Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media/June 2009

The Rivalry of Nonverbal Cues on 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 a 2 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, deauthentification, 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 University of Dresden. His research interests include political communication, corporate communication, media effects and new media. Wolfgang Donsbach (Ph.D., Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz) is a Professor of Communications at the University of Dresden. His research interests include journalism, political communication, public opinion and media effects. This article was submitted and accepted under the editorship of Donald G. Godfrey.
2009 Broadcast Education Association DOI: 10.1080/08838150902907918 Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 53(2), 2009, pp. 262279 ISSN: 0883-8151 print/1550-6878 online

262

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 election 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 campaign (Cavanaugh, 1995, p. 158) because the candidates not only saved money when addressing the voters via free media, but also managed to bypass the evaluative 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 candidate appearances in large numbers. For instance, 8.7 million households watched Al Gores September 11, 2000 appearance on the season premier of The Oprah Winfrey 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 Germany, 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 candidate in one of these shows might be critical regarding voting decisions (Kepplinger, Brosius, & Dahlem, 1994). Hence, it is of particular interest for political communication 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, or nonverbal 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 politicians 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 perception via television. In general, it is supposed that audiences associate politicians nonverbal behavior with their attitudes (Mehrabian & Ferris, 1967), or lean on nonverbal cues in person perception (DePaulo & Friedman, 1997). More recent research indicates that public perception of politicians character traits and personalities correlate with exposure to the media portrayals of their nonverbal communication (Coleman & Banning, 2006). This is because human ability to process information in general is limited (e.g., Brosius, 1995; Graber, 1984; Lippmann, 1922; Shoemaker & Reese, 1991). Therefore, people tend to rely on superficial cues or stereotypes to

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 cognitive process of perception and judgment received empirical support by the research of Kahneman, Slovic and Tversky (1982). The authors conducted a series of experiments 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 show that 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 prototype 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 individuals 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

When talking about the effects of nonverbal behavior on person perception, it is important to first point out what kind of nonverbal behavior is mentioned. Research has identified three different semantic dimensions of nonverbal behavior (Mehra-

Haumer and Donsbach/RIVALRY OF NONVERBAL CUES

265

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 nonverbal 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 positiveness 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 person perception in general, Burgoon et al., (1990) point out that nonverbal behavior styles related to Mehrabians potency or status dimension are supposed to influence only certain traits such as competence, dynamism, and composure. According to that, perceptions of a persons character and sociability cannot be influenced 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 reported significant 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

There has been empirical research regarding all possible kinds of nonverbal reaction shots in television shows. Early studies conducted by Duck and Baggeley

266

Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media/June 2009

(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 (especially 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 the host 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 shots of 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 perception is quite comprehensive. However, none of the reviewed studies combined the nonverbal behavior and nonverbal reactions of others, nor analyzed the effects of positive, neutral, or negative reaction shots on person perception at the same time. However, in real political talk shows, all of these factors play an important

Haumer and Donsbach/RIVALRY OF NONVERBAL CUES

267

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 described 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 to better 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 when he 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 perception of a politicians image? Predictions regarding the effects of nonverbal reaction shots are more difficult, as it has been shown that negative nonverbal reactions effect image perception

268

Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media/June 2009

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 improve 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 nonverbal 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 nonverbal reaction shotscompared to neutral reaction shotsof the host will increase ratings of (a) problem solving competence, (b) leadership abilities, (c) integrity, and (d) personal qualities. H9 : When the politicians nonverbal behavior is passive, positive nonverbal 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.

Haumer and Donsbach/RIVALRY OF NONVERBAL CUES

269

H10 : When the politicians nonverbal behavior is active, positive nonverbal reaction 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 in a 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 manipulation of the three factors, nonverbal behavior nonverbal reaction shots (host) nonverbal 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 reaction 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 hosts and the studio audiences nonverbal reaction shots. Each measurement used an 11point semantic differential scale. Cronbachs for the three items2 on the nonverbal behavior scale was D .67. For the four items3 on the nonverbal reaction shot scale, a Cronbachs of D .83 for measurement of the TV hosts perception, and D .89

270

Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media/June 2009

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 < .05), and in perceptions of item confirmative vs. rejecting in all tested groups that differ in hosts and audiences respective nonverbal reaction shots (host: p < .10; audience: p < .05). Therefore, the experimental manipulation was considered satisfactory.

