The experiment examined the role of presentation modality in evaluations of George Bush and Al Gore from the Presidential debates in the 2000 campaign. In the experiment, 295 Japanese subjects were presented selected segments from the debate in either the normal audiovisual condition of in a visual-only condition. The results showed that candidates in audiovisual modality were rated more favorably than in visual-only modality. Bush was judged significantly more favorably than Gore in the visual-only modality than in the audiovisual modality. Gore was rated more leader-like than Bush

John TELLOYAN

Mark E. TUBBS

Miles L. PATTERSON

Miyoko MISHIMA

Yuichi IIZUKA

University of Shimane Academic and Global Institution repository / 島根県立大学学術機関リポジトリ

島根県立大学短期大学部出雲キャンパス研究紀要 第 1巻, 9-15,2007Verbttl and Nonverb証出lbdi工ty Effects on lmpressioI‐lsof Political Can観閲匠tesYuiclli IIzulcA,Miles L.PATrEヽON*,JOhn:I「13hoY佃**,Marlc E,OuBBsネand Miyoko MIsHIIIAAbstractTlle experiment examined he role of presentation modality in evaluations of George Bush and AlGore tom he Presidental debatts in the 2000 campaign,In he experiment,295 Japallese subiectSwere presented selecttd segmentt from he debate in either tlle normal audiovisual condition orin a ?sual‐only cond?on,Tlle results showed tllat candidatts in audicJvisual modality were ratedmore favorably tllan in ?sual‐only modality.Bush was tudged Signiflcalatly more favorably hanGore in the ?sual‐only modality han in he audio?sual modality.Gore was rated more leader‐likehan Bush.Key Words and Phrases:presidendal debate,?sual modality,audio?sual m dality      .Fり″ pubttc力“ぬ βわδ9/rrんヶ 酌 dd,“μ幼初夕 ηοZ隆 ″飩ゼ somθ9r7θ 7/Pθそ3施,COn至ね ど7/ガδOμθpr7θカカθん9/f6・like β reg曲∠肱pθ乃化ηコ・・七″(1996,デイカ盟β互/3誨rs,AIlollymOuS,p.141)■is commonly assumed htt various nollverbal cues,especially the ?suЛ on s Te more illlpoトtallt tllall Кrbal cues in afFecting interpersonal iudgments,Todorov et al.9005)found hat hemore competent looking candidatts in he Upper House in he US had signiflcaxldy higller prob―ab?ty of winning he elections.Ozono et江。(2000 alSO fOund ttrdt candidatts'faces predict elec‐tion outcomes.Early research found tllat he communic?on of tlle contentt of speech depends on he verbalcues,wllile he communication of a伍伍des depe ds mostly on nonギerbtt cues lAr8yle,Alkema,&Gilmour,1972,照Se,Salter,Nicllolson,Williams,&Buttess,197働Mehrabian&Wiener,1967),Tlle exalnination of channel e」ects,induding comparisons across modalities O.g.,?Sual vs.vel・balVS,VOCalJ iS impoAant for understanding communicaton.In her review of ?sun primacy,Noner(1980 ofFered a number of obseⅣaions regardi4g channel comparisons.Among hem was a cau―uon about he use of mehodologies hat are not related to real l近るsitttations and,consequently,would have hmited generalizability doller,1989,In addiiOn,No■er emphasized thtt the encod‐ers' expressiveness in direrent channels arects the relative ilnportance of hose channels.Fortunattly,it is possible to address hese柿「o concems ident?ed by Noller.One important area in which we malce“real life"judgments of prominent encoders wllo vaりtheir expressiveness is in pohtics. Much of wllat the public knows of candidatts comes tonl tele‐?siOn appearances in wllich he visual information is prominent, In he presidendal campalgns, aparticulγly important vehide for he candidatts is tlle ttle?sed presidendal deba俺.FuAllermore,the presidential debates pro?de one of he発、v ccasions when he candidates appear togeher andmay be compared directly.The irst tele?sed presidendЛbate,b tween N?on a d Kennedy in*Un?ersity of WLssou五―St.Louis,半キ himane Un?rsity-9-Yuiclli IIzuKA,Miles L,PAT「EКON,JOhn ttLLOYAN,Mγk E.