-
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/ -
8/13/2019 American Behavioral Scientist 2005 Trent 130 56
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
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/ -
8/13/2019 American Behavioral Scientist 2005 Trent 130 56
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
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/ -
8/13/2019 American Behavioral Scientist 2005 Trent 130 56
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
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/ -
8/13/2019 American Behavioral Scientist 2005 Trent 130 56
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
Trent et al. / Idealized Presidential Candidate 133
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/ -
8/13/2019 American Behavioral Scientist 2005 Trent 130 56
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).
134 American Behavioral Scientist
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/ -
8/13/2019 American Behavioral Scientist 2005 Trent 130 56
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
Trent et al. / Idealized Presidential Candidate 135
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/ -
8/13/2019 American Behavioral Scientist 2005 Trent 130 56
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,
136 American Behavioral Scientist
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/ -
8/13/2019 American Behavioral Scientist 2005 Trent 130 56
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.
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/ -
8/13/2019 American Behavioral Scientist 2005 Trent 130 56
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
138 American Behavioral Scientist
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/ -
8/13/2019 American Behavioral Scientist 2005 Trent 130 56
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.
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/ -
8/13/2019 American Behavioral Scientist 2005 Trent 130 56
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
140 American Behavioral Scientist
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/ -
8/13/2019 American Behavioral Scientist 2005 Trent 130 56
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