Dependent Variables
Image Perception. According to Nimmo and Savage (1976, p. 8), an image is [: : : ] a mental construct, affecting how things are perceived, but also influenced by projected messages. The literature review in terms of concrete methods for measurement of image perception shows that there is no standard instrument to reliably measure a politicians image (e.g., Kaase, 1994). Since the classical work of Campbell, Converse, Miller and Stokes (1960) The American Voter, where two different dimensions of a politicians image were identified by measuring perceptions with open-ended questions, a number of studies that measured the perception of a politicians image have been conducted in the United States and Europe, (e.g., Brettschneider, 2002; Keeter, 1987; Kepplinger et al., 1994; Kinder, 1986; Nimmo & Savage, 1976; Stewart & Clarke, 1992). Those studies found two to five image-dimensions and used open-ended questions (e.g., Keeter, 1987) as well as standardized questionnaires (Kepplinger et al., 1994) for measurement. Furthermore, different items and different scales were used in their research regarding image-perception. Generally speaking, an analysis of literature shows that studies following the publication of Campbell et al.s research tended to find more than two dimensions of a politicians image (e.g., Kinder, 1986). More recent studies then seem to return to the concept of two-dimensional image (e.g., Kepplinger et al., 1994; Stewart & Clarke, 1992). The reason may be because multi-dimensional solutions in measurement of image often did not reach scientific standards of distinction. However, other researchers still design studies that suppose more than two dimensions in a politicians image (e.g., Brettschneider, 2002). According to Brettschneider, a politicians image consists of four dimensions: problem solving competence, leadership abilities, integrity, and personal qualities. In the present study, Brettschneiders method of measurement was used for practical reasons. In order to minimize effects of party affiliation or prejudice on image perception, an unknown politician (actor) was used in the stimulus materials. In contrast to most other methods, Brettschneiders items refer less to past performances or performances in context of special political functions but more on general impressions of the politician. This makes Brettschneiders method especially applicable in measuring the image of still unknown politicians. For measurement,

Haumer and Donsbach/RIVALRY OF NONVERBAL CUES

271

a 5-point scale ( 2 to C2) is used for any item in the questionnaire. Additionally, an 11-point scale item was used to measure the overall impression of the politician. This way, the participants could be asked about their perceptions of the specific image dimensions as well as perceptions of the politician as a whole. This gave the authors an opportunity to analyze the impact of each of the image dimensions on overall impression, and estimate the importance of specific image dimensions.

Procedure and Participants

About 356 college students of a large German university were tested in groups of 20. The average age of the 57.7% female students in the sample was 21.8 years. Students were first shown 1 of the 18 video segments produced. The same TV set was used in all sessions. To prevent participants exchanging their impressions after the presentation, each participant received the questionnaire face down before the presentation of the video segments. They were instructed not to turn over the questionnaire until the end of the presentation. They were told that they would watch a brief segment of a political TV talk show as it was broadcast on a regional television station. After the presentation, participants were asked to flip over the questionnaire to answer the questions. The questionnaires were collected after all the participants had finished. They were thanked for their help and then debriefed.

