the rivalry of nonverbal cues on the perceptions of politicians by television viewers

8/3/2019 The Rivalry of Nonverbal Cues on the Perceptions of Politicians by Television Viewers

1/19

Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media/June 2009

The Rivalry of Nonverbal Cueson the Perception of Politicians

by Television Viewers

Florian Haumer and Wolfgang Donsbach

The current study examines how a politicians active or passive nonverbal

behavior can influence recipients perception of his/her image in TV talk

shows. In addition, the effects of different host and studio audience reaction

shots towards the politician were analyzed. To do so, an experiment with a2 3 3 factorial design was conducted (n D 356). The stimulus material

was produced in a TV studio. The results indicate a clear influence of a

politicians nonverbal behavior style and the TV hosts nonverbal reactions

on the recipients image-perception.

The growing popularity of television has changed the way electoral campaigns

and candidates are fundamentally portrayed. Personalization, negativism, deauthen-

tification, and more interpretative coverage are all consequences that emerged

with the rise of television (Reinemann & Wilke, 2007). In the era of television

politics, there is a growing trend of style over substance, personality over issues,

and emotion over information, (Coleman & Banning, 2006, p. 313). In the United

States, the average length of verbal quotations of political candidates in the press,

and the sound bites of their statements in classical television news has decreased

significantly since the 1960s (Adatto, 1990; Patterson, 1993). Similar results exist

for Germany (Wilke & Reinemann, 2000). This is an issue in many respects.

First of all, it is important for a democracy that : : : a substantial part of political

media content is based on political figures because this is the only way the voters

can get to know what they really have to say (Patterson, 1995, p. 330). Furthermore,

deauthentification is also seen as an important reason for negative attitudes towards

politicians (Donsbach & Jandura, 2003). In that respect, modern political television

might have led to negative outcomes like voter decline because of its focus on

interpretive coverage. On the other hand, modern television formats also provide

new opportunities for authentic political communication. Especially Live TV settings

Florian Haumer(M.A., University of Dresden) is a doctoral candidate in Communication at the Universityof Dresden. His research interests include political communication, corporate communication, media effectsand new media.

Wolfgang Donsbach (Ph.D., Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz) is a Professor of Communications atthe University of Dresden. His research interests include journalism, political communication, public opinionand media effects


2/19

Haumer and Donsbach/RIVALRY OF NONVERBAL CUES 263

like political talk shows, a common format all over the world since the 1970s, seem

to be useful platforms for politicians to directly address voters. During the 1992 elec-

tion campaign, presidential candidates Bill Clinton, George Bush, and Ross Perot

appeared more than 90 times in shows like CBS-Morning, Good Morning America,

The Oprah Winfrey Show, The Arsenio Hall Show and Larry King Live! (Diamond,

McKay, & Silverman, 1993). That was the birth of the so-called talk show cam-

paign (Cavanaugh, 1995, p. 158) because the candidates not only saved money

when addressing the voters via free media, but also managed to bypass the evalu-

ative tenor of the national press corps (Bucy & Newhagen, 1999). Some even say

that Bill Clinton turned his stalled campaign around with his legendary appearance

on the Arsenio Hall Show when he played his saxophone to a cheering audience

(Newman, 1994). In the 2000 election, major party presidential candidates again

addressed their voters on the Oprah Winfrey, Rosie ODonnell, and Regis Philbin

shows. Nielsen ratings indicate that political TV talk show audiences tuned in to can-

didate appearances in large numbers. For instance, 8.7 million households watched

Al Gores September 11, 2000 appearance on the season premier ofThe Oprah Win-

frey Show, well above the programs average of 7.5 million households during the

prior (19981999) season, and up 27% from Oprahs 19992000 premier episode.