η」BBs&Miyoko MIsHIMA1960,was one in whicll he collttasting appearance and style of he calldidates were vett noticGable. Kennedy was an tattractive igure 、vho showed conidence and dettrnlination in his presenta‐ion.In contrast,N?on had a ive‐ollock shadow,was perspiring noucerdbly,and seemed ill atease. Some analysts suggested hat the debatt and, in particular, he ?sual con仕偶t betteen thecandidates were cntical in Kennedyもnarrow el cion ?ctory.A sttdy by Exline(1980 of heirst presidential debate in tlle 1976 campaign found hat impressions of Carter and Ford were affecttd by he mode of presentation Φrinted spee(れ,audio only,audio?su lJ.Rttearch on poLicalcandidates suggests that ?sual appeγance may be an irnportant source of arective illformaton,For exarnple,in a study of one of he debatts in lhe 1984 election betteen Re襲翠n τnd Mondale,Reaganもadvantage in rated α町)ressiveness and physical attractivenes were maximized in he ?sualmodality condidon eatterson,Churchill,Burger,& Powell,1992).Because Of he prominence of俺levision in tlle poliical process,sttdying modality effects in he eval里そ?on of candidates is apracical and importtnt pursuit.Like he earlier studies of Жttauss t Л.(1981)and Exline(1985),we decided to use he tele?sed d bate form証.Speciflcally,we examined a controlled colnparisonacross modalities betteen Bush and Gore lom segmentt of he presidendal debatts from tte2000 US election calnpaign.MethodCttrねカィ競 3転ng tt δttC盟ね Tlle purpose of he sdecion of segments ft・om he pre i‐dential debate was to obtain comparable samples of botll Bush and Gore speaking on he same is‐sues for a substantial period of time.Several c五俺五a were applied in identioing lれose segme ts.Tllese criteria evolved over a number of passes through he tape to dettrnline what、va possibleto select,First,he canera had to be focused only on tlle calldidate who was speakingo Most ofhese Ⅲvere head and shoulder sho偽, although some included fllll‐lengtt shots. ′rhi  excludedhose partt of he debatt during wllich he camera foctls might s?俺h to a quesuo?ng panelmember,he atldience,or back to tte oher candida俺.Sec nd,he s gmentt included only hoseperiods during wllich botll candidates talked about a speciic and comparable issue.Tllird, he seg―mentt were appro?mately 40‐50 seconds in lengh.Foul‐tll,he tottl ime across segments wasequattd for the candidates.Witllin hose consttalnts, 伝vo 詢隆rent segments from each of the candidates were selected.Tlleediting process was deternined by tte shorttr speaking turn that met he criteria listed.Tllus, theturn of he candidate 、vho spok longer was edited to matth hat of his oppOnent and to matchthe overali speaking time. Overan, tlle segments for both candidates averaged 44 seconds and in‐cluded he topics of foreign polcy and he budget surplus. It should be emphasized hat he selec―ion alld ediing process was designed to identit,in a relaively obiectiVe manner,comparablespe朋∝r ttlrns for each of he candidtates.Tllat is,the crittria were speciflcally independent of allyattempt to select on he basis of lれe qu?ty of he candidates' beha?or l presentations.Consequently,hese segmellts should be fainy represe前?ve of hose lollger spealcer ttlms hatwere lssue―ori nted.拗 βれ A total of 295 undergraduate participants(194 females and 101 maleO from intro―ductory psychology dasses・at an urban un?er ity and a conege at ?latu  City and lzumo City paトicipattd in he stlldy,SubiectS Were tested in small groups of one to seven persons,Tlle data-10-Verbtt and Nonverbal WIodality Erects On lmpressions of Political Candidateswere collecttd between of September 2000 and November of 2000,approximattly seven to montllsafter he debates occurred.月りaθd慢‐. In all tlle condidons,groups of one to seven subieCtt Were seated facing he VCRand monitor.Tlle chairs、vere arranged in a semi‐c rcle about 4 feet from the monitor. A sign、vasposted on the monitor showing he order of tlle bⅣo issues on wllich he candidates would bespeaking.In he visual condidon,he picture was ?sible,but here was no audio.SubieCtS Wereinformed hat tlley were panicipating in a study on reactions to one of he  2000 Presidential de―batts.