Results
Reliability analysis of the measurement of image-perception (10 items) shows a Cronbachs alpha of D .81. Factor analysis was performed (method: direct oblimin; rotation: 30 degrees) to describe the data using Brettschneiders (2002) four image-dimensions (problem solving competence, leadership abilities, integrity, personal qualities). Quality indices of this four-factorial solution of the data were found to be highly satisfactory (KMO: .81; Bartlett: p < .001).4

Main Effects of Nonverbal Behavior on Image-Perception

H1 predicted a main effect for nonverbal behavior styles on the potency or status dimension of image-perception in such a way that active nonverbal behavior improves the recipients judgements of the politicians problem solving competence. H2 predicted that active nonverbal behavior also improves judgements of the politicians leadership abilities. On the other side, it was predicted in H3 that passive nonverbal behavior improves judgements of a politicians integrity,

272

Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media/June 2009

and H4 predicted that passive nonverbal behavior styles improves judgements of a politicians personal qualities. To test these assumptions, a one-way analysis of variance (active nonverbal behavior vs. passive nonverbal behavior) was used with all image-dimensions as dependent variables. As a result, it was found that the politicians nonverbal behavior style had no main effect on perceptions of problem solving competence F(1,351) D 0.60, p D .44, but it had a highly significant impact on the perception of leadership abilities F(1,348) D 50.63, p < .001 such that active nonverbal behavior increased ratings of this image-dimension (M [NB5 : active] D C.32; M [NB: passive] D .39). The perception of integrity F(1,348) D 1.23, p D .27 and personal qualities F(1,348) D 1.19, p D .28 were again not influenced in the predicted way by the politicians nonverbal behavior. A three-way analysis of variance: 2 (nonverbal behavior) 3 (nonverbal reaction shot: TV host) 3 (nonverbal reaction shot: studio audience) was employed, with each image dimension as dependent variable, to check for interaction effects. The documented main effect of nonverbal behavior on perception of the politicians leadership abilities remains stable in this analysis, although results indicate interaction effects between the politicians nonverbal behavior and the nonverbal reactions of the TV host which is depicted in Figure 1.

Figure 1 Main Effect of Nonverbal Behavior on Perception of Leadership Abilities

Haumer and Donsbach/RIVALRY OF NONVERBAL CUES

273

Main Effects of Nonverbal Reactions Shots on Image-Perception

H5 and H6 predicted a main effect of the TV hosts and the studio audiences nonverbal reaction shots on the politicians image-perception, such that negative (H5 ), and positive (H6 ) nonverbal reaction shots decrease, or increase ratings of politicians image-dimensions. The three-way analysis of variance indicated a significant main effect of the TV hosts nonverbal reaction shot on perceptions of the politicians integrity F(2,345) D 3.76, p < .05. Post hoc paired comparison tests show that negative nonverbal reaction shots of the host decrease ratings of the politicians integrity significantly (M [NR6 : negative] D 0.15; M [NR: neutral] D C0.16). Furthermore, a significant main effect of negative nonverbal reaction shots of this kind on perceptions of the politicians personal abilities (p < .05) (M [NR: negative] D 0.14; M [NR: neutral] D C0.13) was found. On the other hand, positive nonverbal reaction shots of the TV host did not influence any imagedimension as expected. Thus, the data support H5 as far as the image-dimensions integrity and personal abilities are concerned. H6 must be rejected. Isolated analysis (ANOVA) of either the male or the female recipients showed that the male recipients are more influenced by the TV hosts negative nonverbal reaction shots than the female recipients were. As the assumptions regarding effects of negative reaction shots of the studio audience were investigated, male recipients were found to be influenced in the predicted way when judging the politicians integrity F(2,147) D 2.95, p < .05. Female recipients were not influenced by negative nonverbal reaction shots of the audience.

Interaction Effects on Image-Perception

When employing three-way analyses of variance, 2 (nonverbal behavior) 3 (nonverbal reaction shot: TV host) 3 (nonverbal reaction shot: studio audience), with each image-dimension as dependent variable, a significant interaction effect of nonverbal behavior nonverbal reactions of the TV host for all dependent variables was found. While controlling for gender, age, trust in media, political interest, television consumption, and talk show consumption, the study found that perceptions of the politicians problem solving competence F(2,348) D 3.98, p < .05, leadership qualities F(2,345) D 4.18, p < .05, integrity F(2,345) D 5.22, p < .01, and personal abilities F(2,345) D 4.06, p < .05 were influenced by the interaction between (1) the politicians nonverbal behavior, and (2) the TV hosts nonverbal reactions: When the TV hosts nonverbal reactions are neutral, then active nonverbal behavior increases ratings of all image-dimensions significantly. Additionally, it was predicted that the effects of the TV hosts nonverbal reaction shots on image-perception depend on the politicians nonverbal behavior style, such that (H7 ) negative nonverbal reaction shots of the TV host will decrease ratings of all image-dimensions, when the politicians nonverbal behavior style is active at