George W. Bushs appearance on the program 8 days later earned even higher

ratings (Baum, 2005). Similar figures can be observed for political talk shows in Ger-

many, where up to 6 million households watch one of the two major shows every

week. (Zubayr & Gerhard, 2007). In election campaigns, the performance of a can-didate in one of these shows might be critical regarding voting decisions (Kepplinger,

Brosius, & Dahlem, 1994). Hence, it is of particular interest for political communica-

tion practitioners to understand the mechanism of person perception via television.

Person Perception via Television

Television focuses on the visual aspects of political communication (Maurer

& Kepplinger, 2003). Political talk shows often use close-ups of the speaker, ornonverbal reaction shots of the TV host, or focus on the studio audience, or others,

to illustrate emotions or interpretations. Editors or producers decide what is being

shown (Kepplinger, 1980). Sometimes, it seems to be more important how politi-

cians appear, what they wear, or how they behave nonverbally more than what they

talk about. It is believed that these visual aspects play a major role in a persons per-

ception via television. In general, it is supposed that audiences associate politicians

nonverbal behavior with their attitudes (Mehrabian & Ferris, 1967), or lean on non-

verbal cues in person perception (DePaulo & Friedman, 1997). More recent research

indicates that public perception of politicians character traits and personalitiescorrelate with exposure to the media portrayals of their nonverbal communication


3/19

264 Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media/June 2009

reduce the cognitive effort of forming impressions of other people (Conover, 1981;

Granberg, Kasmer & Nanneman, 1988). The idea that political cues guide the cogni-

tive process of perception and judgment received empirical support by the research

of Kahneman, Slovic and Tversky (1982). The authors conducted a series of exper-

iments to analyze heuristic information processing. Heuristics are strategies to

reduce the cognitive effort in building judgments about social issues. One heuristic

is availability heuristic (Tversky & Kahnemann, 1973, p. 207) where information

that is easily available at the time of judgment building becomes the dominant basis

of judgment. Information about a politicians nonverbal behavior is readily available

to recipients of TV talk shows as they watch the screen. Thus, heuristic information

processing, and accordingly, availability heuristic explains the eminent role of

nonverbal behavior in conjunction with person perception very well.

The model of heuristic information processing could also be applied to support

this studys assumption that nonverbal reaction shots also affect impressions of a

politicians image. However, more specific approaches are available. According to

Festinger (1954), individuals learn about and assess themselves by comparison with

other people (Social Comparison Theory). While this original work had a rather

restricted focus on the choice of comparison targets and on the concept of

contrast to others, social comparison theory has undergone various transitions

and reformulations over the past decades (see, e.g., Suls & Wheeler, 2000). The

shift of scientific attention towards the effects of social comparison that originated

from the work of Wills (1981) is especially remarkable. Subsequent studies showthat social comparison with other people might not only induce contrast with the

comparison target, but also assimilation (e.g., Brown, Novick, & Kelley; 1992; Stapel

& Koomen, 2000). This means that when individuals do not know how to behave

or what to believe, they often copy other people or assimilate group opinions. Since

individuals assume that the people know what they are doing, they serve as a pro-

totype for how to behave. As they care what others think of them, it provides a safe

course of action because they cannot be criticized for their actions or opinions if they

adopted the majority position. Early social psychological research reveals that indi-

viduals tend to lean stronger towards assimilation in situations that are ambiguous(Asch, 1955; Kelley, 1952). The authors argue that in the case of person perception

via television, many attributes are ambiguous because there is no objective criterion

by which, for example, the competence of a speaker (politician) can be reliably

judged. Thus, viewers of political talk shows might compare their own impressions

of a speaker (politician) with impressions of the studio audience or the TV host that

are conveyed through nonverbal reaction shots and adopt the perceived opinion.

Studies of Nonverbal Behavior


4/19


bian, 2007, pp. 1415). These are (1) positiveness dimension, (2) responsiveness

dimension, and (3) potency or status dimension. Concrete behaviors within these

dimensions emerge in several nonverbal communication channels. Burgoon, Birk,

and Pfau (1990) identify vocalic, kinesic, and proxemic channels of non-

verbal communication. According to this, politicians can use their voice, gestures,

or body movements to be perceived as friendly, interested, or superior, etc.