¶Кre re 祢汀o identical tapes made II・om presentadons in he Democratic and Repubhcan prilna―ries back in Febl‐uary. Two general issues are sampled ― foreign poLcy and he budget surplus.On one tape,the order of presentation is Bush―Go ‐Gore―Bush and for the otller it is Gore―BusI}Bush‐Gore. So he ttЮtapes control for order of presenttdon erects.Tllat is, we can look at pres―entation order eFec偽. Tllere are also 2 orders for the ratings, one with Bush arst and one 、v thGore irst.Because we wallttd to ask tlle subiectS in he audio?sual condidon how much hey血ought hey understood an additional qtlestion was added to tlleir ratings.Ob?ously,subiects inhe visual―on y condition did not get that question.Tlle insttucuons are as followsI  We are conducing a study of peopleも impressions of tlle bⅣomaJor candidatts in he U.S.Presidential election. We have曲6 brief segments ttom bodl GovernorGeorge Bush and Vice‐President AI Gore recorded during tlleir prirnary campaigns last February.Depending on he pariculγ ta e order,subieCtt Were told hat you w』I see one segmellt wi血Bush(Gore),hen hvo segmellts witll Gore cuSllJ,alld inally one more segment witll Bush.咽he?sual‐only group was told tllat hey would see he ?deotape wih he sound turned or.Tlltt wereaslted to watch he presentation careftllly and hen htt would be asked to rate heir impressionsof he candidates based on tthat hey had seen.Ater hese inst■lcions wer  given,subiectS CO件sent to participate was requesttd and they 、vere reninde llat hey could leave the experimentwihout a敵3cing their credits.Fin』y hey were reminded to watth Oisten tO)he pFeSentationcreftxlly.Before tlle videotape was staned,血ey were asked r hey had att quesuons.At tlle endof tlle videottpe,subieCtS Were asked to please inish a1l of he ratings.IVllen evelyone was ill‐ished,he rating sheets were conecttd,subiectS Were hanked for heir paricipation,and heywere aslted not to協11(to others about he study.ⅢⅢhen pγicipallts had completed his task,heywere debnettd, tllanked for their pal‐ticipation and dis■?ssed.9″“励 崩唸 On he irst Ⅲro pages of he quesdonnaire,subiedS rated he candidatts'pres―entations on a series of l■poillt bipo ar descripttons CAppendixl.Tlley included he followingscaley(1)unillformed―illformed, 9)inSincere‐s cere,(3)not intelligenttintelligent,(4)unlikable‐like【おle,(5)not leader‐likel ade卜like,(③ 帝eattStrO曜,(り nOn_persuas?e‐persuas?e,(8)lacltedpoise―poisedo ①)unexpress?e― xpress?e,alld(10)untattracttve‐ive Finally,he subiectt Wereasked to provide he following il■formation:(1)gende4 (2)age, G)HOW inttresttd are you inAmerican politics and political campaignsP;(4)How muCh dO you know about he candidattsP,(5)Before you saw his videotape,which of he柿「o candidatts did you hke betttr?,alld for only theSubieCtS iュhe atldio?sual condidon,(6)How muCh Of wllat he candidates said did you undeトstalldP Tlle ratings were counterbalallced so that one‐lla  of tlle ubieds in each condi■on rattdBush irst and one―har rated Gore irst.-11-Yuichi hzulcA,Miles L.PATrERSON,JOhn■OY N,Mark E, JBBs&Miyoko MIsHIMAResultsA ttdor analysis llDrOmaXl was cOmputtd separately on tlle Bush and Gore ratings.The irstthree eigenvalues for he Bush ratings 、ver  4.55, 1.65, and .98, and for the Gore raings, 4,17,1.64,and。98.For boh analyses,he scree test suggested he presence of tto fractors lTablel,Table 2).ConSequendy,the ratings from each candidate were summed separately,yielding a lead―Table l』 ″ 肋 И ttec疲℃ S力 Me器阿 比 町 及 潮 鋭 "て√β″訪Bipolγ adieCiVes          hadingsFl       F2Table 2』″冴″ Иttec領℃Sわッ%ひβ♂"ぞ[即esdonてガGo‐Bipolar adieCt?es LoadingsFllnslncere―sincere           .033uninformedrinformed        ‐.251not intelligenttintenigent       .098unhkablellkeable          ,123not leaderllke‐lead 卜lke       ,729wealc‐strong           。