Audience Perceptions of Candidates' Appropriateness as a Function of Nonverbal Behaviors Displayed During Televised Political Debates

Abstract

Compared to televised debates using a single-screen format, such debates using a split screen presenting both debaters simultaneously show viewers the nonverbal reactions of each debater's opponent. The authors examined how appropriate or inappropriate such nonverbal behaviors are perceived to be. Students watched one of four versions of a televised debate. One version used a single-screen format, showing only the speaker, whereas the other three versions used a split-screen format in which the speaker's oppodent displayed constant, occasional, or no nonverbal disagreement with the speaker. Students then rated the debaters' appropriateness. Analysis indicated that the opponent was perceived to be less appropriate when he displayed any background disagreement compared to when he did not. The students perceived the speaker as most appropriate when his opponent displayed constant nonverbal disagreement.

The Role of Background Behavior in Televised Debates: Does Displaying Nonverbal Agreement and/or Disagreement Benefit Either Debater?

“…Yet another study using the same design found that any antagonistic background behavior displayed by an opponent was perceived as inappropriate (Seiter & Weger, 2005), suggesting, perhaps, that the low credibility ratings reported in earlier studies might have occurred because antagonistic background behavior is perceived as rude. If that is the case, we wonder if such negative perceptions might be attenuated if the background behavior displayed by an opponent was not purely antagonistic.…”

“…For example, instead of showing only disagreement with a speaker, what if the debater in the background indicated some disagreement and some agreement during an opponent's speech? Although previous research has called for such an investigation (see Seiter & Weger, 2005), to date, there has not been one.…”

“…First, rather than being perceived as an intentional attempt to foil the speaker, a balance between agreement and disagreement might simply be seen as an overt natural reaction to what the speaker is saying (Seiter & Weger, 2005). As a result, the nonverbal communicator might be seen as less antagonistic and, in turn, more credible and appropriate.…”

“…Consistent with previous studies, this instrument demonstrated adequate reliability as measured by Cronbach's alpha with the exception of the debaters' Competence ratings, which were slightly lower than conventional standards (Character = .70, Sociability = .82, Competence = .67, Composure = .75, and Extroversion = .74 for Speaker 1-the norm-violating speaker-and Character = .72, Sociability = .80, Competence = .67, Composure = .71, and Extroversion = .84 for Speaker 2). Seiter and Weger (2005) was used to assess audience perceptions of debaters' appropriateness. The measure includes five 7-point semantic differential items (e.g., the debater's behavior was appropriate/inappropriate or proper/improper) and demonstrated adequate reliability for this study (a = .95 for Speaker 1 and .91 for Speaker 2).…”

“…Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Along with anecdotal evidence from recent national campaigns, several experimental investigations suggest strong expressions of disagreement during an opponent's speaking turn are generally not well received by study participants (e.g., see review below and Seiter, Kinzer, & Weger, 2006;Seiter & Weger, 2005). Nonverbal disagreement appears to lower perceptions of several dimensions of credibility (Seiter, Abraham, & Nakagama, 1998), perceptions of appropriateness (Seiter & Weger, 2005), and perceptions of likeability (Seiter, Weger, Kinzer, & Jenson, 2009) for the debater expressing disagreement.…”