For instance, one can demonstrate sympathy towards another person on the posi-

tiveness dimension by smiling or touching that person. Secondly responsiveness

dimension is related to nonverbal communication that demonstrates the others

salience for him or her. Nodding or keeping eye contact for example is concrete

behavior within this dimension. Finally, nonverbal behavior of potency or status

dimension is used to demonstrate social control. People expand themselves and

take up a lot of space by using gestures or body movements in this dimension.

Ostertag (1991) finds out by doing a content analysis of German politicians TV

appearances, that nonverbal signals of potency or status dimension (active vs.

passive nonverbal behavior styles) are most common in political reality. Therefore,

this dimension is of particular interest in the present study.

In a review of empirical studies concerning effects of nonverbal behavior on per-

son perception in general, Burgoon et al., (1990) point out that nonverbal behavior

styles related to Mehrabians potency or status dimension are supposed to influ-

ence only certain traits such as competence, dynamism, and composure. Ac-

cording to that, perceptions of a persons character and sociability cannot be in-fluenced by active or passive nonverbal behavior styles (Burgoon et al., 1990).

Other researchers show that even slight body movements or facial expressions affect

peoples view of their interaction partners in various ways (Argyle, 2002; DePaulo &

Friedmann, 1998). More recent studies, especially in social psychology, demonstrate

that movements of ones head and trunk play an important role when people are

forming impressions of that person (Kempter & Mller, 2000). The authors report

that minimal modifications of nonverbal behavior affects impressions of various

personal traits, such as competence, sympathy, attractiveness, honesty, or

dynamism. In an earlier study, Kepplinger, Brosius and Heine (1987) also reportedsignificant effects of nonverbal behavior styles related to the potency or status

dimension on perceptions of a persons character. Although these studies differ

in the measured dependent variable and the method of measurement, it becomes

quite obvious that nonverbal behavior of potency or status dimension seems

capable of influencing any dimensions of person perception. The research design

will test this assumption by measuring a politicians image perception as it has been

described by Brettschneider (2002).

Studies of Nonverbal Reaction Shots


5/19


(1975), and Hylton (1971), analyzed the effects of positive vs. negative nonverbal

reaction shots of the studio audience on the perception of the speakers expertise

and personal qualities. As a result, both studies found significant positive effects of

positive nonverbal reaction shots on person perception. Nevertheless, later studies

could not reproduce these results (Davis, 1999; Nabi & Hendriks, 2003). This might

be partly due to methodological deficits regarding the functionality of the treatment

used in Davis (1999) experimental study. However, Nabi and Hendriks (2003) did

not report problems of this kind. Therefore, the actual effects of positive nonverbal

reaction shots of a studio audience remain unclear.

Other researchers put their focus on studying effects of other politicians (espe-

cially opponents) nonverbal reaction shots on person perception. These studies

found significant effects of neutral vs. negative reaction shots on judgments of

a speakers credibility or veracity (Seiter, 1999, 2001; Seiter, Abraham &

Nakagama, 1998). Especially remarkable in that context is the result that strong

negative nonverbal reactions led to better judgments of the speakers credibility,

while moderate negative reactions had a negative effect on credibility judgments

(Seiter, 1999). Thus, negative nonverbal reaction shots have quite different effects

depending on their intensity. Similar effects have already been described by Schrott

and Lanoue (1992) who argue that attack strategies in political communication

often are perceived as inappropriate by an audience, and therefore lead to better

judgments of the attacked person in order to show solidarity. The third potential

source of nonverbal reactions on a speakers performance in TV shows is thehost of the show. Nabi and Hendriks (2003) analyzed the potential effects of an

interviewers (host) nonverbal reaction shots. Their design tested neutral vs. positive

reaction shots as independent variables, and trustworthiness, expertise, and

likeability of a speaker as dependent variables. Significant effects could only be

found on the trustworthiness dimension. Positive nonverbal reaction shots of the

interviewer improved perception of this dimension significantly.

