|
"Candidate Emotionality"
by Jack Glaser
It is well established in social psychology, and increasingly accepted in economics, that judgments are often made without the benefit of “rational” considerations such as cost-benefits analyses and base rate estimates. And it is uncontroversial that emotion is a particularly influential factor in decisionmaking. But psychologists have also pointed out that basing decisions on emotion is not inherently irrational, especially to the extent that emotions can effectively serve as “summary judgments.” Furthermore, emotional reactions are good forecasts of future feelings, so, to the extent that we want to make decisions that will make us feel good, using emotion as a gauge may be “rational.”
In the realm of electoral politics, perhaps this notion is more controversial. Our elected officials make policy decisions that affect our lives in concrete ways. Most of them have discernable records that can serve to predict future behavior, so allowing oneself to be influenced by how good a candidate makes one feel may be a questionable approach, particularly if that positive affect derives more from the agreeableness of the candidate than from agreement with the candidate. Still, psychological research has demonstrated that emotional reactions to politicians are indeed influential in voter decisions. Abelson and his colleagues, for example, showed this in survey research in the early 1980s, finding emotional reactions to candidates predicted voting better than did judgments about candidate traits like honesty and competence. Subsequent research has amply supported this.
We know less about another role of emotion in politics, the emotionality of the candidates themselves. Anecdotes are potentially informative, if nothing else to reveal that extreme displays of emotion are a real turn off to voters. Perhaps most dramatic is Edmund Muskie’s downfall in 1972. The leading contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, Muskie’s fortunes reversed after he appeared to sob during a public appearance (when discussing an ad homonym attack on his wife’s reputation). It’s indeterminable whether Muskie’s decline reflected concern about “softness” or lack of self-control or something else, but there’s little question that the emotional display hurt his electoral prospects. Recently eclipsing the Muskie incident was Howard Dean’s inauspicious behavior in the 2004 presidential primary. Having just faired worse than expected in the Iowa Caucus (placing third), Dean addressed his supporters with what appeared to be some overcompensating enthusiasm, screaming “Yeehaw!” when, perhaps, a more serious, determined manner would have been normative. There has been speculation that Dean’s background noise-filtering microphone was partly to blame for his miscalibrated exclamation, and he had already slipped in the polls, but the rapidity of his subsequent decline in the primaries has been widely attributed to that particular performance.
A more subtle analysis is required for Michael Dukakis who, like Walter Mondale, was known more for having an emotional display deficit. In one instance, Dukakis was criticized for his lack of emotion in responding to a 1988 presidential debate question about the hypothetical rape of his wife. It’s hard to imagine a “good” emotional reaction to a question like that for a presidential candidate, but Dukakis’s cool, rationalistic answer was not generally considered to have been a hit.
More emotion may be better than none. In fact, in one of the few experimental studies of the effect of candidate emotionality, my colleagues, Laura Stroud, Peter Salovey, and I found that people generally preferred a more emotional candidate. However, this was true only when the candidate’s party was not revealed. When our experimental subjects knew the candidate’s party, their evaluations of him were overwhelmingly determined by partisanship. So, another better known voting cue, party identification, is also influential. But independent voters may be particularly influenced by candidate emotionality.
In contrast to emotionally understated candidates like Dukakis and Mondale, Ronald Reagan (a professional actor, not coincidentally), was known for his ability to convey and evoke just the right emotions. In fact, research by McHugo, Masters, and their colleagues demonstrated that the mere tone of Reagan’s speeches (with the content stripped away) evoked more positive emotions than his opponent’s, as measured indirectly by subtle facial muscular movements. This was true even for Democrats. It may not be a coincidence that California has recently, for the second time, elected as its chief executive a professional actor with virtually no prior governmental experience.
These anecdotal accounts are at the very least entertaining and potentially informative (although, admittedly, hairstyle is probably as reliable a predictor of electoral success in presidential campaigns as emotionality is). They have, however, questionable generalizability. Each candidate and each campaign is unique, and systematically quantifying and comparing real emotional displays in any meaningful fashion, would be a great challenge (hence my experimental approach). But the stories do beg an important question: What factors determine when and where particular emotional displays are appropriate for politicians (i.e., will be well-received)? To begin to answer this question, we can look to basic psychological research on emotions, specifically that on “display rules” begun by Ekman and Friesen. Rules for the appropriate display of emotion have been shown to vary across cultures. While there is consistency within cultures, it is possible that different domains (e.g., politics) entail different rules. However, it is not clear if emotional display rules are different for politicians or if the difference lies more in the consequences of violating the same rules. For example, men are generally not expected to sob or scream “Yeehaw!” publicly, but doing so does not typically lead to their downfall.
Knowing what the display rules are, and managing one’s own display in accordance with them, falls under the rubric of what Mayer and Salovey call “emotional intelligence.” Those who are high in emotional intelligence tend to be relatively successful in social domains. It may be that candidates who are high in political emotional intelligence also fair well. And just as emotional intelligence is viewed as a human quality that is separable from traditional intellect, political emotional intelligence may have little to do with aptitude in other domains of politics, such as governance.
Jack Glaser is an Assistant Professor at the Richard & Rhoda Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley.
REFERENCES
Abelson, R.P., Kinder, D.R., Peters, M.D., & Fiske, S.T. (1982). Affective and semantic components in political person perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 619-630.
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W.V. (1969). The repertoire of nonverbal behavior: Categories, origins, usage, and coding. Semiotica, 1, 49-98.
Glaser, J. & Salovey, P. (1998). Affect in electoral politics. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 156-172.
Masters, R.D., & Sullivan, D.G. (1989). Nonverbal displays and political leadership in France and the United States. Political Behavior, 11, 123-156.
Masters, R.D., & Sullivan, D.G. (1993). Nonverbal behavior and leadership: Emotion and cognition in political information processing. In S. Iyengar & W.J. McGuire (eds.), Explorations in political psychology (pp. 150-182). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Masters, R.D., Sullivan, D.G., Lanzetta, J. T., McHugo, G.J., & Englis, B.G. (1986). The facial displays of leaders: Toward an ethology of human politics. Journal of Social and Biological Structures, 9, 319-343.
Mayer, J.D., & Salovey, P. (1993). The intelligence of emotional intelligence. Intelligence, 17, 433-442.
McHugo, G.J., Lanzetta, J.T., & Bush, L.K. (1991). The effect of attitudes on emotional reactions to expressive displays of political leaders. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 15, 19-41.
McHugo, G.J., Lanzetta, J.T., Sullivan, D.G., Masters, R.D., & Englis, B.G. (1985). Emotional reactions to a political leader's expressive displays. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1513-1529.
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J.D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9, 185-211.
Stroud, L.R., Glaser, J., & Salovey, P. (in press). The effects of partisanship and candidate emotionality on voter preference. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality.
|
