A Multimedia Analysis of Persuasion in the 2016 Presidential Election: Comparing the Unique and Complementary Effects of Political Comedy and Political Advertising

Tweeting Along Partisan Lines: Identity-Motivated Elaboration and Presidential Debates

“…Using Warner and colleagues’ (2018) scales and terminology, which were adapted from Warner and Banwart (2016), image evaluations were measured before the debate for each candidate. There are six factors of candidate image evaluation, and each factor was measured using three items where the participants were asked, “To what extent do you agree that Hillary Clinton [Donald Trump] is “trustworthy,” “dishonest,” and “believable” (character); “unintelligent,” “knowledgeable,” and “smart” (intelligence); “strong,” “poised,” and “a good leader” (leadership); “capable,” “effective,” and “incompetent” (competence); “understands people like me,” “understands the problems faced by people like me,” and “shares my values” (homophily); and “charismatic,” “likable,” and “unpleasant” (likeability).…”

“…This cognitive engagement can occur through on-line or memory processing (Kim & Garrett, 2012), or through elaboration. Importantly, greater cognitive engagement, by more carefully examining candidates' arguments or paying close attention to how debate messages shape candidate image, can increase the likelihood of persuasion (Warner et al, 2018). Cognitive engagement can be driven through a variety of paths to involvement in a message (H. Cho & Boster, 2005), and in the context of political persuasion, one of these paths can be partisan social identity (Greene, 1999;Jennings, 2019;Mason & Wronski, 2018;Settle, 2018).…”

“…Extending the theory of image reasoning articulated by Popkin (1994), Warner and Banwart (2016) proposed six factors (i.e., character, intelligence, leadership, charm, benevolence, and homophily) that form the foundation of a citizen’s image evaluation of political candidates. Subsequent research has refined and adapted the factors and their measurements (e.g., Warner et al, 2018). This six-facet measure of candidate image can influence the likelihood to vote for a candidate (Warner & Banwart, 2016; Warner et al, 2018).…”

“…Subsequent research has refined and adapted the factors and their measurements (e.g., Warner et al, 2018). This six-facet measure of candidate image can influence the likelihood to vote for a candidate (Warner & Banwart, 2016; Warner et al, 2018). Of the six facets, homophily and character may be most important in influencing vote choice (Warner & Banwart, 2016, p. 276).…”

“…Importantly, evaluating candidate image may not simply be a low-cost heuristic, as voters may value relevant, observable characteristics such as homophily (i.e., how much a politician is perceived to care about voters), more than an image facet such as charm (Warner & Banwart, 2016, p. 276). In addition, voters with high need-for-cognition can be more likely to weigh image characteristics when considering voting for a candidate (Warner et al, 2018). In summation, thinking about relevant image characteristics could make voters more likely to utilize image evaluations when considering supporting a candidate.…”