Nevertheless, the literature review shows that any kind of nonverbal reaction

shots might influence the perception of a politicians image. Because of the growing

popularity of political talk shows, the potential influence of nonverbal reaction shotsof talk show hosts is of particular interest in the present study. Although broadcast

journalists are expected to appear calm, detached, and unemotional (Coleman &

Wu, 2006), some are clearly partisan and might constitute a persuasive force with

their nonverbal reaction shots (Babad, 1999).

Research Questions and Hypotheses

The body of research analyzing effects of nonverbal cues on person perceptionis quite comprehensive. However, none of the reviewed studies combined the


6/19


role in the process of image-perception. Single-factor research designs do not give

consideration to the complexity of this process. Hence, the authors developed a

research design which allowed them to measure effects of the politicians nonverbal

behavior, and the effects of nonverbal reaction shots simultaneously. This provided

them an opportunity to analyze to what extent politicians can influence impressions

of their image with their own nonverbal behavior, and to what extent nonverbal

reaction shots of others inflict image-perception. Regarding the discussion about

deauthentification of political communication and the growing power of TV hosts,

it is also the question about the chances of authenticity in political TV talk shows.

Thus, three different research questions were postulated, dealing with the main

effects of a politicians (RQ1) and TV hosts (RQ2) nonverbal behavior, as well as

for interaction effects (RQ3) between the two sources of nonverbal cues.

RQ1: What are the effects of politicians different nonverbal behavior styles

(active vs. passive) on the perception of their image?

Based on the literature review, a set of hypotheses regarding potential effects

of active and passive nonverbal behavior styles were proposed. Nonverbal

behavior was expected to influence perceptions of all image dimensions as de-

scribed by Brettschneider (2002). Furthermore, it was supposed that recipients draw

different inferences from both kinds of nonverbal behavior styles on a politicians

image. In that context, it was proposed that active nonverbal behavior leads tobetter judgments of problem solving competence and leadership abilities of a

politician, while passive nonverbal behavior improves judgments of a politicians

integrity and personal qualities. These predictions are captured in the following

hypotheses:

H1: The judgement of the politicians problem solving competence will be

higher when he or she shows an active nonverbal behavior style as

compared to when he or she shows a passive nonverbal behavior style.

H2: The judgement of the politicians leadership abilities will be higher whenhe or she shows an active nonverbal behavior style as compared to when

he or she shows a passive nonverbal behavior style.

H3: The judgement of the politicians integrity will be higher when he or she

shows a passive nonverbal behavior style as compared to when he or

she shows an active nonverbal behavior style.

H4: The judgement of the politicians personal qualities will be higher when

he or she shows a passive nonverbal behavior style as compared to when

he or she shows an active nonverbal behavior style.

RQ2: What are the effects of different nonverbal reaction shots on the perceptionof a politicians image?


7/19


contrarily, depending on the intensity of these reactions. The negative nonverbal

reaction shots were rated in the stimulus material to be of moderate intensity,1

and therefore supposed that they would influence all image dimensions negatively.

Furthermore, it was predicted that positive nonverbal reaction shots have a positive

influence on all image dimensions. Thus, the following hypotheses were developed:

H5: Negative nonverbal reaction shots of the TV shows host and the TV shows

audience both have a negative effect on the perception of the politicians (a)

problem solving competence, (b) leadership abilities, (c) integrity,

and (d) personal qualities.

H6: Positive nonverbal reaction shots of the TV shows host and the TV shows

audience both have a positive effect on the perception of the politicians (a)problem solving competence, (b) leadership abilities, (c) integrity,

and (d) personal qualities.

