Comparing the Effects of Communication Mode in Election 2004:An Analysis of Image Evaluations

Communication Modes and Candidate Image 1

Comparing the Effects of Communication Mode in Election 2004: An Analysis of Image Evaluations

Competitive Paper Submission NCA 2007 Political Communication Division

Communication Modes and Candidate Image 2 Comparing the Effects of Communication Mode in Election 2004: An Analysis of Image Evaluations This study was designed to examine how young people respond to political candidates by examining the effects of exposure to the messages presented through television advertisements, televised debates, and campaign Web sites on ratings of the candidates’ images. Using a 3 (communication mode) x 3 (political party) MANOVA procedure, this study tested two hypotheses and one research question. The results indicated significant differences in the candidates’ image ratings based on the type of campaign communication mode to which the subjects were exposed and significant differences with regard to the importance of political affiliation as an influence on how young people rated the candidates’ images.

Communication Modes and Candidate Image 3 Comparing the Effects of Communication Mode in Election 2004: An Analysis of Image Evaluations Research on political candidate images has long supported the argument that voters make voting decisions based on the perceived image of the candidate (for a review see Hacker, 1995, 2004). As presidential campaigns spend enormous amounts of money on such message outlets as political advertising, time in negotiation and preparation for televised debates, and creative energies in formulating messages for multiple audiences on their campaign Web sites, they do so in order to persuade voters to vote for them. Although multiple sources of campaign information assist voters in making evaluations about candidate images (Pfau, Cho, and Chong, 2001), televised advertising and campaign Web sites represent two distinct sources of mass communication over which candidates can exert the most control over message, design, and image, as well as reach the voters directly with their message. In other words, the message has, as Kaid (2002) points out, a linear, “direct effects” transmission (p. 28), uniquely different from the third party interpretation involved with other transmission sources, such as news media coverage, talk shows, and blogs. From a mass communication perspective, debates also serve an important function for candidates. Although the candidates may not have same element of control, at the moment of message consumption by the viewer they do have the opportunity for the same “direct effects” transmission. In 2004, young voters were the target of not only these forms of campaign-related messaging, but also messages from non-profit, governmental, and media sources. The past decade has witnessed increased concern over the seemingly disengaged young voter population. Organizations such as MTV, the National Secretaries of State, the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning (CIRCLE), the American Democracy Project, the Harvard

Communication Modes and Candidate Image 4 University Institute of Politics, and Campus Compact have pursued initiatives designed to increase civic engagement among young people, often primarily in the form of voting. These groups were rewarded with exciting results when the 2004 votes were tallied. In total, more than 11.6 million American youth voted in the presidential election (Lopez, Kirby, & Sagoff, 2005). Young voter turnout was at a twelve-year high in the 2004 general election with a 47% voter turnout (Lopez et al.). Considered a triumph, the young voter demographic showed an 11% increase from the 2000 to the 2004 election—the largest increase of any age demographic during that time (Lopez et al.). Young voters also represented a larger share of the total votes cast in 2004 (9.3%) than in any of the previous eleven years (Lopez et al.). Perhaps not surprising, based on increased turnout, the Pew Research Center reported in the fall of 2004 that young people were more interested in the election and in voting than four years earlier, although they were less firm in their candidate preference (Pew, 2004). It is the evaluation of candidates that leads to candidate selection, with which this study takes interest. With the high interest in improving young people’s turnout at the polls and the subsequent increase in young voter turnout, the 2004 general election is a unique case study for examining how young voters responded and connected to the candidates. Specifically, this study seeks to understand the relationship between young voters image perceptions of the presidential candidates as developed through exposure to three candidate-centered modes of mass communication—television advertisements, televised debates, and campaign Web sites. Through this analysis of message influence we seek to provide further understanding of campaign-related message effects on young voters and their participatory decisions. Literature Review

Communication Modes and Candidate Image 5 Over the past several decades presidential candidates have enjoyed the opportunity to reach millions of Americans through mass forms of campaign communication, such as television spot ads and televised debates; and, in the past decade campaign Web sites have emerged as an important campaign tool. In fact, Kaid and Postelnicu (2004) argue that in 2004 the presidential candidates’ Web sites became “a very visible part of the campaign communication” (p. 265). This recent infusion of the Internet and campaign Web sites into the realm of political communication has again raised the issue of whether message channel, or mode, influences audience perception and interpretation of campaign messages. In other words, how does our evaluation of candidates differ when we are exposed to the differing messages available through various forms of campaign communication? Katz and Feldman’s (1962) well-known study of the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon debate provided early indications that in fact channel does matter, finding that declaration of a candidate as the debate winner was dependent on the channel to which the audience was exposed. These results, along with McLuhan’s (1964) suggestion that message is intertwined with medium, lead many to argue that different effects emerge from exposure to different media (Kaid, 1981; Kaid, 2002; Kaid & Postelnicu, 2005; McKinnon, Tedesco, & Kaid, 1993). However, as new technologies offer campaigns new channels through which to disseminate messages and influence voter attitudes and perceptions, the study of message channel—or mode—remains an important line of continuing inquiry. Comparison of Message Mode Although the research on individual campaign communication modes has contributed an extensive and rich understanding of message effects, the frequent choice of scholars to examine individual campaign communication modes in isolation from other modes does not reflect the

Communication Modes and Candidate Image 6 complex mediated nature of modern campaigns. Pfau, Cho, and Chong (2001) argue that “this isolated approach is flawed” (p. 88) and call for more work in the study of multi-mode effects. It is well documented that voters are exposed to many campaign-related messages throughout a presidential election cycle and scholars have sought to determine which serve as primary sources of influence. Yet, few studies have focused on a comparison of the different effects that might exist between multiple candidate-controlled communication sources in campaigns, and particularly the effects these messages have on candidate evaluations and voting behavior. Indeed, the few studies that have examined to what extent such effects might exist find support for the presence of mode-based influence, although the inconsistent results do not offer firm answers. For instance, during the 1992 election McKinnon, Tedesco, and Kaid (1993) compared reactions to a presidential debate that was simultaneously aired on television and radio. While the results revealed significant changes in image perception for some of the candidates based on the mode of communication, the findings were not consistent across all candidates. In her study of effects resulting from traditional (television) versus nontraditional (internet) exposure to the same campaign advertising messages during the 2000 presidential race, Kaid (2002) determined that in fact vote choice changed based on communication mode exposure although evaluations of the candidates did not. In 2000, Bush benefited from exposure through television and Gore benefited in the Internet exposure group. Kaid and Postelnicu (2005) used a similar approach during the 2004 election, exposing a young voter audience to the same campaign ads on television and online. Their results did find that evaluations of the candidates significantly changed from the pretest to posttest when voters viewed the ads through the candidates’ Web sites; Kerry’s evaluations increased significantly and Bush’s evaluations decreased significantly. However, candidate evaluations did not differ when the candidate ads

Communication Modes and Candidate Image 7 were viewed via television. Importantly, participants from the Internet group reported perceiving the ads as significantly less credible than did the television group. During the 2000 presidential campaign Pfau et al. (2001) examined the influence of 13 “modalities” on voters’ perceptions of candidate image for the two major party presidential candidates. Using a survey approach, the authors asked respondents to report their communication modality use and attention to messages, some of which were candidatecontrolled and most of which were not. Their results indicated that the use of “non-traditional” forms of communication (i.e., political talk radio, television entertainment talk shows, television news magazines) had the most influence on perceptions of candidate image. While debates—a “traditional” form of communication—also influenced perceptions of candidate image, other traditional forms such as newspapers, magazines, and television news exerted limited influence. Although the previous studies differ in purpose and design from the current study, they provide support for the notion that the different communication modes can produce different effects among voters. Clearly, each of the individual modes of communication are important for candidates; however, the candidate-centered, or candidate-controlled, modes of mass communication available to a candidate—such as television advertising, debates, and Web sites —provide an interesting point of comparison with regard to their effects on candidate assessment and voting behavior. Therefore, this current study seeks to expand the prior work on campaign communication effects across multiple modes. Specifically, this study explores differences in young voters’ perceptions of candidate image based on exposure to messages across three different forms of campaign media. Image effects research based on each of these communication modes is considered next. Candidate Image Assessments

Communication Modes and Candidate Image 8 Studies focused on televised campaign advertising, televised debates, and Internet messages indicate that exposure to these forms of communication during a campaign aids voters in evaluating candidates and making vote choices. Viewing television campaign advertising typically results in positive effects on assessments of candidate image, although negative effects have been noted (Kaid, 2004; Tedesco & Kaid, 2003). In terms of positive effects, televised campaign ads have been found to increase candidate name recognition (Kaid, 1982) as well as improve overall evaluations of candidate image following exposure to the ads (Kaid & Johnston, 2001; Tedesco & Kaid, 2003). Exposure to political advertising has resulted in higher candidate ratings for characteristics such as intelligence, strength, dependability, honesty, and fairness (Cundy, 1986). In terms of negative effects on candidate assessment or image, findings typically reflect that exposure to negative advertising produces negative image evaluations of the opponent (Friedkin & Kenney, 2004; Jasperson & Fan, 2002; Kaid, 1997; Tedesco & Kaid, 2003). The positive and negative effects are important findings because both indicate that televised ads influence perceptions of candidate image which is considered an important predictor of voter decision-making (Miller, Wattenberg, & Malanchuk, 1984; Nimmo & Savage, 1976). The literature on political debates also suggests that viewers develop perceptions of candidates’ images as a result of exposure to a debate (Benoit, McKinney, & Stephenson, 2002; Best & Hubbard, 1999; Dailey, Hinck, & Hinck, 2006; McKinney, Dudash, & Hodgkinson, 2003; McKinney, Kaid, & Robertson, 2001; McKinnon, Tedesco, & Kaid, 1993) and that debates provide an opportunity for voters to assess and better understand the candidates’ personalities and images (McKinney et al., 2003). Specifically, candidate image evaluations have shifted significantly based on debate viewing (Best & Hubbard, 1999; Dailey, Hinck, &

Communication Modes and Candidate Image 9 Hinck, 2006), with changes occurring in evaluations of the candidate’s competency (Dailey et al., 2006), character, and viability (Best & Hubbard, 1999). Lanoue and Schrott (1991) conclude that “viewers are far more likely to use debates to gain insight into each candidate’s personality and character” (p. 96) than their issue positions. Because of the length of exposure time that is available to voters for evaluative purposes, as well as the opportunity for direct candidate comparison and for the candidates to in essence talk “directly” to the viewers; debates remain an important mode of communication for presidential candidates. Further, candidates do have an opportunity to exert some control over their preparation, responses, structure, and issues covered during a debate (Self, 2005). Therefore, this element of control and opportunity for the candidates to speak directly to the viewing audience make campaign debates an important mode of communication to study in comparison with television advertising and the more recently developed form of candidate-controlled mass communication, campaign Web sites. Due to the relatively recent emergence of campaign Web sites as modes of campaign communication, research is advancing rapidly in its analysis of Web site exposure effects on voter evaluations of candidates’ images and on voter behavior. In their study of the effects of Web site design and complexity on candidate image, Sundar, Kalyanaraman, and Brown (2003) found that more complex Web site designs led to lower candidate evaluations when compared to less complex Web sites. In this experimental design, participants were exposed to one of three Web site designs—low, medium, and high interactivity—for a fictitious candidate. Candidate image ratings were significantly lower in the high interactivity group than either the low or medium interactivity group. The authors concluded that Web site designers need to be “cautious in their use of new media tools” (p. 52), and to keep the message as the focus of a campaign site as opposed to burying the message in graphics and hyperlinks.

Communication Modes and Candidate Image 10 Tedesco’s (2006) study of young voter efficacy and Web interactivity found that exposure to the interactive sites increased participants’ internal and external efficacy, and their feelings of being informed. Other scholars have confirmed that in fact exposure to campaign information online significantly impacts political knowledge, political efficacy, and participation (Kenski & Stroud, 2006). Internet use for obtaining political information has also been found to be predictive of political interest, campaign interest, likelihood to vote, and political involvement. Beyond the work by Kaid and colleagues (Kaid, 2002; Kaid & Postelnicu, 2005), little attention has been paid to understanding how voters develop image perceptions of the candidates from exposure to their campaign Web sites. Therefore, this study seeks to build upon prior research on advertising and debate effects and expand research on campaign Web site effects to examine if and how perceptions of candidate image develop differently for young voters across these three communication modes. Delli Carpini (2004) argues that little is known about the impact of different communication modes on groups, such as young voters. The examination of this target group and of three mass communication modes offers the potential for a more comprehensive analysis of message effects than the prior research has thus far assessed, as well as for a greater understanding of what messages young people are more likely to process. To achieve this purpose, the study first poses the following question: RQ: Does the message mode influence how young people rate the candidates’ images? A Pew poll (2005) reported that 52% of those who access the Internet for their political information indicated that “the internet was important in giving them information that helped them decide how to vote” (p. ii). While convenience remains the main reason people get their political news online, more than half reported getting their news online because they prefer the

Communication Modes and Candidate Image 11 ability to seek out information beyond that provided by the mainstream media (Pew, 2005). Additionally, young people are reporting frequent Internet access for news gathering (Pew, 2005) and Pew reported that 57% of these young web users got political information online for the 2004 election. Tedesco (2004) suggests that this increase in the Web as a source of political news leads to the likelihood for young voters to access the Internet as the communication medium of choice for their political information rather than traditional media (i.e., television news, newspapers). Given the increased use of the Internet among this age group, there is a need to examine whether this choice influences important variables such as candidate image evaluations and how this mode of campaign communication compares to other modes for this specific demographic. The findings of previous research with regard to young people’s media consumption and political campaign communication modes, leads to the following hypothesis: H1: Of the three modes tested, the candidate image ratings will be highest when the messages are viewed through campaign Web sites. Political Affiliation Political affiliation has also been well documented as a strong indicator of voting behaviors and candidate image evaluations, with political party affiliates preferring their party’s candidate (for a review see Kaid, 2004; Paletz, 2002; Rahn, 1993; Powell & Cowart, 2003). Considering that political socialization develops during young adulthood (Paletz, 2002), it is quite important to learn whether political party is as strong of an indicator of voting behaviors and candidate assessments in this demographic as it is in the adult demographic. Given that research has repeatedly supported the influence of political affiliation within the general public, the current study does not assume that the relationship will be different with young voters and advances the following hypothesis:

Communication Modes and Candidate Image 12 H2: Candidates will receive higher image ratings from young people affiliated with their political party than from Independents or those affiliated with the other political party. Method A quasi-experimental procedure was used to respond to the research questions and to test the hypotheses. In order to examine the reactions to each of the three types of messages— televised advertisements, debates, and Web sites—groups of young voters were exposed to the content from one of the three modes. Participants The participants consisted of 419 students enrolled in communication studies courses at a large midwestern university. The participants signed up for one of the three exposures at random and received course credit for their participation. Fifty-four percent of the participants were women (n = 226) and 46% were men (n = 193) with a mean age of 19.97 (range = 18-25). The majority of participants (81.4%) were Caucasian; 5.5% identified themselves as AfricanAmerican, 3.6% as Asian/Pacific Islander, 3.6% as Hispanic, 3.3% selected “other,” and 3% refused to report their race/ethnic background. The political party affiliation of the participants was evenly split at 35% Democrats (n = 147) and 35% Republicans (n = 147); 30% of the participants indicated an Independent or “other” political affiliation (n = 125). Two hundred thirty seven participants were exposed to the televised campaign advertisements, 69 were exposed to the televised debates, and 113 were exposed to the campaign Web sites. While efforts were made to generate comparable sample sizes, the study did result in unequal sample sizes across the three communication modes therefore, careful attention to the possible violation of homogeneity of variance was addressed in the data analysis. Procedure

Communication Modes and Candidate Image 13 The data collected for this study were gathered in conjunction with research being conducted by the UVote 2004 national research team project. The items analyzed in this study are a combination of questions included on the UVote questionnaire and items added specifically for this site location. Therefore, this study reports findings from the local site location only. The television advertising and debate stimuli to which participants were exposed were coordinated with the larger team project. A pre-test/post-test survey design was used for each of the sessions. In the pre-test participants provided demographic information, rated perceptions of the presidential candidates’ images, vote choice for a presidential candidate, strength of that vote, and questions pertaining to sources to which they turn for political information acquisition. The participants were then exposed to one of three stimuli—televised advertisements aired on behalf of or by the candidates, a televised debate, or the presidential candidates’ Web sites. The participants then completed the post-test section of the questionnaire, rating their perceptions of the candidates’ images, identifying their vote choice, strength of vote, and providing responses to open-ended about the candidates’ personal qualities that they recalled. The television advertising group viewed one of two sets of advertisements for George W. Bush and John Kerry.1 The first set of advertisements were shown during sessions held from September 28 to October 2, 2004, and the second set of advertisements were shown during sessions held from October 26 to October 29, 2004. The debate group viewed one of two debates that aired nationally on September 30, 2004 and on October 8, 2004. Each debate session was held in a common area of a dormitory on the university’s campus where television access was available for a large viewing audience.

Communication Modes and Candidate Image 14 The Web site group viewed the presidential candidate Web sites in a computer lab on the university’s campus, where access to the Internet was consistent for all participants (i.e., download time was the same). Specific instructions for viewing the Web sites were provided for each session. Participants were asked to open their Internet browsers to the first candidate’s official Web site and were given eight minutes to view the Web site. The participants were given no further direction regarding what areas of the site to view. At the end of eight minutes, they were directed to the second candidate’s official Web site and given eight minutes to view this site. The Web site viewed first was counterbalanced across groups of participants (johnkerry.com or georgewbush.com). After viewing both Web sites the participants were asked to close their Web browsers and continue with the last portion of the questionnaire. The Web site sessions were conducted between Tuesday, October 19 and Tuesday, October 26, 2004, just prior to the election. Instruments Candidate image was measured with a semantic differential scale widely used in research on political candidate image (e.g., Kaid & Chanslor, 1995; Kaid et al., 1977; Kaid & Tedesco, 1999; Sanders & Pace, 1977; Tedesco & Kaid, 2003). The scale utilized a series of twelve bipolar adjective pairs, rated on a seven-point scale, describing characteristics of candidate image (unqualified/qualified, unsophisticated/sophisticated, dishonest/honest, believable/unbelievable, unsuccessful/successful, attractive/unattractive, unfriendly/friendly, insincere/sincere, calm/excitable, aggressive/unaggressive, strong/weak, inactive/active). Consistent with previous research mean candidate image ratings were calculated for each participant. When used in previous research the scale achieved high reliability with Cronbach’s alpha levels ranging from .83 (Kaid, Downs, & Raga, 1990) to .92 (Kaid, Leland, & Whitney, 1992). In this study,

Communication Modes and Candidate Image 15 reliabilities for each dimension were assessed using Cronbach’s alpha, which resulted in an alpha of .91 for Bush and .90 for Kerry. Party identification was measured by asking participants “Which of the following best represents your political beliefs?” Participants were given four options to choose from (Democrat, Republican, Independent, Other). For the purposes of data analysis, participants indicating an “other” affiliation were grouped with the “Independents.” Pre-test evaluations To account for potential differences of prior exposure to campaign communication and speaking with others about the campaign, pre-test data was examined to determine if differences existed between participants across the three modes on the candidate image variable. Two, oneway analysis of variance tests were conducted to evaluate the relationship between ratings of Bush and Kerry’s image and participants in each of the three modes of exposure—televised ads, television debates, and campaign Web sites—prior to exposure to the stimulus. The ANOVA test for Bush’s image ratings across modes was not significant, F(2, 146) = 1.20, p = .30 and the ANOVA for Kerry’s image ratings across modes was also not significant, F(2, 146) = .835, p = .44. In other words, participants did not differ significantly across the three different modes in their ratings of Bush’s image nor in their ratings of Kerry’s image prior to exposure to the stimuli in this study, despite the potential for varied exposure to campaign messages or discussions about the candidates occurring external to this study. Given this lack of significance in the pretest data, any significant differences in the ratings of candidate image following exposure were interpreted as an effect of campaign communication mode or political affiliation rather than a result of prior exposure. Results

Communication Modes and Candidate Image 16 This experiment tested two hypotheses to examine the influence communication mode and party affiliation on candidate image. It also addressed one research question regarding the influence of campaign communication modes—television advertisements, campaign Web site, and televised debates—on ratings of candidate image. The hypotheses and research question were tested through a 3 (communication mode) x 3 (political party) multivariate analysis of variance procedure for judgments of the two candidates on the dependent variable. Hypothesis 1 predicted that candidate image ratings would be highest when the messages were viewed through campaign Web sites when compared to the other modes of communication. To test this hypothesis, a multivariate analysis of variance was conducted with the image ratings for each candidate as the dependent measures. A preliminary analysis evaluating the covariance matrices of the dependent measures across groups indicated that the relationship between the groups was not equal, Box’s M = 209.28, F (24, 72260) = 8.50, p = .000. Due to the unequal variances, Pilai’s Trace, which takes this violation in account, is reported for this analysis. Results from this analysis revealed significant main effects of party and communication mode, and a significant party by communication mode interaction (see Table 1). Univariate tests showed that these effects were significant for both Bush and Kerry (see Table 1). Therefore, the party by communication mode interaction was analyzed for both candidates. [TABLE 1 about here] Bush Image Simple main effects analysis indicated that communication mode had a significant effect on Bush’s image ratings for Republicans, F (2, 144) = 59.08, p = .000, η2 =.45, and Independents, F (2, 122) = 8.23, p = .000, η2 =.12, but not for Democrats, F (2, 144) = 1.86, p > .05, η2 =.03. Pairwise comparisons (Green & Salkind, 2003) revealed that Republicans who

Communication Modes and Candidate Image 17 viewed the debates rated Bush’s image significantly higher than those who viewed the televised ads and his campaign Web site (see Table 2). Independents rated Bush’s image significantly higher in both the debates and his campaign Web site than in televised ads (see Table 2). [TABLE 2 about here] Simple main effect analyses also indicated that political party had a significant effect on Bush’s image ratings in each of the three modes of campaign communication: Ads, F (2, 234) = 37.95, p = .000, η2 = .25; Debates, F (2, 66) = 31.44, p = .000, η2 = .48; Web sites, F (2, 110) = 16.38, p = .001, η2 = .23. Pairwise comparisons (Green & Salkind, 2003) revealed that Republicans rated Bush’s image significantly higher in his ads than did Independents and Democrats. With regard to the debates, participants from each political party varied significantly in their ratings of Bush’s image with Republicans rating his image highest, followed by Independents, and Democrats rating his image lowest. Finally, Independents rated Bush’s image significantly higher in his Web site than did Republicans and Democrats. Kerry Image Following the procedures outlined by Green and Salkind (2003), simple main effects of communication mode on image ratings for each candidate were examined within political party. These analyses indicated that judgments of Kerry’s image varied significantly across the three communication modes for participants in each political party: Democrats, F (2, 144) = 33.64, p = .000, η2 = .32; Republicans, F (2, 144) = 9.64, p = .000, η2 = .12; Independents, F (2, 122) = 4.25, p < .05, η2 = .07. Pairwise comparisons (Green & Salkind, 2003) revealed that Democrats who viewed the debates rated Kerry’s image significantly higher than those who viewed televised ads and his campaign Web site (see Table 2). In contrast, Republicans who saw the debates rated Kerry’s image significantly lower than those who viewed the televised ads and his campaign

Communication Modes and Candidate Image 18 Web site (see Table 2). Finally, Independents who viewed the debates rated Kerry’s image significantly higher than those who viewed his campaign Web site, while ratings from Independents who viewed the ads did not differ significantly from those for the other two communication modes (see Table 2). Simple main effect analyses also indicated that political party had a significant effect on Kerry’s image ratings in each of the three modes of campaign communication: Ads, F (2, 234) = 19.04, p = .000, η2 = .14; Debates, F (2, 66) = 33.31, p = .000, η2 = .50; Web sites, F (2, 110) = 7.69, p = .001, η2 = .12. Pairwise comparisons (Green & Salkind, 2003) revealed that Democrats rated Kerry’s image significantly higher in his ads than did Independents and Republicans. With regard to the debates, participants from each political party varied significantly in their ratings of Kerry’s image with Democrats rating his image highest, followed by Independents, and Republicans rating his image lowest. Finally, Democrats rated Kerry’s image significantly higher in his Web site than did Independents, while the Republicans’ ratings of Kerry’s image did not differ significantly from the ratings by Democrats or Independents. Summary These results provide little support for Hypothesis 1 that participants who viewed the Web sites would give candidates the highest image ratings. In two instances (Republicans rating Kerry and Independents rating Bush) participants who viewed Web sites gave higher ratings to the candidates than those who viewed one of the other communication modes. However in both of those cases, the Web site ratings were equivalent to the rating from the third mode. Viewing the debates led to the highest candidate image ratings in three cases: Republicans rating Bush, Democrats rating Kerry, and Independents rating Kerry. Hypothesis two received more support with candidates receiving higher image ratings

Communication Modes and Candidate Image 19 from young people affiliated with their political party than from Independents or those affiliated with the other political party, with one exception. For Bush, Republicans rated his image higher in both his ads and the debates than both the Independents and Democrats. In the Websites, however, the Independents rated Bush’s image higher than did the Republicans and Democrats. John Kerry’s image was rated highest by the Democrats in each of the three modes of campaign communication. In this study, the overall mean image ratings of the candidates centered around the midpoint of the image scale. The candidate image measure utilized a semantic differential scale with a series of twelve bipolar adjective pairs, rated on a seven-point scale with higher values representing higher candidate image ratings. For Bush’s image, the Democrats rated him below the scale mid-point in each of the three forms of communication, while the Republicans and Independents rated him above the scale mid-point in each of the three forms of communication. In contrast, Kerry’s image was rated below the scale mid-point only once (Republicans rating in the debates). Although several ratings were above the scale mid-point of “4.0,” the average ratings for each candidate were never greater than 4.88, which indicate a relatively neutral image rating for both candidates. Discussion This study examined how young people respond to political candidates, specifically the 2004 Presidential candidates. Of importance was the effect of three candidate-controlled, mass communication modes—televised advertisements, televised debates, and campaign Web sites— on how young voters rated the candidates’ images. From a review of the literature, the study advanced one research question and two hypotheses. The research question inquired whether message mode influenced how young people rated the candidates’ images and was coupled with

Communication Modes and Candidate Image 20 a hypothesis that predicted the candidate images would be rated most positively by the group viewing the campaign Web sites. The results indicated that differences existed in the candidates’ image ratings based on the type of communication mode to which the subjects were exposed. Of the three modes examined, the study hypothesized that the ratings of candidate image by young people would be highest when viewed through the Web sites. This hypothesis was not supported by the results despite research indicating an increase in the use of the Web as a source of political information among the young voter demographic. For instance, the Pew Research Center [Pew] reported that the Internet was an important source of information when deciding for whom to vote for a majority (52%) of Internet users in the 2004 election (Pew, 2005). Additionally, 57% of young voters who accessed the Internet during the campaign did so to obtain political information (Pew). However, while young people may prefer to get their political information online (Pew; Tedesco, 2004), the results in this study indicate that exposure to candidate messages on campaign Web sites does not necessarily lead to higher evaluations of candidate image when compared to evaluations generated after exposure to candidate messages from other modes of campaign communication. While ratings of candidate image were not significantly higher following exposure to the campaign Web sites, significant differences did emerge with both candidate’s images being rated highest overall following exposure to the campaign debates. This increase in ratings of candidate image following exposure to the debates provides support for McKinney, Dudash, and Hodgkinson’s (2003) claim that debates have an influence on evaluations of candidate images because the extended time of viewing provides an opportunity for voters to assess and better understand the candidates’ personalities and images. Specifically, this study’s results indicated that young people who were affiliated with a political

Communication Modes and Candidate Image 21 party—Democrat or Republican—rated the image of their party’s candidate significantly higher in the debates that in advertising or campaign Web sites, findings that confirm earlier work on partisanship and debate effects (McKinnon et al., 1993; Payne, Golden, Marlier, & Ratzan, 1989). In other words, young Democrats rated Kerry’s image significantly higher when they were exposed to the debates than when exposed to either the televised ads or the campaign Web site; and young Republicans rated Bush’s image significantly higher in the debates than in the televised ads or the campaign Web site. Conversely, young party affiliates rated the image of the opposing party’s candidate lower in the debates when compared with the other modes of campaign communication, although the some of these differences by mode were not statistically significant. While these findings do not support hypothesis one—which predicted candidate image ratings would be highest when messages were viewed through campaign Web sites—they do support hypothesis two—candidates will receive higher image ratings from young people affiliated with their political party than from those affiliated with the opposing party. The results indicate that, for young people affiliated with a political party, the debates provide a significant point of comparison between the candidates that may serve to strengthen allegiance to the party and/or the candidate. Similarly, McKinney and Carlin (2004) noted that debates result in very little change in voters who have made a candidate choice, but instead debates are more likely to serve as a means through which vote choices can be solidified for these viewers. As a result, political candidates may be best served if young party affiliates are exposed to the presidential debates in an effort to strengthen a candidate choice. Additionally, young people who considered themselves as Independents also rated each candidate’s image higher following exposure to the debates when compared to other modes of

Communication Modes and Candidate Image 22 communication, thus further providing no support for hypothesis one that ratings would be highest from exposure to the Web sites. Specifically, young Independents rated Bush’s image significantly higher in the debates than in his televised ads, and, while not significant, they also rated him higher in the debates compared to his Web site. For Kerry, the Independent voters rated his image significantly higher in the debates compared to his Web site and higher in the debates than his televised ads, although this last comparison was not significant. Thus, the results of this study indicate that both of the candidates were best able to enhance their image with young Independents during the debates, just as they were able to do with their own party’s affiliates. Although the findings are not statistically significant in all instances (see Table 2), the results are important in an effort to understand the value of campaign debates for presidential candidates with regard to young Independent/unaffiliated voters. Prior research has indicated that campaign debates may have more influence on unaffiliated, undecided, and weakly committed voters than on decided voters or party affiliates (Chaffee & Choe, 1980; Geer, 1998; Kraus & Davis, 1981; McKinney, 1994), particularly with regard to candidate assessment and vote choice. McKinney and Carlin (2004) have argued that viewing debates may aid in forming voting preferences, solidifying voting choices, and providing reasons for a change in candidate selection for undecided voters. Specifically with regard to the 2004 presidential election, Bush and Kerry courted “undecided voters” and Independents. In addition, the “swing states,” those on which neither party had a strong hold, received much attention from the campaigns. Given that candidate image ratings were highest in the campaign debates and given the previous literature attesting to the influence of debates on voting decisions for undecided and unaffiliated voters, it seems that the debates are the mode of campaign communication where

Communication Modes and Candidate Image 23 candidates may best be able to positively influence their image with young Independent voters. Unlike party affiliates, Independents do not have a personal party cue to assist them in evaluating and making a connection with a candidate, which may explain why the debates afford them the opportunity to gather information they can use in forming an image of the candidates to use in their voting decisions. Although these results echo those that indicate the importance of debates for party affiliates, the findings with regard to influence of debates on Independent voters provide a strong argument for campaign debates as a vital mode of communication for Presidential candidates. Therefore, the findings of this study serve to reinforce the claim that campaign debates are vital to the citizenry’s evaluations of the candidates because they serve as platform for comparing the candidates (McKinney & Carlin, 2004; Racine Group, 2002). The Racine Group claimed that debates do matter, citizens do learn from them, and citizens use the information in their voting decisions. This study’s findings support that claim and confirm its application to young voters in particular as an addition to those studies focused on the public in general. Although the debates may serve as an important opportunity for young people to formulate their perceptions of each candidate’s image, this effect may not be widespread given that few young people actually watch the campaign debates in part or in full when compared to the general public (Patterson, 2005). While 28% of adults (over age 30) watched all of the first debate, only 14% of young adults (18-29 year olds) watched the full debate—half the number of older adult viewers (Patterson). Even more alarming is that 41% of young adults did not tune in to watch any of the first debate (Patterson). Considering this apparent lack of interest in the debates by young people, perhaps more needs to be done to encourage young people to watch the campaign debates. Initiatives such as DebateWatch provide an example of a program that

Communication Modes and Candidate Image 24 affords young people the opportunity to watch the debates and then discuss and clarify their learning through open dialogue with other citizens. Buehler’s dissertation (2004) attests to the importance of a public forum, such as DebateWatch, in which young voters in particular can discuss their opinions and feel that they are valid. Given that campaign debates provide young voters a valuable opportunity for learning about candidate images, programs and initiatives whose purpose is to encourage political engagement of young people would do well to first encourage young voters to tune in to the debates and then generate continued interest through teaching young people how to seek out relevant political information through various sources, such as campaign Web sites, newspapers, network and cable news, and other political news Web sites. Providing additional emphasis that builds on what they learned in the debates may be beneficial for encouraging interest by young people during the campaign that can be carried over to participation at the polls on Election Day and perhaps even beyond. Limitations and Future Research This study utilized a quasi-experimental design to examine the responses to the 2004 Presidential candidates by young people. As in any other experimental study the current study was able to control and manipulate certain variables but may lack the spontaneity of naturally occurring communication situations. While conducting this experiment during the course of the actual campaign is one strength of this study, the campaign itself presents a potential limitation. Given that the Presidential election is widely covered by the media—both mainstream and alternative—many citizens had made a decision early in this campaign season regarding for whom to vote. Additionally, President Bush was running for re-election, which meant that the public entered the general election with four years of exposure to him as President, a timeframe in which voters had

Communication Modes and Candidate Image 25 undoubtedly developed their perception of his image as a presidential candidate and as president. that allowed the opportunity for constructing an image of him in their minds. Therefore, research comparing multiple mode message effects could be particularly insightful when conducted during open-seat Presidential elections. Future research should also focus on lesserknown candidates, such as is often the case in lower-level races, to determine how exposure to the different modes of communication influence ratings of candidates in low-information races. Conclusions The purpose of this study was to examine the responses of young people to political candidates. Specifically, the study was designed to examine the influence of three modes of candidate-controlled mass campaign communication—televised campaign advertising, televised debates, and campaign Web sites—on ratings of candidate image. This study contributes to the growing body of research on the effects of various modes of campaign communication on important variables that might contribute to decisions for whom to vote. The experiment revealed that communication mode does have an effect on how young people view the candidates’ image. More importantly, the results indicated that this variable is influenced differently by the modes with image being rated highest in the campaign debates. It seems as though the modes of campaign communication in which young people must actively seek information—campaign Web sites—or in which the candidates appear live—televised debates— are the ones that are more appealing to this young generation who grew up with computers, video games, reality television shows, and the Internet as forms of entertainment. As candidates look to new ways to appeal to this large, but underrepresented voting group, the results seem to indicate that they can best do this through new or active forms of campaign communication.

Communication Modes and Candidate Image 26 Ultimately, young people have been an enigma in U.S. electoral politics. As a group, young voters have not yet been mobilized in large numbers in an election, but significant strides have been made over the past few election cycles. Young voters will continue to be a group increasingly courted by candidates in elections. As this group continues to become important, it is essential to understand how they respond to and connect with political candidates since citizens go to the voting booth to cast a vote for a specific person. If candidates better understand how young people respond to them, then they will not only serve their self-interest by appealing to this group, but also serve the public interest by encouraging the political engagement of young voters.

Communication Modes and Candidate Image 27 References Benoit, W. L., McKinney, M. S., & Stephenson, M. T. (2002). Effects of watching primary debates in the 2000 U.S. presidential campaign. Journal of Communication, 52, 316-331. Best, S. J., & Hubbard, C., (1999). Maximizing “minimal effects:” The impact of early primary season debates on voter preferences. American Politics Quarterly, 27, 450-467. Buehler, S. E. (2004). Interpreting political messages: Political awareness and Background knowledge among young voters. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The University of Kansas: Lawrence, KS. Chaffee, S. H., & Choe, S. Y. (1980). Time of decision and media use during the Ford-Carter campaign. Public Opinion Quarterly, 44, 53-69. Cundy, D. T. (1986). Political commercials and candidate image: The effects can be substantial. In L. L. Kaid, D. Nimmo, & K. R. Sanders (Eds.), New perspectives on political advertising (pp. 210-234). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Dailey, W. O., Hinck, E. A., & Hinck, S. S., (2005). Audience perceptions of politeness and advocacy skills in the 2000 and 2004 presidential debates. Argumentation and Advocacy, 41, 196-210. Delli Carpini, M. X. (2004). Mediating democratic engagement: The impact of communications on citizens’ involvement in political and civic life. In, L. L. Kaid (Ed.), Handbook of Political Communication Research (pp. 395-434). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Friedkin, K. L., & Kenney, P. J. (2004). Do negative messages work? The impact of negativity on citizens’ evaluations of candidates. American Politics Research, 32, 570-605.

Communication Modes and Candidate Image 28 Geer, J. G. (1988). The effects of presidential debates on the electorate’s preferences for candidates. American Politics Quarterly, 16, 486-501. Green, S. B., & Salkind, N. J. (2003). Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh: Analyzing and Understanding Data (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hacker, K. (Ed.) (1995). Candidate Images in Presidential Elections. New York: Praeger. Hacker, K. L. (Ed.) (2004). Presidential candidate images. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Jasperson, A. E., & Fan, D. P. (2002). An aggregate examination of the backlash effect in political advertising: The case of the 1996 U.S. senate race in Minnesota. Journal of Advertising, 21, 1-12. Johnson, T. J. & Kaye, B. K. (2003). A boost or bust for democracy?: How the Web influenced political attitudes and behaviors in the 1996 and 2000 presidential elections. Press/Politics, 8, 9-34. Just, M., Crigler, A., & Wallach, L. (1990). Thirty seconds or thirty minutes: What viewers learn from spot advertisements and candidate debates. Journal of Communication, 40, 120-133. Kaid, L. L. (1981). Political advertising. In D. Nimmo and K. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of Political Communication (pp. 249, 271). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Kaid, L. L. (1982). Paid television advertising and candidate name identification. Campaigns and Elections, 3 (Spring), 34-36. Kaid, L. L. (1997). Effects of the television spots on images of Dole and Clinton. American Behavioral Scientist, 40, 1085-1094. Kaid, L. L. (2002). Political advertising and information seeking: Comparing the exposure view traditional and Internet media channels. Journal of Advertising, 31, 27-35.

Communication Modes and Candidate Image 29 Kaid, L. L. (2003). Comparing Internet and traditional media: Effects of voters. American Behavioral Scientist, 46, 677-691. Kaid, L. L. (2004). Political advertising. In L. L. Kaid, (Ed.), Handbook of political communication research, (pp. 155-202). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Kaid, L. L. & Chanslor, M. (2004). The effects of political advertising on candidate images. In. K. L. Hacker (Ed.). Presidential Candidate Images (pp. 133-150). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Kaid, L. L., Downs, V. C., & Ragan, R. (1990). Political argumentation and violations of audience expectations: An analysis of the Bush-Rather encounter. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 34, 1-15. Kaid, L. L. & Johnston, A. (2001). Political advertising content & effects. In, Videostyle in Presidential Campaigns: Style and Content of Televised Political Advertising, (pp. 13-24). Westport, CT: Praeger. Kaid, L. L., Leland, C. M., & Whitney, S. (1992). The impact of televised political ads: Evoking viewer responses in the 1988 Presidential campaign. Southern Communication Journal, 57, 285-295. Kaid, L. L. & Postelnicu, M. (2004). Political advertising in the 2004 election: Comparison of traditional television and Internet messages. American Behavioral Scientist, 49, 265-278. Kaid, L. L., Singleton, D. L., & Davis, D. (1977). Instant analysis of televised political addresses: The speaker versus the commentator. In B. Ruben (Ed.), Communication Yearbook I (pp. 453-464). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Katz. E., & Feldman, J. (1962). The debates in light of research: A survey of surveys. In S. Kraus (Ed.), The Great Debates (pp. 173-223). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Communication Modes and Candidate Image 30 Kern, M., & Just, M. (1995). The focus group method, political advertising, campaign news, and the construction of candidate images. Political Communication, 12, 127-145. King, D. C., & Matland, R. E. (2003). Sex and the Grand Old Party: An experimental investigation of the effect of candidate sex on support for a Republican candidate. American Politics Research, 31, 595-612. Kraus, S., & Davis, D. K. (1981). Political debates. In D. D. Nimmo & K. R. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of Political Communication (pp. 273-296). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Lanoue, D. J., & Schrot, P. R. (1991). The joint press conference: The history, impact, and prospects of American presidential debates. New York: Greenwood. Lopez, M. H., Kirby, E., & Sagoff, J. (2005, July). The youth vote 2004. The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement. Retrieved August 1, 2005, from http://www.civicyouth.org McKinney, M. S. (1994). Design and implementation of the focus group study. In D. B. Carlin & M. S. McKinney (Eds), The 1992 presidential debates in focus (pp. 21-35). New York: Praeger. McKinney, M. S., & Carlin, D. B. (2004). Political Campaign Debates. In L. L. Kaid (Ed.), Handbook of Political Communication Research (pp. 203-234). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. McKinney, M. S., Dudash, E. A., & Hodgkinson, G. (2003). Viewer reactions to the 2000 presidential debates: Learning issue and image information. In L. L. Kaid, J. C. Tedesco, D. G. Bystrom, & M. M. McKinney (Eds.), The millennium election: Communication in the 2000 campaign (pp. 43-58). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Communication Modes and Candidate Image 31 McKinney, M. S., Kaid, L. L., & Robertson, T. A. (2001). The front-runner, contenders, and also-rans: Effects of watching a 2000 Republican primary debate. American Behavioral Scientist, 44, 2232-2251. McKinnon, L. M., Tedesco, J. C., & Kaid, L. L. (1993). The third 1992 Presidential debate: Channel and commentary effects. Argumentation and Advocacy, 30, 106-118. McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding Media. New York, American Library. Miller, A. H., Wattenberg, M. P., & Malanchuk, O. (1984). Cognitive representations of candidate assessments. In K. R. Sanders, L. L. Kaid, & D. Nimmo (Eds.), Political communication yearbook (pp. 183-210). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Nimmo, D., & Savage, R. L. (1976). Candidates and their images: Concepts, methods, and findings. Pacific Palisades, CA: Goodyear Publishing Company, Inc. Paletz, D. L. (2002). Political Socialization. In, The media in American politics: Contents and consequences (2nd ed.), (pp. 130-153). New York: Longman. Patterson, T. E. (2005, February 2). Young voters and the 2004 election. Retrieved March 1, 2006, from www.vanishingvoter.org. Payne, J. G., Golden, J. L., Marlier, J., & Ratzan, S. C. (1989). Perceptions of the 1988 presidential and vice-presidential debates. American Behavioral Scientist, 32, 425-435. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press (2004, September 30). Young people more engaged, more uncertain. Retrieved September 1, 2005 from www.pewinternet.org. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press (2005, March). The Internet and Campaign 2004. Retrieved March 7, 2005 from www.pewinternet.org.

Communication Modes and Candidate Image 32 Pfau, M., Cho, J., & Chong, K. (2001). Communication forms in U.S. Presidential campaigns: Influences on candidate perceptions and the democratic process. Press/Politics, 6, 88-105. Powell, L., & Cowart, J. (2003). Political campaign communication: Inside and out. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Racine Group (2002). White paper on televised political campaign debates. Argumentation and Advocacy, 38, 199-218. Rahn, W. M. (1993). The role of partisan stereotypes in information processing about political candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 472-496. Sanders, K. R., & Pace, T. J. (1977). The influence of speech communication on the image of a political candidate. In B. Ruben (Ed.), Communication Yearbook I (pp. 465-472). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Self, J. W. (2005). The first debate over the debates: How Kennedy and Nixon negotiated the 1960 presidential debates. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 35, 361-375. Sundar, S. S., Kalyanaraman, S., Brown, J. (2003). Explicating web site interactivity: Impression formation effects in political campaign sites. Communication Research, 30, 30-59. Tedesco, J. C. (2006). Web interactivity and young adult political efficacy. In, A. P. Williams & J. C. Tedesco (Eds.), The Internet Election: Perspectives on the web in campaign 2004 (pp. 187-202). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Tedesco, J. C., & Kaid, L. L. (2003). Style and effects of the Bush and Gore spots. In L. L. Kaid, J. C. Tedesco, D. G. Bystrom, & M. S. McKinney (Eds.), The millennium election: Communication in the 2000 campaigns (pp. 5-16). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Communication Modes and Candidate Image 33 Tedesco, J. C. (2004). Changing the channel: Use of the Internet for communicating about politics. In L. L. Kaid, (Ed.), Handbook of political communication research, (pp. 507-532). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Communication Modes and Candidate Image 34 Footnotes 1.

The television advertising stimuli to which participants were exposed was coordinated with the UVote 2004 national research team project and the compilation of advertisements was selected by the research team as representative of the advertisements being aired at the time of data collection. This study used two different UVote 2004 ad compilations—one from late September 2004 and another from late October 2004.

Communication Modes and Candidate Image 35 Table 1 Analysis of Variance for Bush Image and Kerry Image by Participant Party and Communication Mode Source Multivariate Test Party* Communication Mode* Party x Mode* Univariate Tests Bush Image* Kerry Image*

df

Error df

4 4 8

820 820 820

η2

p

51.47 14.85 17.65

.20 .07 .15

.000 .000 .000

83.90 50.99

.29 .20

.000 .000

F

Party

Univariate Tests Bush Image* Kerry Image* Univariate Tests Bush Image* Kerry Image*

2 2

410 410

2 2

Communication Mode 410 20.47 410 10.64

.09 .05

.000 .000

4 4

Party X Mode 410 21.69 410 20.50

.18 .17

.000 .000

*significant at the p