933non―persuaslve―persuaslve       .836lacked poise―sed         .031unexpressive―express?c        .582unattract?e―airacive         .471Inslncere‐slncereuninformed―informednot intenigent_intellgentunlkablellkeable■ot leadeⅢlk leade卜1lke、vealt strongnon―persuaslve―persuasivelacked poise―poisedunexpresslve―expresslveunattractive‐auractive.386.934.678.719.175-.183.043.537-.051.348.029-。125.092.163.719.883.888-,111.628.560.404.854.556.642.075-.172-.006.456‐.044.243ership score and a favorability score for botll Bush and Gore. 乳 e leadership score consisttd ofhe ratings of leaderlike, strong,persuasive, and expressive.Tlle favorability score consisttd of heratings of sincere, in散〕lhgent, lkeable, and poised. Bush raings and Gore ratings were botll inteトnally consisttnt,wih coefFlcient alphas of.86 and .82,for Bush and Gore,respectively,Tllesummed leadership scores and favorab?ty scores of tlle calldidates were analyzed in ANOVA.Separate 2徴的dalityJ×2(Candidate)ANOヽ哄 ,wih repeated measures on he candidate faGtor, were computed on he raungs of tlle leadership and favorabihty dilnensions.For rattd leadership,there was no dttct of Modality′(1,293)=1,25,コ.a Tllere w s,however,a latte Candidate eFect,?h Gor  ra ed as signitcalltly more leader‐like hall Bush,F(1,293)=255.66,ρ<.0001,and a A/1odahty× Candidatt inttraction effect,ダ(1,293)=4.51,pく,03.Forhe laher erect,altllougll Gore was rattd as more leadel・like tllan Bush in he boh modalites,Goreもadvan蜘竪Was greattr in he ?sua卜o ly modttity hall in he audio?sual condidon.Tlle calldidate mealls for ratts leadership and favorab?ty by modЛityΥe showll in Table 3,Figure l,and Figure 2,For rattd favoぬbility,tllere was a sign?cant e∬ect of Modality,wih candidatts in tlle audio?s‐ual modaliけrated more as more愚もrれle than in he ?sua卜only mod?ty,デ(1,293)=5.45,p<.02.Tllere was a near significant erect of candida俺,デ(1,293)=2.98,p<.08,wih a ttndencyto ratt Bush as more favorable thall Gore.仙ere was also a A/1odality×Candidat  interaction,F(1,293)=6.18,p<.01,wih Bush was rattd as more favorable han Gore in he visua卜only mo‐dality,not in the audio?sual modality.Table 3Me紐肋 ど■多フ鶴 わ″ヶpr7どを9βierttip[√β7(蒟pr7どσοttθ βαっ餌ル筋溌所ケModttityGore GoreBush BushLeadership-12-FavorれilityAudiovisual(17=147)Visual(ヵ=1402 .5222.4934,1335,0530.7430.8031.1228.72Verbal and Nonverbal Mod』ity Erects on lmpressions of Polidcal Candidates?????、????、???????????????????????????】?」?」??ゃ、?????BushAudio VisualPresentation Modality効 五 A/1eall rated leadership of Bush andGore across presentation modality.Visual           Audio Visual VisualPI・esentattion Modality贄ぎ態 耕eきを脇絆瑠‰r Bush ttdMeans for post experilnental ratings γe as fo■ows: 1. Inttrest in AInencan pOlitics and poll伍calcampaignsi 4.8(dつ=2 61) 2.Ho、v much do you know about he candidatesi Bush 3.6(d∂=2.4り,Gore 3.4“υ=2.403.Before you saw he ?deotape,帝hich of tlle calldidatts did you htt b飢俺r?:Bush 51(17.3幼,Gore 62(210/Ol nOne 176(59.7幼,4.9For he atldio?suЛ conditon onlyJ HOW muchdid you understand?:2.4(1.の (ハ「=140DiscusslonTlle results of he expe?rnent showed a marginal, nonsigllincant prderence for Bush over Gorein rattd favorabihty hat was qualitied by a Candidate×Mod y inttracions.Speciflcally,Bushwas rated as signiflcantly more favorable han Gore in tlle visual only modality,but not in heaudiovisual modality.In contrast,in tlle leadership ratings, here、vas a large edect,with Gorrattd much higller on leadership hall Bush.This e散3ct was qualifled by Candida俺× Modalityillteraction,with Goreもleadership rating advantage greater in tlle ?sual‐only modali y han in heaudiovisual modality.Tllus,Bush was slightly hittler in rated favorおility,but Gore was muchhigher in rated leadership, and botll of hese d?ere ces were arecte  by presen捌的n modahty.It seems tllat tlle importallce of presentttbn modality is dependent on a variety of ftttors tt011er,198動.Althouゴl he apparent importance of he visual modality may not be as common as heearly research suggested,it may be more common in polidcs,帝here“i tt "is su(九an imp∝協1ltfactor.ReferencesAnonymous (1996): /■力盟η ′3詭rs_Londoni Vintte,Argyle,M.,Alkema,F.,&Gilmour,R。