Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T18:30:29.856Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Visual priming and framing of the 2016 GOP and Democratic Party presidential primary debates

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 May 2019

Patrick A. Stewart ,
Austin D. Eubanks  and
Jason Miller
Patrick A. Stewart*
Affiliation:
University of Arkansas Fayetteville
Austin D. Eubanks
Affiliation:
University of Arkansas Fayetteville
Jason Miller
Affiliation:
University of Kansas
*
Correspondence: Patrick A. Stewart, Department of Political Science 428 Old Main, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701. Email: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

In an on-demand media environment, the 2016 presidential primary debates provided a ratings and economic boost to host networks surpassing all prior primary debates and even major sporting events in viewership. In turn, millions of viewers were exposed to and subtly influenced by the ways in which these candidates were visually presented. We analyze how the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates were presented in their initial two debates (Fox News and CNN; CNN and CBS, respectively). Candidates are considered in terms of visual priming through aggregate camera time and average camera fixation time and how contenders were visually framed through the proportion of different camera shot types used (solo, split screen, side by side, multiple candidate, and audience reaction). Findings suggest that while the front-runners from both political parties benefited from preferential visual coverage, Donald Trump stood out in terms of the visual priming and framing that presented him as a serious contender.

Keywords

Debatespresidential electionprimingframingvisual communicationimage bitesDonald TrumpHillary Clinton
Type
Article
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 38 , Issue 1 , Spring 2019 , pp. 14 - 31
Copyright
© Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Stewart, P. A., Eubanks, A. D., and Miller, J., “‘Please clap’: Applause, laughter, and booing during the 2016 GOP presidential primary debates,” PS: Political Science & Politics , 2016, 49(4): 696–700.Google Scholar
Redlawsk, D. P., Civettini, A. J. W., and Lau, R. R., “Affective intelligence and voting information processing and learning in a campaign,” in The Affect Effect: Dynamics of Emotion in Political Thinking and Behavior, Neuman, W. R., Marcus, G. E., Mackuen, M., and Crigler, A. N., eds. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007), pp. 152–179.Google Scholar
Dowdle, A., Limbocker, S., Yang, S., Sebold, K., and Stewart, P. A., The Invisible Hands of Political Parties in Presidential Elections: Party Activists and Political Aggregation from 2004 to 2012 (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013).Google Scholar
Adkins, R. E. and Dowdle, A. J., “Continuity and change in the presidential money primary,” American Review of Politics , 2008, 28: 319–341.Google Scholar
Steger, W. P., Dowdle, A. J., and Adkins, R. E., “The New Hampshire effect in presidential nominations,” Political Research Quarterly , 2004, 57(3): 375–390.Google Scholar
Azari, J. R., “How the news media helped to nominate trump,” Political Communication , 2016, 33(4): 677–680.Google Scholar
Lawrence, R. G. and Boydstun, A. E., “What we should really be asking about media attention to trump,” Political Communication , 2016, 34(1): 150–153.Google Scholar
Krasner, M. A., “‘Reality’ versus ‘reality TV’ in the Trump campaign and presidency,” paper presented at the Midwest Political Science Association Meeting (Chicago, IL, 2016).Google Scholar
Patterson, T. E., “Pre-primary news coverage of the 2016 presidential race: Trump’s rise, Sanders’ emergence, Clinton’s struggle,” Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy, Harvard University, June 13, 2016, https://shorensteincenter.org/pre-primary-news-coverage-2016-trump-clinton-sanders/, accessed August 2, 2018.Google Scholar
Moy, P., Tewksbury, D., and Rinke, E. M., “Agenda setting, priming, and framing,” in The International Encyclopedia of Communication Theory and Philosophy, Jensen, K. B. and Craig, R. T., eds. (Malden, MA: Wiley, 2016), pp. 52–64.Google Scholar
Iyengar, S. and Kinder, D. R., News That Matters: Agenda-Setting and Priming in a Television Age (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987).Google Scholar
Iyengar, S. and McGrady, J., Media Politics: A Citizen’s Guide (New York: W. W. Norton, 2007).Google Scholar
Scheufele, D. A., “Agenda-setting, priming, and framing revisited: Another look at cognitive effects of political communication,” Mass Communication & Society , 2000, 3(2–3): 297–316.Google Scholar
