Factors in a presidential candidate's image

Kjeldahl, Bill O.; Carmichael, Carl W.; Mertz, Robert J.

doi:10.1080/03637757109375699

Cited by 16 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…5 Rather than examining the profiles of the individual scale means of each candidate, the authors submitted the scales to factor analysis. This technique extracted patterned variation among independent factors of semantic differential scales and measured the contribution of each factor to the total variation of the scales.…”

Section: Ate In the 1960 Presidential Campaign John Kennedy Andmentioning

confidence: 99%

Candidate image in a broadcast debate

Philport

Balon

1975

Journal of Broadcasting

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Ate In the 1960 Presidential Campaign John Kennedy Andmentioning

confidence: 99%

Candidate image in a broadcast debate

Philport

Balon

1975

Journal of Broadcasting

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Recent work indicates that voter evaluations of candidates are multidimensional (Douglas, 1972;Kjeldahl, Carmichael, & Mertz, 1971). Indeed, several good studies have assessed the impact of these multidimensional evaluations on voting preference.…”

Section: In Memoriammentioning

confidence: 99%

Candidate Valence as a Predictor of Voter Preference

Andersen

Kibler

1978

Human Comm Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effects of source valence, including its components source credibility, attraction, and homophily, on voter preference were examined in this study. A systematic sample with a random start of 350 registered Democratic voters in Tallahassee, Florida, was used to test the effects of eight dimensions of source valence on voter preference. The differential valence of the two candidates was the best predictor of voter preference. The eight-variable model accounted for 61% of the variance in voter preference, while attitude homophily alone accounted for 58% of that variance.The relationship between voter evaluations of political candidates and voting preferences has been the subject of considerable investigation. These evaluations have been called candidate images, voter attitudes, voter perceptions of the candidate and a variety of other labels. One important goal of this research was to ascertain the relationship between these voter evaluations or images of the candidates and voter preferences in electoral contests.The literature reveals several problems that have prevented a thorough test of this relationship. First, many studies on candidate image have suffered from the operationalization of image as a general evaluative construct rather than an empirically based, multidimensional construct. Second, studies which have utilized multidimensional measures of image were conducted principally in presidential elections, preventing generalization to state and local elections. Finally, most studies have been conducted in general elections where the impact of Perer A. Andersen (Ph.D., Florida State University, 1975) is assistant professor of speech communication at West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506.party affiliation is more powerful than the voters' evaluation of the candidates. Assessing the impact of voters' evaluations in primary elections would eliminate this party-identification effect and would allow the specific effect of voters' evaluation of the candidates to be studied. The purpose of this study was to assess the relationship between voter evaluations of candidates and voting preference.Previous candidate evaluation or image research has demonstrated that evaluations of candidates have a substantial impact on voting. Stokes (1966) maintains that fluctuations in electoral attitudes have focused primarily on the candidates themselves. This study, however, did not carefully measure the various dimensions of candidate image. Leuthold ( 1968) found that in congressional elections nearly two-thirds of the voters thought that the candidate was their most important reason for voting, but no actual measures of image were collected. Instead, the conclusion is based on reports of the voter's reason for hedhis voting decision. Likewise, Conway (1968) reports that in low stimulus elections, personal appeals and campaign- IN MEMORIAMWord of the sudden death of Dr. Robert J. Kibler was received while this article was in press. His passing is a severe loss to all who have known and loved him, as well as to ICA, wh...

show abstract

“…A variety of perspectives have guided efforts to detect features of the candidate's persona that may be most salient to the public. Some researchers have used the semantic differential to measure the connotative aspects of a candidate's image (Patton, 1978;Powell, 1977;Simons & Leibowitz, 1979;Stricker, 1963), whereas others have measured personality traits (Douglas, 1972;Kjeldahl, Carmichael, & Mertz, 1971;Roberts, 1981), political and stylistic traits (Nimmo & Savage, 1976), and voters' perceptions of issue and background similarity (Andersen & Kibler, 1978;Kendall & Yum, 1984).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Images Versus Issues in the 1984 Presidential Election Differences Between Men and Women

et al. 1991

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent accounts of male and female personality development suggest that members of each sex difler in the orientations and capacities they bring to their experience of the political world. This article explores the relative importance of respondents' images of the candidates and respondents'political positions to predictions of males'and females' candidate preferences. It was predicted that candidate images bused on interpersonal communication behavior, as opposed to respondents'political positions, would be a more powerful predictor offemales'candidate preferences. The opposite pattern was expected to be thecase for rnales'candidate preferences. These predictions weresupported; however, the data analysis also indicated that both candidate images and political positions contributed significantly to predictions offemales'candidate preferences.

show abstract

Factors in a presidential candidate's image

Cited by 16 publications

References 1 publication

Candidate image in a broadcast debate

Candidate image in a broadcast debate

Candidate Valence as a Predictor of Voter Preference

Images Versus Issues in the 1984 Presidential Election Differences Between Men and Women

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About