274

Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media/June 2009

the same time. H8 proposed that the same negative nonverbal reaction shots of the TV host increase ratings of the politicians image-dimensions when a passive nonverbal behavior style was used. Regarding the effects of positive nonverbal reaction shots of the TV host, it was expected (H9 ) that such reaction shots increase ratings of politicians image-dimensions when the politicians nonverbal behavior style is passive, and (H10 ) on the other hand, decrease those ratings in the case of an active nonverbal behavior style. To test these assumptions regarding interaction effects, post hoc paired comparison tests were employed with either case where the politicians nonverbal behavior style was active or passive. The analysis shows that the TV hosts negative nonverbal reaction shots have a significant impact on perceptions of the politicians integrity F(2,189) D 7.08, p < .005, personal qualities F(2,189) D 4.98, p < .01, and problem solving competence F(2,190) D 2.64, p < .05, when the politicians nonverbal behavior style is active. Under that condition, these image-dimensions are rated lower compared to neutral nonverbal reaction shots. Leadership abilities F(2,189) D 1.74, p D .18 were not influenced (see Table 1). Thus, the data supports H7 as far as the image-dimensions integrity, personal qualities, and problem solving competence are concerned. To analyze whether the same negative nonverbal reaction shots of the host have positive effects on perception of image-dimensions when the politicians nonverbal behavior style is passive, the post hoc paired comparison tests were employed again. Although tendencies in the expected direction on all image-dimensions were noted, none of these tests found significant differences (see Table 1). H8 was therefore rejected. The same procedure was employed to check for interaction effects of positive nonverbal reaction shots (TV host) and the politicians nonverbal behavior style. As expected in H9 , it was found that positive nonverbal reaction shots of the TV host have a positive impact on the perception of the politicians leadership abilities F(2,155) D 4.38, p < .01 (in case of passive nonverbal behavior style). On all other imagedimensions, no significant effects were found. In the case of active nonverbal behavior, it was found that integrity F(2,189) D 7.08, p < .005 and personal qualities F(2,189) D 4.98, p < .01 were rated lower when the TV hosts nonverbal reaction shots are positive. Both other image-dimensions were not influenced. Thus, the data supports H10 as far as integrity and personal qualities are concerned (see Table 1).

Summary and Discussion

This study expands knowledge of how the different sources of nonverbal reaction shots and a politicians nonverbal behavior styles interact when influencing imageperception. Although no significant main effects of the studio audiences nonverbal reaction shots on a politicians image-perception were found, nonverbal reaction shots of the TV host and the politicians nonverbal behavior style seemed to play an important role. It was also found that there were significant main effects on

Haumer and Donsbach/RIVALRY OF NONVERBAL CUES

275

Table 1 Interaction Effects of Image-Perception

Nonverbal reaction shots of TV host Imagedimension Integrity Nonverbal behavior of politician active passive active passive active passive active passive Neutral (control) 0.45 (1.1) 0.18 (0.92) 0.37 (0.99) 0.16 (0.86) 0.50 (0.96) 0.61 (0.91) 0.15 (1.6) 0.79 (1.1) 114

Positive 0.14a (0.88) 0.17 (1.1) 0.08a (0.90) 0.14 (1.2) 0.26 (0.92) 0.09a (0.10) 0.58 (0.99) 0.44 (1.2) 116

Negative 0.13a (1.1) 0.17 (0.86) 0.12a (1.0) 0.16 (0.91) 0.21 (0.89) 0.46 (0.81) 0.60b (1.0) 0.41 (0.99) 120

