Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 18 de 18
Filter
Add more filters










Publication year range
1.
Politics Life Sci ; 41(1): 150-151, 2023 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36877117
2.
Front Psychol ; 9: 1182, 2018.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30079040

ABSTRACT

Raucous audience applause-cheering, laughter, and even booing by a passionately involved electorate marked the 2016 presidential debates from the start of the primary season. While the presence and intensity of these observable audience responses (OARs) can be expected from partisan primary debates, the amount of not just laughter, but also applause-cheering and booing during the first general election debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump was unprecedented. Such norm-violating audience behavior raises questions concerning not just the presence, strength, and timing of these OAR, but also their influence on those watching on television, streaming video, or listening to radio. This report presents findings from three interconnected studies. Study 1 provides a baseline for analysis by systematically coding the studio audience response in terms of utterance type (laughter, applause-cheering, booing, and mixtures), when and how intensely it occurred, and in response to which candidate. Study 2 uses observational analysis of 362 undergraduate students at a large state university in the southern United States who watched the debate on seven different news networks in separate rooms and evaluated the candidates' performance. Study 2 considered co-occurrence of OAR in the studio audience and in the field study rooms, finding laughter predominated and was more likely to co-occur than other OAR types. When standardized cumulative strength of room OAR was compared, findings suggest co-occurring OAR was stronger than that occurring solely in the field study rooms. Analysis of truncated data allowing for consideration of studio audience OAR intensity found that OAR intensity was not related to OAR type occurring in the field study rooms, but had a small effect on standardized cumulative strength. Study 3 considers the results of a continuous response measure (CRM) dial study in which 34 West Texas community members watched and rated the candidates during the first debate. Findings suggest that applause-cheering significantly influenced liking of the speaking candidate, whereas laughter did not. Further, response to applause-cheering was mediated by party identity, although not for laughter. Conclusions from these studies suggest laughter as being more stereotypic and likely to be mimicked whereas applause-cheering may be more socially contagious.

3.
Politics Life Sci ; 34(1): 73-92, 2015.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26399947

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.


Subject(s)
Facial Recognition , Nonverbal Communication , Politics , Smiling , Social Perception , Humans
4.
Politics Life Sci ; 33(1): 1-2, 2014.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25514520
5.
Politics Life Sci ; 33(2): 1, 2014.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25901880
6.
Politics Life Sci ; 33(2): 2-9, 2014.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25901881

ABSTRACT

This introduction to the special issue on presidential disability and succession focuses on the distinctly positive contributions that invocations of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment have made to American political life since the Amendment's ratification in 1967. It also underlines the importance for Presidents, their family members and aides to understand the necessity for putting the welfare of the country first, above all else-even at times above the wishes of a disabled Chief Executive. As the articles in this special issue make clear, the Twenty-Fifth Amendment provides an effective constitutional mechanism by which the country's well-being can be maintained while simultaneously showing compassion and respect for a disabled leader. The idea for this issue emerged from a conference organized by Professor Robert E. Gilbert focusing on presidential disability and succession held on the campus of Northeastern University in April 2014. Papers from the conference assembled here clarify and add to the historical record about presidential inability while illuminating the many political, legal, and constitutional contingencies that future presidential administrators may face. Contributors to this issue have varied disciplinary and professional backgrounds, including expertise in American politics, constitutional law, the presidency and vice presidency, presidential impairment, and, of course, the Twenty-Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.


Subject(s)
Administrative Personnel , Disabled Persons , Politics , Constitution and Bylaws , Humans , United States
9.
Politics Life Sci ; 31(1-2): 1, 2012.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23379311
12.
Politics Life Sci ; 29(1): 1, 2010 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-20812794
14.
Politics Life Sci ; 29(2): 1, 2010 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-21761977
16.
Politics Life Sci ; 28(2): 1, 2009 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-20205519
17.
Politics Life Sci ; 28(2): 94, 2009 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-20205526
18.
Politics Life Sci ; 27(1): 78-98, 2008 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-19213305

ABSTRACT

Absent from most analyses of political news are detailed assessments of the candidates' nonverbal behavior, which has been shown experimentally to have considerable persuasive influence. Unlike attractiveness and other relatively stable aspects of appearance, facial displays are highly variable and reveal important moment-to-moment information about the emitter's internal state. In this paper we argue that facial displays are influential elements within political news and examine the character of televised candidate displays over four presidential election cycles. The analysis considers coverage of major party nominees shown during the general elections of 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 on the major broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC). To motivate our hypotheses, we draw on the biopolitics literature that has identified three classes of displays relevant to the study of nonverbal political behavior: happiness/reassurance, anger/threat, and fear/ evasion. The analysis focuses on the relationship between the display types shown in election coverage, the context in which the displays are shown, and candidate standings in the polls.


Subject(s)
Nonverbal Communication , Politics , Television , Face , Gestures , Humans , United States , Voice
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...