Messaris, P., “Visual aspects of media literacy,” Journal of Communication , 1998, 48(1): 70–80.Google Scholar
Messaris, P. and Abraham, L., “The role of images in framing news stories,” in Framing Public Life: Perspectives on Media and Our Understanding of the Social World, Reese, S. D., Gandy, O. H. Jr., and Grant, A. E., eds. (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2001), pp. 215–226.Google Scholar
Stewart, P. A., “Polls and elections: Do the presidential primary debates matter? Measuring candidate speaking time and audience response during the 2012 primaries,” Presidential Studies Quarterly , 2015, 45(2): 361–381.Google Scholar
Gong, Z. H. and Bucy, E. P., “Image bite analysis of presidential debates,” in Exploring the C-SPAN Archives: Advancing the Research Agenda, Browning, R. X., ed. (West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press, 2015), pp. 45–75.Google Scholar
Stewart, P. A., Debatable Humor: Laughing Matters on the 2008 Presidential Primary Campaign (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2012).Google Scholar
Fein, S., Goethals, G. R., and Kugler, M. B., “Social influence on political judgments: The case of presidential debates,” Political Psychology , 2007, 28(2): 165–192.Google Scholar
Stewart, P. A., Eubanks, A. D., Dye, R. G., Eidelman, S., and Wicks, R. H., “Visual presentation style 2: Influences on perceptions of donald trump and hillary clinton based on visual presentation style during the third 2016 presidential debate,” American Behavioral Scientist , 2017, 61(5): 545–557.Google Scholar
Wicks, R. H., Stewart, P. A., Eubanks, A. D., Eidelman, S., and Dye, R. G., “Visual presentation style 1: A test of visual presentation styles and candidate evaluation during the first 2016 presidential debate,” American Behavioral Scientist , 2017, 61(5): 533–544.Google Scholar
Wicks, R. H., “Does presentation style of presidential debates influence young voters’ perceptions of candidates?,” American Behavioral Scientist , 2007, 50(9): 1247–1254.Google Scholar
Barnhurst, K. G. and Steele, C. A., “Image-bite news: The visual coverage of elections on US television, 1968–1992,” Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics , 1997, 2(1): 40–58.Google Scholar
Bucy, E. P. and Newhagen, J. E., “The micro- and macrodrama of politics on television: Effects of media format on candidate evaluations,” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media , 1999, 43(2): 193–210.Google Scholar
Esser, F., “Dimensions of political news cultures: Sound bite and image bite news in France, Germany, Great Britain, and the United States,” International Journal of Press/Politics , 2008, 13(4): 401–428.Google Scholar
Grabe, M. E., “The South African Broadcasting Corporation’s coverage of the 1987 and 1989 elections: The matter of visual bias,” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media , 1996, 40(2): 153–179.Google Scholar
Haumer, F. and Donsbach, W., “The rivalry of nonverbal cues on the perception of politicians by television viewers,” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media , 2009, 53(2): 262–279.Google Scholar
Bucy, E. P., “Nonverbal communication, emotion, and political evaluation,” in The Routledge Handbook of Emotions and Mass Media, Doveling, K., von Scheve, C., and Konijn, E. A., eds. (New York: Taylor & Francis, 2011), pp. 195–220.Google Scholar
Grabe, M. E. and Bucy, E. P., Image Bite Politics: News and the Visual Framing of Elections (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009).Google Scholar
Bucy, E. P., “Media Biopolitics: The Emergence of a Subfield,” in Handbook of Biology and Politics, Peterson, S. A. and Somit, A., eds. (Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 2017), pp. 284–303.Google Scholar
Masters, R. D., “The impact of ethology on political science,” in Biology and Politics: Recent Explorations, Somit, A., ed. (The Hague: Mouton, 1976), pp. 197–233.Google Scholar
Sullivan, D. G. and Masters, R. D., “Biopolitics, the media, and leadership: Nonverbal cues, emotions, and trait attributions in the evaluation of leaders,” in Research in Biopolitics: Biopolitics in the Mainstream, Somit, A. and Peterson, S. A., eds. (Somerville, MA: Emerald Group Publishing, 1994), pp. 237–273.Google Scholar
Sullivan, D. G. and Masters, R. D., “‘Happy warriors’: Leaders’ facial displays, viewers’ emotions, and political support,” American Journal of Political Science , 1988, 32(2): 345–368.Google Scholar
Mutz, D. C., In-Your-Face Politics: The Consequences of Uncivil Media (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2015).Google Scholar