F (Eta2 ) 7.08** (0.7) 2.31 (.03) 4.98** (.05) 1.58 (0.2) 1.74 (0.2) 4.38* (.05) 2.64 (0.3) 1.95 (0.2)

Personal qualities Leadership abilities Problem solving competence N

Note. Cell entries are the mean number of perception of each image-dimension with standard deviation in parentheses. Significance levels are reported for univariare ANOVA. *p < .05 **p < .01 and post hoc paired comparison tests using LSD method a p < .01, b p < .05.

image-perceptions for both factors such that negative nonverbal reaction shots of the TV host decrease ratings of certain image dimensions (integrity and personal abilities), while active nonverbal behavior of the politician increases ratings of his leadership-abilities. Despite these clear findings, it can be assumed that interactions between these factors are most important for a politicians image perception. Politicians who appear on a television talk show, or are interviewed by a TV journalist, can only moderately influence their perception through behavioral strategies. Particularly, the nonverbal reaction shots of the TV host, and to a lesser degree, the reaction shots of the studio audience moderate the effects of this behavior. The different impact of these two types of reaction shots might indicate a different competence attributed to the professional interviewer (TV host) and the (non-professional) studio audience on the side of the viewer. However, the data do not allow the authors to test this hypothesis. It also indicates that the recipients political interest, TV consumption, and trust in media, plays a role in political person perception via television. Thus, the process of image-perception seems to be very complex. It involves various media stimuli as well as individual cognitive characteristics of the recipients. The most important conclusion to be inferred from the findings is the complexity of the perception processes among audience members (recipients) as they show up in the interaction effects.

276

Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media/June 2009

This study finds various interaction effects. Among others, the data show that politicians receive the best ratings of their image-dimensions when the nonverbal behavior style is active and nonverbal reaction shots are neutral. Actually, politicians have a very high degree of influence on perceptions of their own image under those circumstances. Similar findings have already been described by Donsbach & Jandura, (2003). Thus, the idea to directly address voters via television seems to be reasonable for politicians in electoral campaigns. On the other hand, as the data indicate, nonverbal reaction shots massively limit politicians impact on their image-perception. Besides perceptions of their leadership-abilities, politicians almost have no chance of receiving high ratings of their image-dimensions when they encounter negative nonverbal reaction shots of a TV host. Bearing in mind that TV hosts actually do not constantly behave neutrally (e.g., Babad 1999), nonverbal reaction shots are a major threat for politicians who address voters via television in political reality. This conclusion receives further support by the finding (regression analysis) that this perception of the politicians leadership abilities (: .175; p < .01) has less impact on ratings of the politicians overall impression than integrity (: .296; p < .001) and personal qualities (: .234; p < .001). Accordingly, this study is another argument that television show hosts, reporters, and producers (who are responsible for the final editing and cuts), have a high degree of control over the politicians image that is conveyed through television. Similarly, it is also an argument that even in live TV broadcasts, the political actors chances for authenticity are limited. Thus, politicians might clearly benefit from the use of new media like e-mail, online news and video portals or social networks that provide new opportunities to directly, personally and immediately address voters.

Notes
1 Stimulus material is available from the authors on DVD. 2 dominant vs. defensive; intrusive vs. retentive; passive 3 confirmative

vs. active. vs. rejecting; friendly vs. hostile; critical vs. uncritical; trustful vs.

sceptical. 4 All post hoc, paired comparison tests were analyzed using LSD method. 5 NB: Nonverbal Behavior. 6 NR: Nonverbal Reaction Shot.

References
Adatto, K. (1990). Sound bite democracy: Network evening news presidential campaign coverage, 1968 and 1988. Research paper R-2, Joan Shorenstein Barone Center for Press, Politics, and Public Policy, Harvard University. Argyle, M. (2002). Krpersprache & kommunikation. Das handbuch zur nonverbalen kommunikation. Paderborn: Junferman. Asch, S. E. (1955). Social psychology. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.

