Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Facing Your Competition: Findings from the 2016 Presidential Election

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Facial Displays of Leaders

Abstract

This chapter expands on the literature concerning media coverage of competition for political office. More specifically, we consider how visual presentation choices of the candidates and their display behavior intersect to influence public perception. We do so by summarizing research carried out concerning visual priming and visual framing during the 2016 presidential election. We first consider the visual frames of presidential candidates in competitive contexts, namely the primary and general election debates. Specifically, we recount findings from a content analysis of the visual frames used during the first two primary debates for each political party, as well as the findings from two field experiments during the general election concerning participant response to the different frames presented by networks during the first debate and available to them during the third debate and how this influenced trait evaluations. We conclude by discussing the interactive influence of the visual presentation styles chosen by networks, the facial displays by the candidates, and the larger context of the election on public perceptions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Chap. 4 by Bucy and Gong for a further discussion.

  2. 2.

    See Chap. 4 by Bucy and Gong.

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(4), 619–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • App, B., McIntosh, D. N., Reed, C. L., & Hertenstein, M. J. (2011). Nonverbal channel use in communication of emotion: How may depend on why. Emotion, 11(3), 603–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azari, J. R. (2016). How the news media helped to nominate trump. Political Communication, 33(4), 677–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bargh, J. (1994). The four horsemen of automaticity: Intention, awareness, efficiency, and control as separate issues. In R. S. Wyer & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition: Applications (pp. 1–40). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barner-Barry, C. (1986). An introduction to nonparticipant observational research techniques. Politics and the Life Sciences, 5(1), 139–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beattie, G. (2016). Rethinking body language: How hand movements reveal hidden thoughts. New York, NY: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Bucy, E. P. (2000). Emotional and evaluative consequences of inappropriate leader displays. Communication Research, 27(2), 194–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bucy, E. P. (2017). Media biopolitics: The emergence of a subfield. In S. A. Peterson & A. Somit (Eds.), Handbook of biology and politics (pp. 284–303). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bucy, E. P., & Newhagen, J. E. (1999). The micro- and macro-drama of politics on television: Effects of media format on candidate evaluations. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 43(2), 193–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Chance, M. R. A. (1967). Attention structure as the basis of primate rank orders. Man, 2(4), 503–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, J., Shah, D. V., Nah, S., & Brossard, D. (2009). “Split screens” and “spin rooms”: Debate modality, post-debate coverage, and the new videomalaise. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 53(2), 242–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cornwell, J. F., Bajger, A. T., & Higgins, E. T. (2015). Judging political hearts and minds: How political dynamics drive social judgments. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(8), 1053–1068.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dowdle, A. J., Adkins, R. E., Sebold, K., & Cuellar, J. (2016). Forecasting presidential nominations in 2016: #WePredictedClintonANDTrump. PS: Political Science & Politics, 49(4), 691–695.

    Google Scholar 

  • Druckman, J. N. (2003). The power of television images: The first Kennedy‐Nixon debate revisited. Journal of Politics, 65(2), 559–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. (1989). Human ethology. New York, NY: Aldine De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engle, E. M., & Lord, R. G. (1997). Implicit theories, self-schemas, and leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 40(4), 988–1010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fein, S., Goethals, G. R., & Kugler, M. B. (2007). Social influence on political judgments: The case of presidential debates. Political Psychology, 28(2), 165–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gakhal, B., & Senior, C. (2008). Examining the influence of fame in the presence of beauty: An electrodermal ‘neuromarketing’study. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 7(4–5), 331–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gong, Z. H., & Bucy, E. P. (2015). Image bite analysis of presidential debates. In R. X. Browning (Ed.), Exploring the C-SPAN archives: Advancing the research agenda (pp. 45–75). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gong, Z. H., & Bucy, E. P. (2016). When style obscures substance: Visual attention to display appropriateness in the 2012 presidential debates. Communication Monographs, 83(3), 349–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grabe, M. E., & Bucy, E. P. (2009). Image bite politics: News and the visual framing of elections. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hassin, R. R., Uleman, J. S., & Bargh, J. A. (Eds.). (2005). The new unconscious. Oxford Series in Social Cognition and Social Neuroscience. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haumer, F., & Donsbach, W. (2009). The rivalry of nonverbal cues on the perception of politicians by television viewers. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 53(2), 262–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iyengar, S., & Kinder, D. R. (1987). News that matters: Agenda-setting and priming in a television age. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iyengar, S., & McGrady, J. (2007). Media politics: A citizen’s guide. New York, NY: WW Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinder, D. R., Peters, M. D., Abelson, R. P., & Fiske, S. T. (1980). Presidential prototypes. Political Behavior, 2(4), 315–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koppensteiner, M., & Grammer, K. (2010). Motion patterns in political speech and their influence on personality ratings. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(3), 374–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koppensteiner, M., Stephan, P., & Jäschke, J. P. M. (2016). Moving speeches: Dominance, trustworthiness and competence in body motion. Personality and Individual Differences, 94(74), 101–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kwan, L. Y., Yap, S., & Chiu, C. (2015). Mere exposure affects perceived descriptive norms: Implications for personal preferences and trust. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 129(127), 48–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lanoue, D. J., & Schrott, P. R. (1991). The joint press conference: The history, impact, and prospects of American presidential debates. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laustsen, L., & Petersen, M. B. (2016). Winning faces vary by ideology: How nonverbal source cues influence election and communication success in politics. Political Communication, 33(2), 188–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, R. G., & Boydstun, A. E. (2016). What we should really be asking about media attention to Trump. Political Communication, 34(1), 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (2002). Leadership and information processing: Linking perceptions and performance. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Masters, R. D. (1975). Politics as a biological phenomenon. Social Science Information, 14(2), 7–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masters, R. D. (1988). Nice guys DON’T finish last: Aggressive and appeasement gestures in media images of politicians. In M. R. A. Chance (Ed.), Social fabrics of the mind (pp. 277–295). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Masters, R. D., Frey, S., & Bente, G. (1991). Dominance & attention: Images of leaders in German, French, & American TV news. Polity, 23(3), 373–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • McKinney, M. S., & Warner, B. R. (2013). Do presidential debates matter? Examining a decade of campaign debate effects. Argumentation and Advocacy, 49(4), 238–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, G. R., & Murray, S. M. (2011). Caveman executive leadership: Evolved leadership preferences and biological sex. In G. Saad (Ed.), Evolutionary psychology in the business sciences (pp. 135–163). New York, NY: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, G. R., & Schmitz, J. D. (2011). Caveman politics: Evolutionary leadership preferences and physical stature. Social Science Quarterly, 92(5), 1215–1235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mutz, D. C. (2007). Effects of “in-your-face” television discourse on perceptions of a legitimate opposition. American Political Science Review, 101(4), 621–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mutz, D. C., & Reeves, B. (2005). The new videomalaise: Effects of televised incivility on political trust. American Political Science Review, 99(1), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nabi, R. L., & Hendriks, A. (2003). The persuasive effect of host and audience reaction shots in television talk shows. Journal of Communication, 53(3), 527–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newton, J. S., Masters, R. D., McHugo, G. J., & Sullivan, D. G. (1987). Making up our minds: Effects of network coverage on viewer impressions of leaders. Polity, 20(2), 226–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norton, M. I., & Goethals, G. R. (2004). Spin (and pitch) doctors: Campaign strategies in televised political debates. Political Behavior, 26(3), 227–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, M. L. (2017). Nonverbal communication. In Reference module in neuroscience and biobehavioral psychology (pp. 1–10). Cambridge, MA: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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(3), 231–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, T. E. (2016, June 20). Pre-primary news coverage of the 2016 presidential race: Trump’s rise, Sanders’ emergence, Clinton’s struggle. HKS Working Paper No. 16-023. Retrieved from https://shorensteincenter.org/pre-primary-news-coverage-2016-trump-clinton-sanders/

