Suchergebnisse

Voters typically evaluate an attractive candidate more favorably than an (otherwise equivalent) unattractive candidate. However, some voters "correct" for the biasing influence of physical appearance. This reduces, eliminates, or even reverses the physical attractiveness effect. Correction occurs when political experts evaluate a political candidate under nondistracting conditions. Under these "high cognitive capacity" conditions, voters primarily correct for physical unattractiveness. However, correction fails to occur when voters possess low levels of expertise or are distracted. Thus, in most circumstances, attractive candidates are evaluated more favorably than unattractive candidates. Two experiments provide support for this model of appearance‐based candidate evaluation.

Elections involving women candidates in the United States can offer unsettling examples of voter gender stereotypes, but research on women candidates provides little in the way of available data that allow us to link stereotypes to voter decision-making. This project reports results from a 2010 survey designed to examine gender stereotypes, candidate evaluations, and voting behavior in U.S. House elections with women candidates running against men. In general, stereotypes are not a central part of candidate evaluations or voting decisions, but the political party of the woman candidate can shape their role in candidate evaluations and vote choice.

Since Barack Obama's presidential campaign of 2008, media outlets have changed how race is covered and framed during political campaigns. In the so-called "post-racial" era of American politics when race is supposed to matter less, we are still very much attuned to stories that are framed by racial conflict. When the media wraps a "racial mode of interpretation" around a conflict between two candidates, there are potential electoral penalties involved for either a white or black candidate who becomes entangled in such a controversy.This project describes this process and provides empirical evidence that individuals' political judgments of candidates can be changed when exposed to such framing. Through a series of three survey experiments that simulate the effect of race-salient media coverage on voters, I find that there are statistically significant electoral penalties--in some cases, more than 10 percentage points--when respondents learn new information about a candidate that either assigns blame for a "race play" or connects him and his opponent to racial controversy. There is also evidence that the media plays a significant role in assigning blame for playing the race card. More respondents were willing to assign blame to a particular candidate when they read news stories in which a media analyst blamed that candidate.While past literature has focused on racial priming processes that activate white resentment through implicit or explicit cues in campaign ads, this research demonstrates that there may be an important learning process that has been overlooked. Media coverage with an explicit racial mode of interpretation may activate a broader backlash effect among respondents regardless of their racial resentment scores.

Our understanding of the impact of party conventions on opinion regarding presidential candidates is based largely on aggregate-level analysis. Extant individual-level investigation has been limited by the assumption that conventions are monolithic information events that exercise uniform effects. Using panel data, we show for the first time that conventions exercise two independent effects, which can counteract or reinforce each other depending on individual characteristics and information consumption. First, we demonstrate how exposure to speeches exercises a persuasive effect that benefits the convening candidate, even when partisanship is controlled. Second, we demonstrate how conventions exercise an atmospheric effect that activates general partisan bias. We find that observed postconvention changes are attributable to the combination of these separate but simultaneous effects. We also explore how individual partisanship conditions speech effects and find evidence that partisanship influences the decision to listen but is unlikely to influence the impact of a message already heard. [Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications Inc., copyright holder.]

Our understanding of the impact of party conventions on opinion regarding presidential candidates is based largely on aggregate-level analysis. Extant individual-level investigation has been limited by the assumption that conventions are monolithic information events that exercise uniform effects. Using panel data, we show for the first time that conventions exercise two independent effects, which can counteract or reinforce each other depending on individual characteristics and information consumption. First, we demonstrate how exposure to speeches exercises a persuasive effect that benefits the convening candidate, even when partisanship is controlled. Second, we demonstrate how conventions exercise an atmospheric effect that activates general partisan bias. We find that observed postconvention changes are attributable to the combination of these separate but simultaneous effects. We also explore how individual partisanship conditions speech effects and find evidence that partisanship influences the decision to listen but is unlikely to influence the impact of a message already heard.

"Person-centeredness" refers to how empathetic and warm a person's communication style is. Although the role of person-centeredness has been documented in various areas concerning interpersonal relations, person-centeredness has not been explored in the political realm. This project investigated how person-centered communications can influence impressions and evaluations of political candidates. In the first study, person-centered (PC) messages were shown to impact candidate trait ratings. Candidates using low PC messages were associated with more instrumental traits but fewer socio-emotional traits, while high PC candidates were assumed to have more socio-emotional traits but fewer instrumental traits. Similar results were found when participants rated a candidate's ability to handle socio-emotional and instrumental issues. With regard to global attitudes and voting likelihood, high PC candidates were preferred over low, however this PC effect was moderated by the candidate's gender, with female candidates showing a stronger PC effect than males. Study 2 investigated whether the PC effects shown in Study 1 would weaken or reverse in certain situations, specifically under conditions of threat where high PC candidates may be less desirable compared to low. Study 2 also explored whether individual differences within participants, namely political conservatism and authoritarianism, would moderate the PC effect. Overall results are discussed in terms of the benefits and costs of using PC messages and gender differences within politics.