank orders. Man, 2, 503-518. doi:10.2307/2799336

11.

Cho

Shah

D. V.

Nah

Brossard

(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

12.

Cornwell

J. F.

Bajger

A. T.

Higgins

E. T.

(2015). Judging political hearts and minds: How political dynamics drive social judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 1053-1068. doi:10.1177/0146167215589720

13.

Druckman

J. N.

(2003). The power of television images: The first Kennedy-Nixon debate revisited. Journal of Politics, 65, 559-571. doi:10.1111/1468-2508.t01-1-00015

14.

Eibl-Eibesfeldt

(1989). Human ethology. New York, NY: Aldine De Gruyter.

15.

Esser

(2008). Dimensions of political news cultures: Sound bite and image bite news in France, Germany, Great Britain, and the United States. International Journal of Press/Politics, 13, 401-428. doi:10.1177/1940161208323691

16.

Gong

Z. H.

Bucy

E. P.

(2015). Image bite analysis of presidential debates. In Browning

R. X.

(Ed.), Exploring the C-SPAN archives: Advancing the research agenda (pp. 45-75). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.

17.

Gong

Z. H.

Bucy

E. 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

18.

Grabe

M. E.

(1996). The South African broadcasting corporation’s coverage of the 1987 and 1989 elections: The matter of visual bias. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 40, 153-179. doi:10.1080/08838159609364342

19.

Grabe

M. E.

Bucy

E. P.

(2009). Image bite politics: News and the visual framing of elections. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

20.

Haumer

Donsbach

(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

21.

Hibbing

J. R.

Smith

K. B.

Alford

J. R.

(2013). Predisposed: Liberals, conservatives, and the biology of political differences. New York, NY: Routledge.

22.

Hughes

S. R.

Bucy

E. P.

(2016). Moments of partisan divergence in presidential debates: Indicators of verbal and nonverbal influence. In Schill

Kirk

Jasperson

(Eds.), Political communication in real time: Theoretical and applied research approaches (pp. 249-274). New York, NY: Routledge.

23.

Iyengar

Kinder

D. R.

(1987). News that matters: Agenda-setting and priming in a television age. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

24.

Kinder

D. R.

Peters

M. D.

Abelson

R. P.

Fiske

S. T.

(1980). Presidential prototypes. Political Behavior, 2, 315-337. doi:10.1007/BF00990172

25.

Koppensteiner

Stephan

Jäschke

J. P. M.

(2016). Moving speeches: Dominance, trustworthiness and competence in body motion. Personality and Individual Differences, 94, 101-106. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2016.01.013

26.

Kwan

L. Y.

Yap

Chiu

(2015). Mere exposure affects perceived descriptive norms: Implications for personal preferences and trust. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 129, 48-58. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.12.002

27.

Laustsen

Petersen

M. B.

(2016). Winning faces vary by ideology: How nonverbal source cues influence election and communication success in politics. Political Communication, 33, 188-211. doi:10.1080/10584609.2015.1050565

28.

Lodge

Taber

C. S.

(2013). The rationalizing voter. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

29.

Masters

R. D.

(1989). The nature of politics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

30.

Mazur

(2005). Biosociology of dominance and deference. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

31.

Murray

G. R.

(2014). Evolutionary preferences for physical formidability in leaders. Politics and the Life Sciences, 33(1), 33-53. doi:10.2990/33_1_33

32.

Mutz

D. C.

(2015). In-your-face politics: The consequences of uncivil media. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

33.

Olivola

C. Y.

Todorov

(2010). Elected in 100 milliseconds: Appearance-based trait inferences and voting. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 34, 83-110. doi:10.1007/s10919-009-0082-1

34.

Patterson

M. L.

Churchill

M. E.

Burger

G. K.

Powell

J. L.

(1992). Verbal and nonverbal modality effects on impressions of political candidates: Analysis from the 1984 presidential debates. Communication Monographs, 59, 231-242. doi:10.1080/03637759209376267

35.

Scheufele

D. A.

Kim

Brossard

(2007). My friend’s enemy: How split-screen debate coverage influences evaluation of presidential debates. Communication Research, 34, 3-24. doi:10.1177/0093650206296079

36.

Shah

D. V.

Hanna

Bucy

E. P.

Wells

Quevedo

(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

37.

Stewart

P. A.

Hall

S. C.

(2016). Microanalysis of the appropriateness of facial displays during presidential debates: C-SPAN coverage of the first and third 2012 debates. In Browning

R. X.

(Ed.), Exploring the C-SPAN archives: Advancing the research agenda (pp. 103-129). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.

38.

Stewart

P. A.

Mosely

(2009). Politicians under the microscope: Eye blink rates during the first Bush-Kerry debate. White House Studies, 9, 373-388.

39.

Sullivan

D. G.

Masters

R. D.

(1988). “Happy warriors”: Leaders’ facial displays, viewers’ emotions, and political support. American Journal of Political Science, 32, 345-368. doi:10.2307/2111127

40.

Sullivan

D. G.

Masters

R. D.

(1994). Biopolitics, the media, and leadership: Nonverbal cues, emotions, and trait attributions in the evaluation of leaders. In Somit

Peterson

S. A.

(Eds.), Research in biopolitics: Biopolitics in the mainstream (2nd ed., pp. 237-273). Somerville, MA: Emerald.

41.

Third Presidential Debate (2016, October 20). Third presidential debate of 2016 draws 71.6 million viewers. Retrieved from http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2016/third-presidential-debate-of-2016-draws-71-6-million-viewers.html

42.

Todorov

Mandisodza

A. N.

Goren

Hall

C. C.

(2005). Inferences of competence from faces predict election outcomes. Science, 308, 1623-1626. doi:10.1126/science.1110589

43.

Verrier

(2012). Evidence for the influence of the mere-exposure effect on voting in the Eurovision song contest. Judgment and Decision Making, 7, 639-643.

44.

Wicks

R. H.

(2007). Does presentation style of presidential debates influence young voters’ perceptions of candidates? American Behavioral Scientist, 50, 1247-1254. doi:10.1177/0002764207300054

45.

Wicks

R. H.

Stewart

P. A.

Eubanks

A. D.

Eidelman

Dye

(2017). With time comes commitment: Considering visual presentation style, political ideology, and time during the first 2016 presidential debate. American Behavioral Scientist. Manuscript submitted for publication.