(1972):Tlle COmmu?cation of friendly and hosile attitttdesby Кl・bal and non‐velもal signals, Europett yttrF‐rrpF ι√こわ"靱οん旺%1,385‐400.Argyle,M.,Salttr,V.,Nicholson,H.,Willia14S,M.,&Buttess,P.(197①:匂臨e COmmunication ofi劇腱rior alld superior attttldes by verbal and nonverbal signals, Brm説ヵ閉″ プ 肋″ 孤どa物危″ ノヱ朝臨a浄勉 9,222‐31.DePal1lo,B.M.,Zuckerman,M.,&Rosenhal,R.(198ω:Detecing decepion,Modality erects胞陸7[√Fbttθββオヶ″どこ賜″ ′り務ο力旺万1,125‐162.Exline, R.V.(1985): MultiChannel trallsmission of nonverbal behavior and he percepion of-13-Ytlichi IIzulcA,Miles L.PAT「ERSON,JOhn ttLLO1/AN,Mal・lc E.0」BBs&Miyoko MIsHIMApowelflll men,Tlle Presidential Debatts Of 1976 1pp.183-200.In S.L.Ellyson&J.F.Do?dio(Eds.), デリレ?巧 肋 ′力pr76c prPどrPοβレTttβノわθねβ770π New York: Springec弧亀』ag.Krauss,R,M.,Apple,W.,A/1orency,N.,Wenzel,C,,&Winton,W。(1981):Verba vocal,a d visiblefactors in tudgments of anotllerも江覺ct,ヵ"盟″/プをお27βカケββどdθ彦″′ッβ,οゑ写)τ 40,312‐320,Mehrabian, A., & Wiener, M.(196り: Decoding of inconsistent communication, ュ)rrF‐r7″ プPersonp/uri/EF7ど肋D〃 り務 ο盈ョン 6,10>114.Noller,P.(1985):VideO primttq匹a ftll・tller look,ヵ優mal οん 物ヽ 祀おa■Beha万%9,28‐47.Ozono,H.,Rule,N.,Nakashima,S.,Yoshikawa,S.,&Watanabe,M.(2000: Impressions of candldates'faces on election outtomes,兄り妙`√肋 a贈みx力婢 Иttο務♭どん470,132.Patterson,M.L.,Churchi11,M.E.,Burger,G.K.,&Powell,J.L.(1992):Verbal and nonvelもal modaトity ejects on impressions of political candidates: Allalysis ll・om he 1984 president al debatts,3o唖ェdcaryri9r7′堕盟昭rtth弓59,231-242.Todorov,A.,Mandisodza,A.N.,Goren,A.,&Hall,C,C.(2005):Illferences of competence'omfaces predict election outcomes, 働 むβ♂3 308(10), 1623-1626.Appendix (Questionnaire)Please rate your impressions of he candidatts based on the followlng°11-point scal . If you feelhat tlle candidatt very sttongly merited he descripdon on he lei side of tlle sc』e,cir le a l.Ifyou feel tllat he candidatt very sttongly merited tte descripion on he五餌lt side Of tlle scale,ciトcle an ll. Intermediatt numbers renect valving degrees of the listtd quality, with a 6 being nlid―way bebveen tlle hvo exttemes,ヽヽ en you have complettd he ratings turn the page and continue.Please complete each page before going on to the next page,-14-Verbal and Nonverba1 lModality EFectt on lmpressions of Political CandidatesBUSH SEEMEDuninformed      1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11insincere         1   2   3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11Not inteWigent     1  2   3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11Unlikeabie       1  2   3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11Not Leader‐Like   1  2   3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11vveak            1   2   3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11Non‐Persuasive   1   2   3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11Lacked Poise     1   2   3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11Unexpressive     1   2   3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11Unattractive      1  2   3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11informedSincereinte‖igentLikeableLeader―LikeStrongPersuaslvePolsedExpressiveAttractiveuninforrnedinsincereNot intettigentUniikeableNot Leader…LikeWeakNon―PersuasiveLacked PolseUnexpressiveUnattractiveGORE SEEMED1234567891011123456789101112345678910111234567891011123456789101112345678910114234567891011123456789101112345678910111234567891011infO「FnedSincereinteWigentLikeableLeade卜LikeSt「ongPersuasivePoisedExpressiveAttractive-15-

Verbal and Nonverbal Modality Effects on Improssions of Political Candidates

https://ushimane.repo.nii.ac.jp/?action=repository_action_common_download&item_id=187&item_no=1&attribute_id=22&file_no=1

Verbal and Nonverbal Modality Effects on Improssions of Political Candidates

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Shimane Academic and Global Institution repository / 島根県立大学学術機関リポジトリ