RQ3: How do nonverbal reaction shots of the TV host influence the politicians

image perception in relation to his/her nonverbal behavior?

Early studies show that effects of nonverbal reaction shots of a TV host on

image perception depend on the politicians nonverbal behavior at the same time

(Kepplinger et al., 1987). As a result, the predictions about the effects of negative

and positive nonverbal reaction shots might occur only under certain circumstances(e.g., active nonverbal behavior of the politician). On the basis of the reviewed

literature, the authors additionally test the assumption that, (a) negative nonverbal

reaction shots improve judgments of all image dimensions when the politicians

nonverbal behavior style is passive. In the case of active nonverbal behavior,

negative nonverbal reaction shots might decrease ratings of the different image

dimensions. Analogically, they expect (b) positive nonverbal reaction shots to im-

prove judgments of image dimensions, when the politicians nonverbal behavior is

active, and to decrease ratings in case of passive nonverbal behavior. So the

following hypotheses are proposed additionally:

H7: When the politicians nonverbal behavior is active, negative nonver-

bal reaction shotscompared to neutral reaction shotsof the host will

decrease ratings of (a) problem solving competence, (b) leadership

abilities, (c) integrity, and (d) personal qualities.

H8: When the politicians nonverbal behavior is passive, negative nonver-

bal reaction shotscompared to neutral reaction shotsof the host will

increase ratings of (a) problem solving competence, (b) leadership abil-

ities, (c) integrity, and (d) personal qualities.H9: When the politicians nonverbal behavior is passive, positive nonver-


8/19


H10: When the politicians nonverbal behavior is active, positive nonverbal re-

action shotscompared to neutral reaction shotsof the host will increase

ratings of (a) problem solving competence, (b) leadership abilities,

(c) integrity, and (d) personal qualities.

Method

Material

This study is a 2 (nonverbal behavior of politician) 3 (nonverbal reaction shots

of TV host)

3 (nonverbal reaction shots of studio audience) experimental design.To test their assumptions, the authors produced 18 video segments of a political

TV interview, each with a length of about 3 minutes. Both the actor (representing

the politician) and the TV show host were instructed to behave either nonverbally

active vs. passive, or positive vs. negative vs. neutral. Then each version

of the political interview with two different cameras (one on the whole scene,

and the other on the hosts face to capture nonverbal reaction shots) were filmed.

When cutting the film material, additional nonverbal reaction shots of the studio

audience (positive vs. negative vs. neutral) were inserted. All other factors such as

verbal content or camera angle were not changed. The production took place ina TV studio of a German local television station. To make the test as ecologically

representative as possible, a professional TV journalist (as TV host) and a professional

actor (as politician) were used for this production. Furthermore, the interviews used

transcripts from a German television talk show (Berlin Mitte). Employment policy

was the topic of this show.

Treatment Check

A treatment check was conducted to test whether the experimental manipulationof the three factors, nonverbal behavior nonverbal reaction shots (host) nonver-

bal reaction shots (audience), worked as intended. To do so, the perceptions of six

versions of the stimulus material were tested. These versions differed regarding the

politicians nonverbal behavior (active vs. passive) as well as nonverbal reac-

tion shots of TV host and the studio audience (positive, negative, or neutral).

Each of the 6 versions was presented to a group of 10 students of a large German

university and a German military officer school. To measure perceptions of the three

experimental factors, a questionnaire was developed with three items regarding the

perception of the politicians nonverbal behavior, and four items for the TV hostsand the studio audiences nonverbal reaction shots. Each measurement used an 11-


9/19


for the studio audience was found. Independent samples t tests showed that not all of

these items were significantly different under all conditions. Nevertheless, significant

differences were found in perceptions of important items such as intrusive vs.

retentive in all tested groups that differ in the politicians nonverbal behavior (p

the rivalry of nonverbal cues on the perceptions of politicians by television viewers

Documents