Haumer and Donsbach/RIVALRY OF NONVERBAL CUES

277

Babad, E. (1999). Preferential treatment in television interviewing: Evidence from nonverbal behavior. Political Communication, 16(3), 337358. Baum, M. A. (2005). Talking the vote: Why presidential candidates hit the talk show circuit. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 213234. Brettschneider, F. (2002). Spitzenkandidaten und wahlerfolg. Personalisierungkompetenz parteien. Ein internationaler vergleich. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag. Brosius, H.-B. (1995). Alltagsrationalitt in der nachrichtenrezeption. Ein modell zur wahrnehmung und verarbeitung von nachrichteninhalten. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Brown J. D., Novick, N. J., & Kelley, A. (1992). When Gulliver travels: Social context, psychological closeness, and self-appraisals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 717727. Bucy, E. P., & Newhagen, J. E. (1999). The micro- and macrodrama of politics on television: Effects of media format on candidate evaluations. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 43(2), 193210. Burgoon, J. K., Birk, T., & Pfau, M. (1990). Nonverbal behaviours, persuasion and credibility. Human Communication Research, 17, 140169. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. New York: Wiley. Cavanaugh, J. (1995). Media effects on voters: A panel study of the 1992 presidential election. University Press of America. Coleman, R., & Banning, S. (2006). Network TV news affective framing of the presidential candidates: evidence for a second-level agenda-setting through visual framing. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 83(2), 313328. Coleman, R., & Wu, D. (2006). More than words alone: Incorporating broadcasters nonverbal communication into the stages of crisis coverage theoryEvidence from September 11th. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 50(1), 117. Conover, P. J. (1981). Political cues and the perception of candidates. American Politics Quarterly, 9, 427448. Davis, S. (1999). The effects of audience reaction shots and attitudes toward controversial issues. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 43, 476491. DePaulo, B. M., & Friedman, H. S. (1997). Nonverbal communication. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology, (4th ed., pp. 340). New York: McGraw-Hill. Diamond, E., McKay, M., & Silverman, R. (1993): Pop goes politics: New media, interactive formats, and the 1992 presidential campaign. American Behavioral Scientist, 37, 257261. Donsbach, W., & Jandura, O. (2003). Chances and effects of authenticity. Candidates of the German federal election in TV news. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 8(1), 4965. Duck, S. W., & Baggaley, J. (1975). Audience reaction and its effect on perceived expertise. Communication Research, 2, 7985. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117140. Graber, D. (1984). Processing the news. How people tame the information tide. New York & London: Longman. Granberg, D., Kasmer, J., & Nanneman, T. (1988). An empirical examination of two theories of political perception. Western Political Quarterly, 41, 2946. Hylton, C. (1971). Intra-audience effects: Observable audience response. Journal of Communication, 21, 253265. Kaase, M. (1994). Is there personalization in politics? Candidates and voting behavior in Germany. International Political Science Review, 15, 211230. Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Keeter, S. (1987). The illusion of intimacy. Television and the role of candidate personal qualities in voter choice. Public Opinion Quarterly, 51, 344358. Kelley, H. H. (1952). The two functions of reference groups. In G. E. Swanson, T. M. Newcomb, & E. L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in social psychology (pp. 410414). New York: Holt.