Chance, M. R. A., “Attention structure as the basis of primate rank orders,” Man , 1967, 2(4): 503–518.Google Scholar
Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I., Human Ethology (New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1989).Google Scholar
Mazur, A., Biosociology of Dominance and Deference (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2005).Google Scholar
Salter, F. K., Emotions in Command: Biology, Bureaucracy, and Cultural Evolution (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 2007).Google Scholar
Kwan, L. Y., Yap, S., and Chiu, C., “Mere exposure affects perceived descriptive norms: Implications for personal preferences and trust,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 2015, 129: 48–58.Google Scholar
Verrier, D., “Evidence for the influence of the mere-exposure effect on voting in the eurovision song contest,” Judgment and Decision Making , 2012, 7(5): 639–643.Google Scholar
Mutz, D. C., “Effects of ‘in-your-face’ television discourse on perceptions of a legitimate opposition,” American Political Science Review , 2007, 101(4): 621–635.Google Scholar
Mutz, D. C. and Reeves, Byron, “The new videomalaise: Effects of televised incivility on political trust,” American Political Science Review , 2005, 99(1): 1–15.Google Scholar
Masters, R. D., The Nature of Politics (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989).Google Scholar
Cho, J., Shah, D. V., Nah, S., and Brossard, D., “‘Split screens’ and ‘spin rooms’: Debate modality, post-debate coverage, and the new videomalaise,” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media , 2009, 53(2): 242–261.Google Scholar
Scheufele, D. A., Kim, E., and Brossard, D., “My friend’s enemy: How split-screen debate coverage influences evaluation of presidential debates,” Communication Research , 2007, 34(1): 3–24.Google Scholar
Murray, G. R. and Murray, S. M., “Caveman executive leadership: Evolved leadership preferences and biological sex,” in Evolutionary Psychology in the Business Sciences, Saad, G., ed. (Heidelberg: Springer, 2011), pp. 135–163.Google Scholar
Murray, G. R. and Schmitz, J. D., “Caveman politics: Evolutionary leadership preferences and physical stature,” Social Science Quarterly , 2011, 92(5): 1215–1235.Google Scholar
Gong, Z. H. and Bucy, E. P., “When style obscures substance: Visual attention to display appropriateness in the 2012 presidential debates,” Communication Monographs , 2016, 83(3): 349–372.Google Scholar
Stewart, P. A. and Mosely, J., “Politicians under the microscope: Eye blink rates during the first bush-kerry debate,” White House Studies , 2009, 9(4): 373–388.Google Scholar
Schroeder, A., Presidential Debates: 40 Years of High Risk TV, 3rd ed. (New York: Columbia University Press, 2016).Google Scholar
Racine Group, “White paper on televised political campaign debates,” Argumentation and Advocacy, 2002, 38: 199–218.Google Scholar
Benoit, W. L., Political Election Debates: Informing Voters about Policy and Character (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2013).Google Scholar
Jamieson, K. H. and Waldman, P., The Press Effect: Politicians, Journalists, and the Stories that Shape the Political World (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004).Google Scholar
Borkenau, P., Mauer, N., Riemann, R., Spinath, F. M., and Angleitner, and A., “Thin slices of behavior as cues of personality and intelligence,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 2004, 86(4): 599–614.Google Scholar
Spoor, J. R. and Kelly, J. R., “The evolutionary significance of affect in groups: Communication and group bonding,” Group Processes & Intergroup Relations , 2004, 7(4): 398–412.Google Scholar
Damore, D. F., “A dynamic model of candidate fundraising: The case of presidential nomination campaigns,” Political Research Quarterly , 1997, 50(2): 343–364.Google Scholar
Prior, M., “Visual political knowledge: A different road to competence?,” Journal of Politics , 2014, 76(1): 41–57.Google Scholar
Donovan, T. and Hunsaker, R., “Beyond expectations: Effects of early elections in US presidential nomination contests,” PS: Political Science & Politics , 2009, 42(1): 45–52.Google Scholar
Patterson, M. L., Churchill, M. E., Burger, G. K., and Powell, and J. L., “Verbal and nonverbal modality effects on impressions of political candidates: Analysis from the 1984 presidential debates,” Communication Monographs , 1992, 59(3): 231–242.Google Scholar
Shah, D. V., Hanna, A., Bucy, E. P., Wells, C., and Quevedo, V., “The power of television images in a social media age: Linking biobehavioral and computational approaches via the second screen,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , 2015, 659(1): 225–307.Google Scholar