A Functional Analysis of 2016 Direct Mail Advertising in Ohio

Benoit, William L.

doi:10.1177/0002764217693274

Cited by 3 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While regarding the ideals, the candidates operate more on defences than acclaims and attacks. It is not easy to attack ideals or goals, in which the candidates are more probably "to acclaim a goal of more jobs or an ideal of justice than to attack these ideas" (Benoit, 2017). The importance of this study lies in adding new horizons of inconsistency of some hypotheses of functional theory to the issue of immigration in the U.S. 2016 presidential debates.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…This theory recognizes that the two candidates in these debates can subjectively choose to address character more than policy or to address them at the same level. For Benoit (2017), in issues of presidential races, it is expected to emphasize character more than policy.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…function, in order to win a presidential election, this theory posits that a candidate has to appear in a preferable form than the other candidate. Three functions: acclaim, attack, and defence can serve as messages for giving hope to a candidate to be preferable to opponents (Benoit, 2017). These functions, in accordance with Benoit and Airne (2005), work together as an informal procedure of cost-benefit analysis: acclaims raise benefit, attacks raise a rival's cost, and defences decrease a candidate's suspected cost.…”

Section: The Functional Theory Of Political Campaign Discoursementioning

confidence: 94%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Immigration in the United States 2016 Presidential Debates: A Functional Analysis

Yaseen

Ali

Kasim

2018

Int. J. Appl. Linguist. Engl. Lit.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper describes an analysis of the three U.S. 2016 presidential debates published in The New York Times using Benoit’s (2007a) functional theory. The three presidential debates in the U.S., which occur every four years, remain as the most sensitive political rhetoric that lead to the election of the next U.S. President. These debates include discussion of different issues between the two presidential candidates. One of these issues is immigration. The U.S. presidential debates have been researched by many on various aspects but there has not been a study that focus primarily on the issue of immigration in the three 2016 U.S. presidential debates. All statements regarding this issue between the two presidential candidates, Trump and Clinton, were extracted from these debates and analyzed using Benoit's (2007a) functional theory. Findings revealed that attack statements occurred more than acclaims, and defences were less used than acclaims. The statements included in these debates pertained to policy (30%) and character (70%). As expected, general goals were employed more often using acclaim function rather than attack and defend. However, ideals were employed more often using defence than to acclaim and attack. Due to different contexts, situations, and participants, Benoit's (2007a) functional theory may not be generalized for all debates. This study reveals certain inconsistencies regarding some of the hypotheses of Benoit's (2007a) functional theory in relation to our knowledge of the presidential debates, specifically the issue of immigration.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Functional Theory Of Political Campaign Discoursementioning

confidence: 94%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Immigration in the United States 2016 Presidential Debates: A Functional Analysis

Yaseen

Ali

Kasim

2018

Int. J. Appl. Linguist. Engl. Lit.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, they had concluded that Benoit's (2007) functional theory could not be absolutely applicable to all issues in the PDs due to different situations, contexts, and speakers. Another study tackles U.S. 2016 PDs is Benoit (2017) that focused on the analysis of 68 direct mail advertisements which were brochures, pamphlets, or fliers, spread by Trump and Clinton in Ohio in the 2016 presidential campaign. As regards the two candidates' use of direct mail advertising, Benoit (ibid.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Functional Analysis of the Persuasive Strategies Used by Trump and Clinton in the United States 2016 Presidential Debates

Yaseen

2022

J. Tikrit U Hum.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study presents a functional analysis of the persuasive strategies utilized by Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the three U.S. 2016 presidential debates (henceforth PDs). These PDs, which take place every four years, are the furthermost critical political rhetoric that gives rise to the voting of the following President. Such PDs cover an argument of various subjects between the candidates. Many scholars have studied the U.S. PDs, but there has not been a study that focuses primarily on the persuasive strategies (i.e. acclaim, attack, and defense) as a functional analysis in these debates. The persuasive strategies used by Trump and Clinton were excerpted from the U.S. 2016 PDs and analyzed using Benoit’s (2007) functional theory. The findings of analyzing the two presidential candidates' speeches in the U.S. 2016 PDs state that 53.1% of the persuasive strategies were utilized by Trump in opposite to 46.9% were utilized by Clinton.

show abstract

“…Specifically, the theory was originally developed in a “bottom‐up” manner on the basis of observations of American presidential campaigns from the 1960s to the present. This body of work includes analyses of political discourse conveyed through various mediums, such as keynote speeches (e.g., Benoit et al, 2000), news releases (e.g., Cho & Benoit, 2005), televised interactions (e.g., Benoit & Compton, 2014), debates (e.g., Rill & Benoit, 2013), and direct mail advertisements (e.g., Benoit, 2017). The theory is also supported by analyses of political elections in numerous countries outside the United States, namely Australia (Benoit & Benoit‐Bryan, 2014), Finland (Paatelainen, Croucher, & Benoit, 2016), Germany (Maier & Jansen, 2017), Israel (Benoit & Sheafer, 2006), Romania (Drăgan, 2016), Slovakia (Hrbková & Zagrapan, 2014), South Korea (Choi, Lee, & Lee, 2004), Taiwan (Benoit, Wen, & Yu, 2007), Ukraine (Benoit & Klyukovski, 2006), and the United Kingdom (Benoit & Benoit‐Bryan, 2013).…”

Section: The Function Of Attacks In Political Discoursementioning

confidence: 99%

The Psychology of Leadership Destabilization: An Analysis of the 2016 U.S. Presidential Debates

Maskor

Steffens

Haslam

2020

Political Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When contesting for political office, leaders do not only seek to build their own following but also to engage in attacks to destabilize opponent leaders. However, research has yet to explore and explain the nature of attacks that seek to destabilize a leader's influence. Building on the identity leadership model which sees leadership as flowing from a leader's capacity to promote a sense of shared identity with followers, we argue that a leader can be destabilized if followers come to see the leader as defiling, devaluing, dividing, and destroying this shared sense of “us.” To explore these ideas, we analyzed the attack rhetoric used by Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump during the 2016 U.S. presidential debates to examine how they sought to subvert each other's leadership. Our analysis supports the proposed model and sheds light on the hitherto underexplored topic of leadership destabilization. Moreover, by helping us understand the ways in which principles of identity leadership can be weaponized to destabilize leadership, the analysis defines an important agenda for future research.

show abstract

A Functional Analysis of 2016 Direct Mail Advertising in Ohio

Cited by 3 publications

References 14 publications

Immigration in the United States 2016 Presidential Debates: A Functional Analysis

Immigration in the United States 2016 Presidential Debates: A Functional Analysis

A Functional Analysis of the Persuasive Strategies Used by Trump and Clinton in the United States 2016 Presidential Debates

The Psychology of Leadership Destabilization: An Analysis of the 2016 U.S. Presidential Debates

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About