278

Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media/June 2009

Kempter, G., & Mller, C. (2000). Beurteilung einzelner stimuli des ausdrucksverhaltens ohne ihre entsprechenden kontext- und begleitmerkmale. Zeitschrift fr Sozialpsychologie, 31 (2), 102112. Kepplinger, H. M. (1980). Optische kommentierung in der fernsehberichterstattung ber den Bundestagswahlkampf 1976. In Thomas Ellwein (Ed.), Politikfeld-analysen 1979 (pp. 163 179). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Kepplinger, H.-M., Brosius, H.-B., & Dahlem, S. (1994). Wie das Fernsehen die Wahlen beeinflusst. Theoretische Modelle und empirische Analysen. Mnchen: Fischer. Kepplinger, H.-M., Brosius, H.-B., & Heine, N. (1987). Der einfluss nonverbaler verhaltensweisen auf die personenwahrnehmung in fernsehinterviews. In Hans Matthias Kepplinger (Ed.), Darstellungseffekte. Experimentelle untersuchungen zur wirkung von pressefotos und fernsehfilmen (pp. 5791). Freiburg, Mnchen: Alber. Kinder, D. R. (1986). Presidential character revisited. In Richard R. Lau & David O. Sears (Eds.), Political cognition. The 19th annual Carnegie symposium on cognition (pp. 233 255). Hillsdale, New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lippman, W. (1922). Public opinion. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Comp. Maurer, M., & Kepplinger, H.-M. (2003). Warum die macht der fernsehbilder wchst. Verbale und visuelle informationen in den fernsehnachrichten vor den bundestagswahlen 1998 und 2002. In Christina Holtz-Bacha (Ed.), Die massenmedien im wahlkampf. Die bundestagswahl 2002 (pp. 8297). Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag. Mehrabian, A., & Ferris, S. R. (1967). Inference of attitudes from nonverbal communication in two channels. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 31, 248252. Mehrabian, A. (2007). Nonverbal communication. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company. Nabi, R. L., & Hendriks A. (2003). The persuasive effect of host and audience reaction shots in television talk shows. Journal of Communication, 53, 527543. Newman, B. I. (1994). The marketing of the president: political marketing as campaign strategy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Nimmo, D. D., & Savage, R. L. (1976). Candidates and their images. Concepts, methods, and findings. Santa Monica: Goodyear. Ostertag, M. (1991). Zum wirkungspotential nichtsprachlicher uerungen in politischen sendungen. Der einfluss offensiver und defensiver verhaltensstrategien auf das erscheinungsbild von politikern und journalisten in fernsehinterviews. Koblenz: Diss. Patterson, T. E. (1993). Out of order. New York: Knopf. Patterson, T. E. (1995). We the people: A concise introduction to American politics. New York: McGraw-Hill. Reinemann, C., & Wilke, J. (2007). Its the debates, stupid! How the introduction of televised debates changed the portrayal of chancellor candidates in the German press, 19492005. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 12(4), 92111. Schrott, P. R., & Lanoue, D. J. (1992). How to win a televised debate: candidate strategies and voter response in Germany 197287. British Journal of Political Science, 22, 445 467. Seiter, J. S. (1999). Does communicating nonverbal disagreement during an opponents speech affect the credibility of the debater in the background? Psychological Reports, 84, 855861. Seiter, J. S. (2001). Silent derogation and perceptions of deceptiveness: Does communicating nonverbal disbelief during an opponents speech affect perceptions of debaters veracity? Communication Research Reports, 18(4), 334344. Seiter, J. S., Abraham, J. A., & Nakagama, B. T. (1998). Split-screen versus single-screen formats in televised debates: Does access to an opponents nonverbal behaviours affect viewers perceptions of a speakers credibility? Perceptual and Motor Skills, 86, 491497. Shoemaker, P. J., & Reese S. D. (1991). Mediating the message. Theories of influence on mass media contents. New York, London: Longman. Stapel, D., & Koomen, W. (2000). Distinctness of others, mutability of selves: Their impact on self-evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 10681087. Stewart, M. C., & Clarke, H. D. (1992). The (un)importance of party leaders: Leader images and party choice in the 1987 British election. Journal of Politics, 54, 447470.

Haumer and Donsbach/RIVALRY OF NONVERBAL CUES

279

Suls, J. M., & Wheeler, L. (2000). Handbook of social comparison: Theory and research. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Tversky, A., & Kahneman D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207232. Wilke, J., & Reinemann C. (2000). Kanzlerkandidaten in der Wahlkampfberichterstattung 19491998. Kln, Weimar, Wien: Bhlau Verlag. Wills, T. A. (1981). Downward comparison principles in social psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 245271. Zubayr, C., & Gerhard, H. (2007). Fernsehgewohnheiten und fernsehreichweiten im jahr 2006. Tendenzen im Zuschauerverhalten. Media Perspektiven, o.Jg., (4), 187199.