Speaking style and candidate evaluations
This is the author accepted manuscript of an article published in Politics, Groups, and Identities, the publisher's version of the manuscript can be found here 10.1080/21565503.2019.1629317
This is the author accepted manuscript of an article published in Politics, Groups, and Identities, the publisher's version of the manuscript can be found here 10.1080/21565503.2019.1629317
BASE
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.
BASE
Two experiments demonstrate that highly empathetic messages conveyed by a political candidate produce more favorable attitudes and increase the likelihood individuals will vote for the political candidate. Study 1 revealed this Empathetic Communication Effect is stronger among female political candidates than male. Compared to male candidates, female candidates are evaluated more positively when they engage in empathetic language but are more harshly penalized when they fail to display empathy. An analogous pattern emerged for candidate party in Study 2. Namely, the Empathetic Communication Effect is stronger among Democratic political candidates than Republican political candidates. Results also explore the impact of empathetic rhetoric on perceptions of candidates' socio-emotionality and instrumentality.
BASE
Two experiments demonstrate that highly empathetic messages conveyed by a political candidate produce more favorable attitudes and increase the likelihood individuals will vote for the political candidate. Study 1 revealed this Empathetic Communication Effect is stronger among female political candidates than male. Compared to male candidates, female candidates are evaluated more positively when they engage in empathetic language but are more harshly penalized when they fail to display empathy. An analogous pattern emerged for candidate party in Study 2. Namely, the Empathetic Communication Effect is stronger among Democratic political candidates than Republican political candidates. Results also explore the impact of empathetic rhetoric on perceptions of candidates' socio-emotionality and instrumentality. ; peerReviewed ; publishedVersion
BASE
"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.
BASE
This work examined whether the endorsement of the culturally idealized form of masculinity—hegemonic masculinity (HM)—accounted for unique variance in men's and women's support for Donald Trump across seven studies (n = 2,007). Consistent with our theoretical backdrop, in the days (Studies 1 and 2) and months (Studies 3 through 6) following the 2016 American presidential election, women's and men's endorsement of HM predicted voting for and evaluations of Trump, over and above political party affiliation, gender, race, and education. These effects held when controlling for respondents' trust in the government, in contrast to a populist explanation of support for Trump. In addition, as conceptualized, HM was associated with less trust in the government (Study 3), more sexism (Study 4), more racism (Study 5), and more xenophobia (Study 6) but continued to predict unique variance in evaluations of Trump when controlling for each of these factors. Whereas HM predicted evaluations of Trump, across studies, social and prejudiced attitudes predicted evaluations of his democratic challengers: Clinton in 2016 and Biden in 2020. We replicate the findings of Studies 1 through 6 using a nationally representative sample of the United States (Study 7) 50 days prior to the 2020 presidential election. The findings highlight the importance of psychological examinations of masculinity as a cultural ideology to understand how men's and women's endorsement of HM legitimizes patriarchal dominance and reinforces gender, race, and class-based hierarchies via candidate support.
BASE
This study seeks to examine how gender stereotypes and political party stereotypes influence voters' evaluation of candidates and vote choice through evaluating voters' reactions to stereotypic expectancy violations by fictional candidates. Previous research has suggested that multiple factors contribute to vote choice, such as political party affiliation and subjective attitudes about gender roles and stereotypes. Participants (n = 200), recruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk, were asked to evaluate fictional Republican and Democratic male and female presidential candidates, and to fill out surveys defining their attitudes and beliefs on gender roles and stereotypes. No interactions were found between a candidate's gender and political party and the participants' political party affiliation. Attitudes about gender roles for men and women played a part in evaluating candidates' competency and ability to govern. Future research should study the mechanisms behind traditional gender attitudes' effect on vote choice and incorporate other demographic and social factors, such as biases regarding race and sexuality, into election data collection in order to examine their effect on vote choice.
BASE
We study the personalization of voting behaviour in European Parliament elections. We argue that information from the media is crucial for providing linkages between candidates and voters. Moreover, we contend that candidates can serve as information short-cuts given the complexity of European Union politics. We use a four-wave Dutch panel survey and a media study that enable us to link evaluations of lead candidates, party preferences, and vote choice to exposure to news about these candidates. We show, firstly, that exposure to candidate news is a strong explanatory factor for candidate recognition. Secondly, we find that candidate evaluations positively affect party choice, albeit mainly for those voters who tend to be politically aware. Our research has implications for debates about the European Union's accountability deficit.
BASE
There is growing worldwide concern that the rampant spread of digital fake news (DFN) via new media technologies is detrimentally impacting Democratic elections. However, the actual influence of this recent Internet phenomenon on electoral decisions has not been directly examined. Accordingly, this study tested the effects of attention to DFN on readers' Presidential candidate preferences via an experimental web-survey administered to a cross-sectional American sample (N = 552). Results showed no main effect of exposure to DFN on participants' candidate evaluations or vote choice. However, the perceived believability of DFN about the Democratic candidate negatively mediated evaluations of that candidate—especially amongst far-right ideologues. These results suggest that DFN may at worst reinforce the partisan dispositions of mostly politically conservative Internet users, but does not cause or induce conversions in these dispositions. Overall, this study contributes novel experimental evidence, indicating that the potential electoral impact of DFN, although concerning, is strongly conditional on a reciprocal interaction between message receptibility and a pre-existing right-wing ideological orientation. The said impact is, therefore, likely narrow in scope.
BASE
Do messages that evoke a gendered leadership style affect attitudes toward well-known candidates? If so, among what sorts of voters? I show that voters' evaluations of national politicians, including Hillary Clinton, can be influenced by presenting candidates as stereotypically masculine or feminine leaders. In two survey experiments of California registered voters (n = 1,800 each) conducted at the height of the 2016 presidential election campaign, I find that, on average, voters seemed to prefer both male and female politicians more when they were described as having feminine leadership styles. However, clear heterogeneous treatment effects occurred: Democrats, liberals, and women from all parties evaluated politicians more favorably when they were described as feminine; Republicans, conservatives, and voters for Donald Trump evaluated the same candidates less favorably when described as feminine. The findings have implications for scholarship that links gender stereotyping, partisanship, and ideology to voter behavior.
BASE
Do messages that evoke a gendered leadership style affect attitudes toward well-known candidates? If so, among what sorts of voters? I show that voters' evaluations of national politicians, including Hillary Clinton, can be influenced by presenting candidates as stereotypically masculine or feminine leaders. In two survey experiments of California registered voters (n = 1,800 each) conducted at the height of the 2016 presidential election campaign, I find that, on average, voters seemed to prefer both male and female politicians more when they were described as having feminine leadership styles. However, clear heterogeneous treatment effects occurred: Democrats, liberals, and women from all parties evaluated politicians more favorably when they were described as feminine; Republicans, conservatives, and voters for Donald Trump evaluated the same candidates less favorably when described as feminine. The findings have implications for scholarship that links gender stereotyping, partisanship, and ideology to voter behavior.
BASE
Previous framing effects research has largely examined textual and visual influences separately, thus neglecting potential interaction effects between the two communication channels. The present study used a 2 ´ 2 experiment to examine the textual and visual influences in a separate manner and in an integrated way. It was tested how, if at all, textually and/or visually isolating a politician involved in scandal affects news consumers' perceptions. Results revealed that textual isolation cues had no effect. In contrast, visual isolation resulted in more negative candidate evaluations. Yet, this effect was only detected in the absence of textual isolation cues. Negative evaluations, in turn, decreased participants' intention to vote for the politician depicted.
BASE
Today, identity expression and acceptance represent an important area of political advocacy and representation. Yet, how responsive are voters to new racial identity cues promoted by political leaders? Using candidates with interracial backgrounds as a case study, we assess whether voters are responsive to candidates who assert a mixed-race identity or if voters primarily rely on other traits, such as the candidate's family background, in determining their support of that candidate. Using an experimental design, this study presents participants with various hypothetical candidates who vary both in their racial heritages (i.e., candidates with Asian and White interracial parents or Black and White interracial parents) and identity choices (i.e., as single-race minority, single-race White, or biracial). We then compare how the mixed-race, single-race minority, and White participants evaluate the candidate. We expect that the mixed-race participants will be most supportive of candidates who signal a common in-group identity by identifying specifically as "biracial". On the other hand, the single-race minority and White participants should be more likely to adhere to the one-drop rule or hypodescent in their evaluations, meaning they will provide more positive evaluations of interracial candidates who identify as a single-race minority. Our study finds that the single-race minority and White participants completely overlook racial identity cues and instead focus on the description of the candidate's family heritage along with their own assumptions about hypodescent. The mixed-race participants, on the other hand, show strong support for biracial-identified, in-group political candidates This study adds to a burgeoning literature on racial perception and on political representation.
BASE
In: Saha , S & Weeks , A 2020 , ' Ambitious Women : Gender and Voter Perceptions of Candidate Ambition ' , Political Behavior , vol. 0 , no. 0 , pp. 0-0 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-020-09636-z
Are ambitious women punished in politics? Building on literature from negotiation, we argue that women candidates who are perceived to be ambitious are more likely to face social backlash. We first explore what the term 'ambitious' means to voters, developing and testing a new multidimensional concept of perceived ambition, from desire to run for higher office to scope of agenda. We then test the link between these 'ambitious' traits and voter support for candidates using five conjoint experiments in two countries, the U.S. and the U.K. Our results show that while ambitious women are not penalized overall, the aggregate results hide differences in taste for ambitious women across parties. We find that in the U.S. left-wing voters are more likely to support women with progressive ambition than right-wing voters (difference of 7% points), while in the U.K. parties are not as divided. Our results suggest that ambitious women candidates in the U.S. face bias particularly in the context of non-partisan races (like primaries and local elections), when voters cannot rely on party labels to make decisions.
BASE
The 2014 European Parliament (EP) elections were characterised by a novel element in European Union (EU) politics. For the first time, the major European party families put forward top candidates for President of the European Commission, the so-called Spitzenkandidaten. This paper tests whether this innovation had the potential to—at least partially—alleviate the alleged accountability deficit. We rely on original survey data to assess citizens' preferences for each of the main Spitzenkandidaten: Jean-Claude Juncker, Martin Schulz, and Guy Verhofstadt. Our research is guided by three questions: what explains whether citizens formulate a preference for a certain Spitzenkandidat? Which factors are responsible for variations in such preferences? And, are these explanations moderated by citizens' political awareness? We show that three factors enable citizens to formulate a preference for the Spitzenkandidaten: news exposure, general EU political information, and campaign-specific information about the Spitzenkandidaten. Furthermore, we demonstrate that only the most knowledgeable citizens are able to use party cues in their evaluations of the Spitzenkandidaten. The implications of our findings are discussed with reference to the EU's democratic deficit debate.
BASE