Does Complex or Simple Rhetoric Win Elections? An Integrative Complexity Analysis of U.S. Presidential Campaigns

Abstract

Research suggests that the integrative complexity of political rhetoric tends to drop during election season, but little research to date directly addresses if this drop in complexity serves to increase or decrease electoral success. The two present studies help fill this gap. Study 1 demonstrates that, during the Democratic Party primary debates in [2003][2004], the eventual winners of the party nomination showed a steeper drop in integrative complexity as the election season progressed than nonwinning candidates. Study 2 presents laboratory evidence from the most recent presidential campaign demonstrating that, while the complexity of Obama's rhetoric had little impact on college students' subsequent intentions to vote for him, the complexity of McCain's rhetoric was significantly positively correlated with their likelihood of voting for him. Taken together, this research is inconsistent with an unqualified simple is effective view of the complexity-success relationship. Rather, it is more consistent with a compensatory view: Effective use of complexity (or simplicity) may compensate for perceived weaknesses. Thus, appropriately timed shifts in complexity levels, and/or violations of negative expectations relevant to complexity, may be an effective means of winning elections. Surprisingly, mere simplicity as such seems largely ineffective.

What People Think About Torture: Torture Is Inherently Bad … Unless It Can Save Someone I Love

“…Higher scores on this scale represent more favorable attitudes towards coercion, criminal punishment, and group discrimination in the application of suspicion. 1 We further asked participants to complete standard measurements of political conservatism (e.g., Conway et al, 2012), need for cognition (Cacioppo, Petty, & Kao, 1984), need for structure (Neuberg & Newsom, 1993), social dominance orientation (Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994), and right wing authoritarianism (Altemeyer, 1981).…”

Strategic Communication and the Integrative Complexity‐Ideology Relationship: Meta‐Analytic Findings Reveal Differences Between Public Politicians and Private Citizens in Their Use of Simple Rhetoric

“…Consistent with our analytic approach, we used the Speaker N to produce CIs. However, we used the paragraph n for Repke et al () Study 1 and Conway et al () because the Speaker Ns for these studies did not meet minimal sample size requirements to produce CIs, which must be equal to at least 4 ( http://vassarstats.net/rho.html). Similarly, the Jhangiani et al () and Conway, Gornick, et al () Study 3 did not meet sample size criteria for the CI calculation and also did not report paragraph n information.…”

“…Using different communication approaches has consequences for integrative complexity. Previous research drawn from strategic models of language suggests that people sometimes strategically alter how complexly they communicate in order to accomplish a specific goal or motive (e.g., Conway et al, , ; McCullough & Conway, ; Repke, Conway, & Houck, ; Tetlock, ; see also Houck, Repke, & Conway, ; Thoemmes & Conway, ). For example, integrative complexity is sometimes affected by the level of public accountability (e.g., Tetlock, ).…”

“…Further, because IC can be scored for anyone, researchers have successfully used it to understand and predict behavior in populations that are otherwise difficult to study, such as terrorists (Conway et al, ; Houck, Repke, & Conway, ; Smith, Suedfeld, Conway, & Winter, ), famous individuals (Houck, Conway, Parrow, Luce, & Salvati, ), and notable politicians (e.g. Conway et al, ; Conway, Gornick, et al, ; Conway et al, ; Gruenfeld, ; Jhangiani et al, ; Suedfeld, ; Suedfeld & Bluck, ; Suedfeld & Rank, ; Thoemmes & Conway, ). This measurement feature is especially relevant for the purposes of this meta‐analysis, as it also allows for comparisons of public political figures versus lay citizens.…”

‘We Are Going to Do a Lot of Things for College Tuition’: Vague Language in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Debates

“…Malouf and Mullen 2008). Note that recent research has clearly documented that an association exists: between simple campaign rhetoric and success in gaining power (Conway et al 2012;Suedfeld and Rank 1976). The key lesson is to match one's complexity to that of the audience (Suedfeld 1992).…”