  • Salter, F. K. (2007). Emotions in command: Biology, bureaucracy, and cultural evolution. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Pub.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheufele, D. A., Kim, E., & Brossard, D. (2007). My friend’s enemy: How split-screen debate coverage influences evaluation of presidential debates. Communication Research, 34(1), 3–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, J. N., Stewart, P. A., & Curran, M. A. (2002). A defining presidential moment: 9/11 and the rally effect. Political Psychology, 23(3), 559–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sides, J., & Vavreck, L. (2014). The gamble: Choice and chance in the 2012 presidential election. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Spisak, B. R., Nicholson, N., & van Vugt, M. (2011). Leadership in organizations: An evolutionary perspective. In G. Saad (Ed.), Evolutionary psychology in the business sciences (pp. 165–190). New York, NY: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, P. A., Eubanks, A. D., Dye, R. G., Eidelman, S., & Wicks, R. H. (2017). Visual presentation style 2: Influences on perceptions of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton based on visual presentation style during the third 2016 presidential debate. American Behavioral Scientist, 61(5), 545–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, P. A., Eubanks, A. D., & Miller, J. (Forthcoming). Visual priming and framing of the 2016 GOP and Democratic Party presidential primary debates. Politics and the Life Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, P. A., & Mosely, J. (2009). Politicians under the microscope: Eye blink rates during the first bush-kerry debate. White House Studies, 9(4), 373–388.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, D. G., & Masters, R. D. (1988). ‘Happy warriors’: Leaders’ facial displays, viewers’ emotions, and political support. American Journal of Political Science, 32(2), 345–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, D. G., & Masters, R. D. (1994). Biopolitics, the media, and leadership: Nonverbal cues, emotions, and trait attributions in the evaluation of leaders. In A. Somit & S. A. Peterson (Eds.), Research in biopolitics: Biopolitics in the mainstream (2nd ed., pp. 237–273). Somerville, MA: Emerald Group Publishing, Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Todorov, A., Mandisodza, A. N., Goren, A., & Hall, C. C. (2005). Inferences of competence from faces predict election outcomes. Science, 308(5728), 1623–1626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Vugt, M., & Ahuja, A. (2011). Naturally selected: The evolutionary science of leadership. New York, NY: Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verrier, D. (2012). Evidence for the influence of the mere-exposure effect on voting in the Eurovision song contest. Judgement and Decision Making, 7(5), 639–643.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vigil, J. M. (2010). Political leanings vary with facial expression processing and psychosocial functioning. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13(5), 547–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wicks, R. H. (2007). Does presentation style of presidential debates influence young voters’ perceptions of candidates? American Behavioral Scientist, 50(9), 1247–1254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wicks, R. H., Stewart, P. A., Eubanks, A. D., Eidelman, S., & Dye, R. G. (2017). Visual presentation style 1: A test of visual presentation styles and candidate evaluation during the first 2016 presidential debate. American Behavioral Scientist, 61(5), 533–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA

    Patrick A. Stewart & Austin Eubanks

  2. University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, CO, USA

    Elena Svetieva

  3. The University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA

    Jason M. Miller

Authors
  1. Patrick A. Stewart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elena Svetieva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Austin Eubanks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jason M. Miller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patrick A. Stewart .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Aston University, Birmingham, UK

    Carl Senior

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Stewart, P.A., Svetieva, E., Eubanks, A., Miller, J.M. (2018). Facing Your Competition: Findings from the 2016 Presidential Election. In: Senior, C. (eds) The Facial Displays of Leaders. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94535-4_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation