american behavioral scientist 2005 trent 130 56

8/13/2019 American Behavioral Scientist 2005 Trent 130 56

1/28

http://abs.sagepub.com/AmericanBehavioralScientist

http://abs.sagepub.com/content/49/1/130Theonline version of this article can be foundat:

DOI: 10.1177/00027642052794372005 49: 130American Behavioral Scientist

Judith S. Trent, Cady Short-Thompson, Paul A. Mongeau, Maribeth S. Metzler and Jimmie D. TrentThe Idealized Presidential Candidate : A Vision Over Time

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:American Behavioral ScientistAdditional services and information for

http://abs.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://abs.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://abs.sagepub.com/content/49/1/130.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This? - Jul 29, 2005Version of Record>>

at University of Bucharest on April 19, 2013abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://abs.sagepub.com/http://abs.sagepub.com/http://abs.sagepub.com/http://abs.sagepub.com/content/49/1/130http://abs.sagepub.com/content/49/1/130http://www.sagepublications.com/http://abs.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://abs.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://abs.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://abs.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://abs.sagepub.com/content/49/1/130.refs.htmlhttp://abs.sagepub.com/content/49/1/130.refs.htmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://abs.sagepub.com/content/49/1/130.full.pdfhttp://abs.sagepub.com/http://abs.sagepub.com/http://abs.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://abs.sagepub.com/content/49/1/130.full.pdfhttp://abs.sagepub.com/content/49/1/130.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://abs.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://abs.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://abs.sagepub.com/content/49/1/130http://abs.sagepub.com/


2/28

10.1177/0002764205279437Trentetal./ IdealizedPresidentialCandidateAmericanBehavioralScientist

The IdealizedPresidential Candidate

A Vision Over Time

Judith S. Trent

University of Cincinnati

Cady Short-Thompson

Northern Kentucky University

Paul A. Mongeau

Arizona State University

Maribeth S. Metzler

University of Cincinnati

Jimmie D. Trent

Miami University of Ohio

Image as a transaction between what candidates say and do and the way voters compare

that behavior with their personal vision of what candidates should be or do stimulates atleast three critical questions important to political communication. First, although the

ability or power of themedia to affect the success or failure of candidates and campaigns

is believed by many citizens and documented by research, do views of individual mem-

bers of the media regarding ideal qualities presidential candidates should possess differ

significantly from those of voters? Second, do characteristics or attributes of the ideal

presidential candidate, as affixed by the media and the electorate, vary from election to

election? Finally, do the evaluative dimensions of idealness differ in relationship to

gender, age, orpartyaffiliation? Answers aredeterminedfromresults ofa survey of jour-

nalists covering and citizens attending political rallies in New Hampshire during the

1988 to 2004 presidential primaries.

Keywords:ideal candidate; New Hampshire; primary

January 20, 2004, was an event-packed day for our research team to be in NewHampshire as the Democratic contenders for president of the United States madetheir way back from Iowa to the Granite State to begin their last week of frenetic cam-

130

American Behavioral Scientist

Volume 49 Number 1

September 2005 130-156

2005 Sage Publications

10.1177/0002764205279437

http://abs.sagepub.com

hosted at

http://online.sagepub.com

http://abs.sagepub.com/http://abs.sagepub.com/http://abs.sagepub.com/http://abs.sagepub.com/


3/28

paigning before the January 27th primary. Senator John Kerry, who had won a sur-

prise victory in the caucus, and Senator John Edwards, who had taken what he toldsupporters wasanexciting secondplace win, hightailed it from Iowa to Manchester,

New Hampshire, to get in a full day of appearances and rallies. Former Vermont Gov-

ernor Howard Dean, who not only had received a dismal third from caucus partici-

pants but also by then had attempted to cheer up his supporters with the immediately

infamous Dean scream, flew into New Hampshire for a solemn media-packed

morning press conference in which his major message was that he was continuing his

campaign but going back to who I really am (Lawrence, 2004, p. 1) and then

repaired back to his Vermont headquarters presumably to do some soul searching

and strategizing. Representative Dennis Kucinich and the Reverend Al Sharpton,

whose Iowa campaigns had gained no traction at all, headed back to the Granite State

for campaign appearances and to get ready for theDemocratic debate just 2 days later.

Of course, not all of those who were in the race made the trip back. Senator Joseph

Lieberman and General Wesley Clark had decided earlier to pull out of the Iowa cau-cus altogether to concentrate in New Hampshire and other states where they believed

their politically centrist messages would ignite more enthusiasm than they had in

Iowa.Senator Bob Graham andformer Senator Carol Moseley Braun had taken them-

selves out of the running before the Iowa caucus, and Representative Richard

Gephardt had used the day after Iowa for a press conference to formally withdraw

from the competition. Thus, seven Democratic contenders for president of the United

States, oneuncontested Republican who wasthe sitting presidentof theUnitedStates,

thousands of media representatives from throughout the world, more than 1 million

citizens of the Granite State, and our research team now faced the roller coaster ride

known as the2004 New Hampshire primary (Day of theDemocrats, 2004, p. 1).

Since 1988, our research teams have focused on the one of its kind, the New

Hampshire primary (Kendall, 2000), to ask three questions relevant to the better

understanding of presidential campaign communication. The first question we have

asked is, What qualities or attributes do voters believe are important for a presidential

candidate to possesswhat are the dimensions of the ideal presidential candidate?

Second, do these views changewith time or are they fairly consistent? And finally, we

have been and are concerned with whether the views of voters and the views of

the media who are reporting on the candidates and their campaigns are the same or

differentdo they have conflicting visions about idealness? Obtaining answers to

these questions has provided unparalleled opportunity to meet and talk with all of

thosewho have run for the Republican and Democratic presidential nomination, hun-

dreds of voters who have attended candidate rallies, and countless media representa-

tives who have been in New Hampshire to report on it all.

Focus of the Study

This study was designed to extend surveys of voters and media representatives

taken during the 1988, 1992, 1996, and 2000 New Hampshire presidential primaries

Trent et al. / Idealized Presidential Candidate 131



4/28

into the year 2004. In keeping with the earlier work (Trent, Mongeau, Trent, Kendall,

& Cushing, 1993; Trent, Short-Thompson, Mongeau, Nusz, & Trent, 2001; Trent,Trent, Mongeau, & Short-Thompson, 1997), the purpose of the 2004 study was the

comparison of voter andmediacriteriato determinepresidential politicalimage attrib-

utes acrosscampaigns. We sought answers to three research questions: First, although

theprobability that themedia has theability and thepower to affect thesuccess or fail-

ure of political campaigns and candidates is popularly believed and is documented by

research, do theview of individual media members regarding thequalities required of

presidential candidates differ significantly from those of voters? Second, do the char-

acteristics or criteria of the ideal president attributed to the candidate by the media or

by the electorate vary from election to election? And third, do the evaluative dimen-

sions of idealness differ by party affiliation, age, or gender?

The issue of the influence of media coverage or bias during American presidential

campaigns not only motivates a number of research studies (Alsina, Davies, &

Gronbeck, 2001; Atwood & Jarvis, 1976; Coffey, 1975; Czepiec, 1976; Graber, 1971;Hahn, 2003; Hofstetter, Zukin, & Buss, 1978; Jamieson, 2000; Kepplinger, 1982;

Kern, 2001; Lichter & Rothman, 1981; Masters, Sullivan, Feola, & McHugo, 1987;

Moriarty & Garramone, 1986; Pike, 1985; Robinson & Sheehan, 1983; Sanders &

Pace, 1977; Stempel, 1961, 1965, 1969; Weaver & Wilhoit, 1992) but also always

seems to generate much popular journalistic discussion. In fact, discussion of anddis-

putes concerning issues such as the content of media coverage (e.g., the fact that the

Dean scream was shown on television 663 times in the 4 days following the event or

that the media refer to the horse race aspect of a campaign rather than in-depth dis-

cussion of candidates positions on issues) and the ideological alignment of the press

as compared with the electorate (evidence indicates that the owners of media outlets

and editors of most newspapers are Republican but the individual media representa-

tives are more likely to be Democrats or Independents) happen in every presidential

election cycle.

However, the question in this study involves whether media representatives vary

from the public in their views as to what candidate characteristics are important in

selecting a president. In 2000, we learned that the media was in essential agreement

with the public on which candidate attributes were important. There was, in other

words, no sense of the media leading thepublic (Trent et al., 2001). But is this finding

consistent with the passage of time? In 2004, do the media and the public continue to

agree?

Although the question of the ideal characteristics of presidential candidates is one

that is popularly debated in every U.S. presidential election cycle, for the 2004 cam-

paign, in the aftermath of terrorism and war, presidential lies about weapons of mass

destruction,dailyviolencein Iraq that wasstillkillingAmericansoldiersevenafterthe

war had been declared officially completed, unemployment, and jobs going overseas,the contenders wanted to talk about their personal qualities and qualifications to be

presidenttheir biographies. For example, John Kerrys staff said that the essence of

the senators campaign message is biographical. Kerry has demonstrated great

strength and really sound judgment in very tough situations, and hes done that all his

132 American Behavioral Scientist



5/28

life (VandeHei, 2004, p. A1). Wesley Clark appeared to understand from the begin-

ning of his short campaign for the nomination that the central message of his candi-dacy is Wesley Clark, and the uniform he wore for thirty-four years as an officer in the

United States Army (Boyer, 2003, p. 70). One of Richard Gephardts strategists said

that focus groups in the early primary states found that Democrats

are looking for someone who can challenge Bush, not just on the issues but in a pretty

dramatic personal contrast. They want someone who understands their life because he

haslived itnot another rich guy.. . . Thus, forGephardt, autobiography becomes the

entry point to issues. (Broder, 2003, p. 4)

John Edwards major themewashis biography(growingup ina seriesof Southernmill

towns in a family of churchgoing Baptists and attending public schools and universi-

ties). As he said in countless speeches,

Im proud of where I come from. I always will be. And I spent most of my adult life,

beforeI wentto the Senate, fighting forpeoplewho I believed playedby therules, andgot

hurt by people who didnt play by the rules. (Lemann, 2002, p. 62)

A similar theme ranthrough DennisKucinichs campaign message in that much of the

time he talked about his personal experience of defeat and redemption and the way

in which he kept trying in the face of defeat and then finally reemerging as a stron-

ger person was an experience he believed many Americans will relate to (Eilperin,

2003, p. 7). In part, the candidates concentration on their own stories and personal

qualities during the early stages of the 2004 presidential campaign may have seemed

necessarybecause of the tensions andconcerns felt by many Americans, butthe fact is

that presidential hopefuls, like most political candidates, typically place a priority on

constructing a public persona or image of themselves. And it has never been easy, notonly because researchers have failed to developa theoretical consensus on thenature

of presidential candidates personal qualities (Benoit & McHale, 2003, p. 321) but

also because political images are complex, constructed not only from everything a

candidatemaydo or saybut also theconfluence of candidatebehavior with thebeliefs

of the voterswhat they, the voters, believe to be desirable or undesirable or right or

wrong about the candidate and the campaign. In truth, it is the interdependence or the

interaction of what a candidate does and says and the evaluative response voters have

to it,the transaction or negotiated meaning between them, that defines image (Louden,

1990). So, in spite of the fact that presidential contenders and their campaigns some-

times go to extreme lengths to project a specific public image (John Kerry, e.g., stand-

ing in front of an aircraft carrier in Charlestown, South Carolina, to officially

announcehiscandidacy;or theactorMartin Sheen,whoplaysPresidentBartletton the

long-running seriesWest Wing, being introduced at Howard Dean rallies with muchfanfareand flourishLadies and Gentlemen,President Bartlett, who thenas presi-

dent introduces the former Vermont governor), their success is frequently dependent

on thepreconceivedbeliefs voters have about thecharacteristicssomeone running for




6/28

president of the United States ought to possess (Miller, Wattenberg, & Malanchuk,

1986; Trent et al., 1997, 2001; Trent & Friedenberg, 2004).The interpretation of image as a transaction, however, does raise important (and

interesting) questions in terms of consistency. Are the characteristics or dimensions of

idealness consistent across presidential elections? Previous research evidences not

only the stability of criteria or attributes (Miller et al., 1986; Trent et al., 1993, 1997,

2001; Trent & Friedenberg, 2004) but also the stability of specific characteristics (no

matter who the actual contenders/candidates were) from the 1988 campaign through

the 1996 campaign (Trent et al., 1997). In addition, the stability of the attributes was

evident not only in what was believed to be important (e.g., the ability to talk about

problems facing the country and being honest) but also in those considered unimpor-

tant (e.g., being male). However, in the 2000 study, after three consecutive samples

(1988, 1992, and 1996) had evidenced absolute consistency of public and of media

beliefs regarding which of the top attributes most characterized idealness, a change

occurred. For thefirsttime,both thepublicandthemedia reported that thecandidatesability to talk about the problems facing the nation was the second most important

attribute. It was replaced by being honest, which in earlier studies (1988, 1992, 1996)

hadbeen rated as second. Thus, until the2000 New Hampshireprimary campaign, the

public, as well as the media, had been remarkably consistent regarding the most

importantcharacteristic a presidential candidateshould possess. In addition, it is inter-

esting to note that the results of the 2000 study are consistent in terms of the least

important attributes; for the public and for the media, being male or being younger

than 65 years of age remained unimportant.

Butwhat about 2004? Does thepublic, with thebevyof seven Democratic contend-

ers and one uncontested sitting Republican president to choose among, remain com-

mitted to the attributes they found most and least important just 4 years earlier? And

will the consistency between the public and the media remain constant in terms of the

vision of an idealized presidential candidate?

The third research questionwhether the evaluative dimensions that voters attrib-

ute to presidential candidates differ by demographic factors such as party affiliation,

age, and genderhas not been easily answered in the 1988 through 2000 studies.

What is true in one campaign can change in another. For example, although citizen

affiliation with a major party was once considered an important issue, the fact is that

since themid-1960s, the results of election studies conducted by theCenter for Politi-

cal Studies at the University of Michigan show that fewer and fewer citizens identify

themselves as either Republicans or Democrats and that by 1994, 35% of those sur-

veyed self-identified as Independent Democrats, Independent Independents, or Inde-

pendent Republicans (Trent & Friedenberg, 2004). Moreover, in our studies of New

Hampshirecitizens and themedia, thepercentage of those who think of themselves as

Independents has increased each year, including 2000, when the number of citizenswhocalledthemselves Independents almostquadrupled from what it hasbeen in 1988

(Trent et al., 2001). And in theactual2004 New Hampshireprimary, independent vot-

ers played a major role, in that they made up almost half45 percent of New Hamp-

shires record Democratic primary turnout of about 200,000 (Lester, 2004, p. A4).




7/28

Finally, in recentelections, therehasbeen some attentionpaid to theissueof gender

biasthe fact that women and men favored and voted for different candidates(Carpini & Fuchs, 1993; Edsall, 1996; Jamieson, 2000; Trent et al., 1997, 2001; Trent

& Friedenberg, 2004). We know, for example, that in our New Hampshire studies of

1992, 1996, and 2000, men have consistently found it more important than have

women that thepresidentialcandidatebe male. Thequestion is,What about 2004? Do

men still tend to define a presidential candidate in terms of gender?

Method and Procedure

To answer our three research questions, surveys were completed by 192 profes-

sional journalists and 658 citizens (850 total) attending presidential campaign rallies

and candidate appearances in New Hampshire during the last 7 days before the 2004

New Hampshire presidential primary election. Three of the authors randomly distrib-uted the questionnaires at more than a dozen separate political events. In comparing

the 2004 primary campaign events to those in 1988 through 2000, the interest and

attentionof both themedia and publicwas higher as evidenced by thestanding-room-

only attendance at the numerous candidate events, record voter turnout for the 2004

Democratic New Hampshire primary, and the record number of surveys gathered by

our research team.1

In the 2004 election cycle, all of the New Hampshire events were for Democratic

candidates. Seven DemocratsRetiredArmyGeneral Wesley Clark, former Vermont

Governor HowardDean, Senator John Edwards (NorthCarolina), Senator John Kerry

(Massachusetts), Congressman Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Senator Joseph Lieberman

(Connecticut), and Reverend Al Sharptoncampaigned for president in the New

Hampshire primary, but so did a whopping 50 lesser known and less credible candi-

dates. Republican George W. Bush, the incumbent president and the uncontestedRepublican nominee, never made an appearance in New Hampshire the week before

the primary. Thus, with only Democratic candidates, surveys were distributed only at

Democratic events. As a result, far fewer Republican respondents were in attendance

and completed our questionnaire in 2004 than in 1992 and 1996 when the then sitting

presidentrunning forelection didvisitNew Hampshireat leastonce in thelast week of

the primary.

As in the 1988, 1992, 1996, and 2000 campaigns, the survey instrument asked

respondents to mark a 5-point Likert-type scale (5 =strong agreementand 1 =strong

disagreement) on each of the following 12 statements regarding the desirability of a

presidential candidate possessing specific image characteristics: (a) have experience

in office, (b) energetic and aggressive leader, (c) forceful public speaker, (d) moral

character, (e) talk about nations problems, (f) honest, (g) male, (h) remain calm and

cautious, (i) same race as I am, (j) served in the military, (k) talk about religiousbeliefs, and (l) talk about corporate responsibility. The last 3 characteristics were

added to the 2004 survey to examine the effect of context on criteria application. The

served in the military statement was not completely new to the study as it had been




8/28

included on the1996 survey instrument; however, it wasreintroduced in2004 because

of thewar in Iraq and theresultantheightened discussion of thedesirabilityof militaryexperience for presidentialaspirants in a postSeptember 11 era. The second addition

to the characteristics, talk about religious beliefs, was added to the list to assess the

impact of ChristianEvangelicals or the religious right on thepoliticalprocess (as well

as President Bushs multiple references to his Christian faith as president and candi-

date for reelection). The third attributeadded, talk about corporate responsibility, was

included to gauge respondents opinions in light of current events and controversies

such as the financially devastating corporate and accounting scandals of the early

2000s involving Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, and Global Crossing.

Results

Sample DemographicsTable 1 describes the sample sizes and demographic characteristics (i.e., age, sex,

and party affiliation) of the 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 media and public

subsamples.

Media subsamples. As in the previous campaigns, the 2004 media subsample is

composed predominantly of men who are younger than 51 years of age and either

Democratic or Independent (Trent et al., 1993, 1997, 2001). Moreover, the 2004

media subsample includes evidenceof increasedmedia diversity that first appeared in

2000. Specifically, there is a significant difference in the proportion of men and

women in the media subsamples across campaigns,2(4,n= 728) = 19.14,p< .001.

Media subsamples in the 2000 (36.5%) and 2004 (30.9%) campaigns included a

greater proportion of women than in the 1992 and 1996 subsamples.

Public subsamples. The demographics of the public subsamples vary more across

campaigns than do media subsamples (Trent et al., 1993, 1997, 2001). The five public

subsamples differsignificantlyby partyaffiliation andage(butnotby sex).Thesignif-

icant difference for age indicates that the 2004 subsample reversed the graying of

the public subsamples observed between 1988 and 2000, 2(16,n= 1,852) = 142.50,

p< .001. When compared with the 2000 subsample, the 2004 public subsample con-

tained nearly twice the proportion of individuals in the 18 to 30 age group and fewer

than half the proportion of individuals in the 61 and older group.2

The public subsamples also differ dramatically in party affiliation across cam-

paignsbecause they contain relatively few supporters of theincumbent party (e.g., few

Republicans in 1992 andfew Democrats in 1996 and2000),2(8, n = 1,831) = 322.65,

p< .001. In 2004, a vast majority of the public subsample was either Democratic orIndependent. Moreover, the percentage of Independents in the public subsamples has

grown steadily across campaigns, doubling between 1988 (18.2%) and2000 (38.6%).

Although thepercentage of independents dropped somewhat between 2000 and2004,




9/28

137

Table1

DemographicComposit

ionofthe1988,1992,1996,2000,an

d2004Samples

Media

Public

DemographicIte

m

1988

1992

1996

2000

2004

1988

1992

1996

2000

2

004

Totalsample

111

125

152

170

192

268

176

290

495

658

Partyaffiliation

Republican

9

13

12

26

26

106

42

113

193

29

Democrat

43

41

52

60

66

101

73

83

111

390

Independent

45

70

72

84

92

49

54

84

191

212

Age(inyears)

18to30

36

36

46

56

53

79

42

66

75

174

31to40

48

42

43

63

68

80

29

43

61

100

41to50

15

35

45

33

45

58

35

76

128

147

51to60

6

8

11

13

17

25

25

40

89

137

61to70

1

1

3

4

3

15

31

43

88

62

71andolder

0

1

1

1

2

2

8

18

54

22

Sex Men

72

101

118

108

130

132

76

149

265

353

Women

27

22

30

62

58

95

95

132

230

279

Note:Subgroupsamplesdonotsumtothetotalsamplebecauseofmissingdata.



10/28

nearlyone third of participants(32.2%) in themost recentpublic subsampledescribed

themselves as Independents.

Comparing Media and Public Subsamples

Although the demographic composition of the public subsamples varies across

campaigns (particularly for age and party affiliation), within-campaign differences

between media and public subsamples tend to remain relatively consistent (Trent

et al., 1993, 1997, 2001). As was true inprevious campaigns, the 2004 media and pub-

lic subsample differed on age, sex, and party affiliation. For age, the 2004 media

subsample was younger than the public subsample, 2(4,n= 830) = 55.27,p< .001.

The 2004 media subsample was more likely to be Republican and Independent (and

less likely to be Democratic) than the2004 public subsamples, 2(2,n = 830) = 46.89,

p< .001. This finding differs from past campaigns (where media subsamples tended

to be more Democratic than public subsamples) because the 2004 public subsamplecontained very few Republicans. Finally, as with the 1988, 1992, and 1996 (but not

the 2000) campaigns, the 2004 media subsample contained very few Republicans.

Finally, as with the 1988, 1992, and 1996 (but not the 2000) campaigns, the 2004

media subsamplecontaineda significantly greater proportion of menwhen compared

with the 2004 public subsample,2(1,n= 824) = l0.13,p< .001.

Ratings of Candidate Characteristics Across Campaigns

Table2 presents meanimportanceratings for all candidatecharacteristics across all

five campaigns, broken down by the media and public subsamples. Evaluations of the

importance of candidate characteristics tend not to shift dramatically across cam-

paigns (Trent et al., 1993, 1997, 2001). Important characteristics in previous cam-

paigns (e.g., honest and be of thehighest moral integrity) remain important character-isticsfor both subsamples in the2004 campaign.Theleast importantcharacteristicsin

previous campaigns (e.g., male) are also considered quite unimportant in both 2004

subsamples.

Threecharacteristicsweremeasured forthe firsttimein 2004. Both mediaandpub-

lic subsamples considered it unimportant that the candidates talk about their personal

religious beliefs. In a similar manner, both groups felt that it was unimportant that the

candidate be of the same race as I am. Finally, both subsamples felt that it is very

important the candidates discuss corporate responsibility.

Variation Across Campaigns for Media Subsamples

Media ratings of candidate characteristics were very consistent across the 1988,

1992, and1996 campaigns. This consistencycame to an abruptendin 2000, where themedia consideredcharacteristicsmuchmore important than in the earlier subsamples.

Mean ratings of candidate characteristics for the 2004 media subsample are not as

extreme as reported by this group in 2000; however, neither do the ratings return to

earlier levels.Specifically, of thenine itemsin the2004 measure that were also used in




11/28

139

Table2

MeanIm

portanceRatingsofPresidentialCandidateCharacteristics,byMediaandPublicSubsamplesandCampaig

n

(19

98,1992,1996,2000,and2004)

Media

Public

CandidateCharacteristic

1988

1992

1996

2000

2004

1988

1992

1996

2000

2

004

Haveexperience

inoffice

4.15

4.11

3.87

4.51

4.22

3.93

4.13

3.80

4.27

4

.07

Energeticandaggressiveleader

3.87

3.60

3.80

4.41

3.94

4.22

4.18

4.10

4.15

3

.96

Forcefulpublics

peaker

3.78

3.90

4.22

4.51

4.28

4.21

4.17

4.27

4.34

4

.30

Talkaboutnationsproblems

4.67

4.84

4.68

4.84

4.63

4.86

4.85

4.80

4.82

4

.69

Honest

4.65

4.75

4.51

4.87

4.66

4.79

4.85

4.78

4.88

4

.83

Male

1.66

1.83

1.71

2.41

1.95

2.36

2.01

2.02

2.19

1

.84

Remaincalmandcautious

4.06

4.05

4.55

4.17

4.26

4.28

4.30

4

.15

Moralcharacter

4.08

3.97

4.57

4.43

4.35

4.43

4.54

4

.51

Servedinthemilitary

2.15

3.27

2.68

2

.87

Talkaboutreligiousbeliefs

2.13

2

.33

Talkaboutcorpo

rateresponsibility

4.05

4

.34

SameraceasIam

1.82

1

.53

Faithfultothesp

ouse

3.23

3.28

3.38

4.00

4.08

3.61

4.06

4.26

Youngerthan60/65yearsofage

2.59

2.80

2.78

2.94

2.76

2.97

2.88

2.92

Havesolutionstoproblems

4.11

4.11

4.60

4.48

4.35

4.23

Notaccusedofv

iolatingthelaw

3.76

4.13

Memberofthem

ajorityrace

1.69

2.15

Financecampaig

nwithownmoney

2.15

2.63

Spousesmoralc

haracter

3.32

3.96

BeDemocratorRepublican

3.31

2.69

Note:Dashesind

icatethatparticularcharacteristicwasnotinvestigatedinthatcampaign.



12/28

at least one earlier campaign, mean ratings of eight candidate characteristics differed

significantly across media subsamples. In most every case, mean values are larger in2000 than 1988, 1992, and1996, with 2004 means in between. Significant differences

were found forhaveexperience in office,F(4, 744) = 10.53,p < .01,2= .05; energetic

andaggressive leader,F(4, 743) = 15.49,p < .01,2= .08; forceful public speaker, F(4,

745) = 17.10,p< .01, 2= .08; moral character,F(3, 635) = 17.63,p< .01,

2= .08;

honest,F(4, 744) = 5.37,p< .01, 2= .03; male,F(4, 744) = 11.78,p< .01,

2= .06;

remaincalm and cautious, F(3, 635) = 11.98,p < .01, 2

= .05; talk about thenations

problems, F(4, 744) = 4.44,p < .01, 2

= .02); andhaveserved in themilitary, t(359) =

10.47,p< .01, 2

= .23.

Differences Across Campaigns for Public Subsamples

Public subsamples mean responses varied significantly across campaigns for five

characteristics. First, experience in office was considereda more important character-istic in 1992, 2004, and especially 2000 when compared to 1988 and 1996 public

subsamples,F(4, 1881) = 8.59,p< .01, 2

= .02. Second, that the candidate is male

was considered somewhat more important in 1988 and 2000 when compared with

1992, 1996, and especially 2004,F(4, 1878) = 10.28,p < .01, 2

= .02. Third, ratings

that the candidate be of the highest moral character have steadily increased across

campaignsfrom 1992 to2000, whereas the2004 mean ratingis very close to itsimme-

diate predecessor,F(3, 1611) = 4.98,p < .01, 2

= .01. Fourth, that the candidate

should be an aggressive and energetic leader remained consistent between 1988 and

2000 and declined sharply in 2004,F(4, 1878) = 5.80,p< .01, 2

= .01. Finally, that

the candidate should have served in the military was considered more important

in 2004 than in 1996 (the only other time this characteristic was measured),t(1145) =

3.00,p< .01, 2

= .01.

Media/Public Differences in

Evaluations of Candidate Characteristics

Within the 1988, 1992, and 1996 campaigns, typical differences between media

and public subsamples were small and the public subsample found characteristics to

be more important than thecorresponding media subsample(Trent et al., 1993, 1997).

In 2000, when significant differences appeared between the media and public sub-

samples, they remained small; however, the media subsample reported that character-

istics were more important than the public subsample.

In the 2004 campaign, mean ratings of four candidate characteristics differed sig-

nificantly between mediaandpublicsubsamples. In twoof these cases, themediacon-

sidered the characteristics more important than did the public, whereas in the other

two cases the opposite was true. First, although moderate in both groups, the mediamean for thecandidate shouldhaveserved in themilitarywas significantly higherthan

thepublic mean, t(841) = 4.54,p < .001, 2

= .03. Second, although extremely low in

both groups, the mean for the media was significantly higher than thepublicmean for




13/28

the candidate should be the samerace as I am, t(845) = 4.23,p < .001, 2

= .03. Third,

although both groups strongly agreed that the candidate should be honest, the meanfor the public subsample was significantly greater than the mean for the media

subsample, t(846) = 4.62, p < .001, 2

= .03. Finally, although important to

both groups, the public subsample reported that candidates should discuss corpo-

rate responsibility to a greater extent than the media subsample,t(844) = 4.31,p

american behavioral scientist 2005 trent 130 56

Documents