Patrick A. Stewart

A Defining Presidential Moment: 9/11 and the Rally Effect

Public approval ratings of George W. Bush surged after the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks. This study used a quasi–experimental, within–respondents design to investigate the relative contribution of five factors to this classic rally effect: the stimulus event itself, Bush’s speech that evening, media exposure, partisan support, and gender effects. Respondents were pretested on the morning of the attacks; one group was posttested immediately after the speech, another group 41 hours later. Stability of effects was examined through an additional study of Bush’s 20 September 2001 speech to a joint session of Congress. The findings indicate that Bush’s 11 September speech was the critical factor in this rally effect; none of the other factors contributed significantly.

Taking leaders at face value: ethology and the analysis of televised leader displays.

Abstract Research investigating the influence and character of nonverbal leader displays has been carried out in a systematic fashion since the early 1980s, yielding growing insight into how viewers respond to the televised facial display behavior of politicians. This article reviews the major streams of research in this area by considering the key ethological frameworks for understanding dominance relationships between leaders and followers and the role nonverbal communication plays in politics and social organization. The analysis focuses on key categories of facial display behavior by examining an extended selection of published experimental studies considering the influence of nonverbal leader behavior on observers, the nature of stimuli shown to research participants, range of measures employed, and make-up of participant pools. We conclude with suggestions for future research.

The influence of self- and other-deprecatory humor on presidential candidate evaluation during the 2008 US election

This study considers the effect of participants’ evaluation of self-deprecatory and other-deprecatory (attack) humorous comments made by presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain during the 2008 electoral season. Humor, by evoking laughter in an audience, provides evidence of support for competitors for a leadership position through social contagion, and can be used to attack competitors (Alexander, 1986) while sanctioning behavior at odds with group norms, whereas humor focused on oneself may be seen as a way of attending to egalitarian norms while ascending the dominance hierarchy (Boehm, 1999). A total of 185 participants analyzed here took part in a web-based experiment carried out 2 weeks before the 2008 presidential election. Short video excerpts of the presidential candidates making both self-deprecatory and other-deprecatory humorous comments serve as stimuli. Findings suggest previously held opinions about the presidential candidates influence participant evaluation of humorous comments by the candidates. These comments, in turn, influence how participants evaluate the candidate making the humorous comment.

Conducting Experiments in Public Management Research: A Practical Guide

ABSTRACT This article provides advice on how to meet the practical challenges of experimental methods within public management research. We focus on lab, field, and survey experiments. For each of these types of experiments we outline the major challenges and limitations encountered when implementing experiments in practice and discuss tips, standards, and common mistakes to avoid. The article is multi-authored in order to benefit from the practical lessons drawn by a number of experimental researchers.

Disgust and the politics of sex: Exposure to a disgusting odorant increases politically conservative views on sex and decreases support for gay marriage

Disgust has been implicated as a potential causal agent underlying socio-political attitudes and behaviors. Several recent studies have suggested that pathogen disgust may be a causal mechanism underlying social conservatism. However, the specificity of this effect is still in question. The present study tested the effects of disgust on a range of policy preferences to clarify whether disgust is generally implicated in political conservatism across public policy attitudes or is uniquely related to specific content domains. Self-reported socio-political attitudes were compared between participants in two experimental conditions: 1) an odorless control condition, and 2) a disgusting odor condition. In keeping with previous research, the present study showed that exposure to a disgusting odor increased endorsement of socially conservative attitudes related to sexuality. In particular, there was a strong and consistent link between induced disgust and less support for gay marriage.

Strengthening bonds and connecting with followers

Abstract. The smiles and affiliative expressions of presidential candidates are important for political success, allowing contenders to nonverbally connect with potential supporters and bond with followers. Smiles, however, are not unitary displays; they are multifaceted in composition and signaling intent due to variations in performance. With this in mind, we examine the composition and perception of smiling behavior by Republican presidential candidates during the 2012 preprimary period. In this paper we review literature concerning different smile types and the muscular movements that compose them from a biobehavioral perspective. We then analyze smiles expressed by Republican presidential candidates early in the 2012 primary season by coding facial muscle activity at the microlevel using the Facial Action Coding System (FACS) to produce an inventory of politically relevant smile types. To validate the subtle observed differences between smile types, we show viewers a series of short video clips to differentiate displays on the basis of their perceived reassurance, or social signaling. The discussion considers the implications of our findings in relation to political evaluation and communication efficacy.

Presidential laugh lines. Candidate display behavior and audience laughter in the 2008 primary debates.

Abstract Political humor has long been used by candidates to mobilize supporters by enhancing status or denigrating the opposition. Research concerning laughter provides insight into the building of social bonds; however, little research has focused on the nonverbal cues displayed by the individual making humorous comments. This study first investigates whether there is a relationship between facial display behavior and the presence and strength of laughter. Next, the analysis explores whether specific candidate displays during a humorous comment depend on the target of the comment. This paper analyzes the use of humor by Republican and Democratic candidates during ten 2008 presidential primary debates. Data analyzed here employs laughter as an indicator of a successful humorous comment and documents candidate display behavior in the seconds immediately preceding and during each laughter event. Findings suggest specific facial displays play an important communication role. Different types of smiles, whether felt, false, or fear-based, are related to who laughs as well as how intensely the audience is judged to laugh.

Subliminals in the 2000 Presidential Election: Policy Implications of Applied Neuroscience

The controversial RATS commercial was aired during the 2000 presidential election campaign. It used a subliminal stimulus to attack Al Gores Medicare plan and influence viewers in favor of George W. Bushs plan. This paper summarizes what scientific research has learned about subliminal stimuli, analyzes the RATS ad in depth to determine the intent of its producers, estimates the number of viewers exposed to the ad, and discusses its effect on them. The possible influence of subliminals on political discourse is discussed with reference to advances in technology and the proliferation of TV and Internet use.

The two cultures of 'biopolitics' Comment in response to Liesen and Walsh

First of all, I would like to say that it is an honor to be invited to respond to Liesen and Walsh’s wonderfully incisive essay on the capture and reframing of the term biopolitics. Being among the initial generation of Ph.D. students at Northern Illinois University whose first field was affectionately christened biopolitics—a shorthand for the official field definition of politics and the life sciences—it was quite perturbing to discover there was another group of scholars using the term in a much different way. Moreover, as a member of the Executive Council for the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences (APLS) since 2005, the encroachment of these scholars on my beloved term gave pause for consideration of just where our organization stood in the two decades that had passed since I first became introduced to this term. In this response, I first posit that the ‘‘scientific biopolitics’’ of APLS and the biopolitics of postmodernists reflect the ‘‘two culture’’ divide between science and literature noted by C. P. Snow in 1959, 1 albeit a divide that is intensified by two attributes of postmodernism: a studied lack of understanding of science evident in their critiques, and an apparent reliance on linguistic verbosity that obscures, rather than communicates, meaning. I next provide further support for arguments by Liesen and Walsh concerning the capture of the term biopolitics by considering trends in academic manuscript titles identified through Google Scholar; while at the same time, I provide evidence that while biopolitics has fallen out of use, evolutionary theory is becoming more relevant. I conclude by revisiting the two cultures recognized by Snow, characterizing the forces driving them and the need for the scientific culture to refocus and redouble its efforts.

The Political Geography of Campaign Finance: Contributions to 2008 Republican Presidential Candidates

In fundraising, potential candidates who do not collect sizable amounts of “early money” may be effectively eliminated even before the start of the Iowa Caucus. This winnowing raises concern about the impact money has on narrowing the field of candidates from whom voters can choose. To better grasp patterns of successful fundraising, we explore where candidates obtain funds during the preprimary and primary periods. We use individual contributions data from the Federal Election Commission during the preprimary and primary periods of the 2008 Republican presidential nomination contest. Findings suggest that although California, New York, and Texas provide disproportionate amounts of early financing, the ability of presidential aspirants to broaden their support is indicative of campaign success.