A Defining Presidential Moment: 9/11 and the Rally Effect

Abstract

Public approval ratings of George W. Bush surged after the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks. This study used a quasi-experimental, within-respondents design to investigate the relative contribution of five factors to this classic rally effect: the stimulus event itself, Bush's speech that evening, media exposure, partisan support, and gender effects. Respondents were pretested on the morning of the attacks; one group was posttested immediately after the speech, another group 41 hours later. Stability of effects was examined through an additional study of Bush's 20 September 2001 speech to a joint session of Congress. The findings indicate that Bush's 11 September speech was the critical factor in this rally effect; none of the other factors contributed significantly.

Presidential speechmaking style: Emotional response to micro-expressions of facial affect

“…Micro-expressions of facial affect, by representing unintentional leakage of emotional state (Ekman 1992;Ekman et al 1997) and/or conflicting behavioral intentions of the speaker (Fridlund 1994;1997), diminish the intended impact of a speech communicating the credibility of a threat while appealing for domestic support. Evidence presented here also points toward support for the leader who plays the role of an emotional focal point for the nation (Neustadt 1990;Schubert et al 2002). The speech by President George H. W. Bush effectively aroused emotional response in this study, and presumably during the original Gulf War when his approval ratings increased exponentially (Mueller 1994).…”

“…We use the measure anxiety to assess perceived threat from external sources. The questions concerning how determined, inspired and reassured participants were reflects the expected result of a speech that not only responds to an external threat by inspiring individuals to band together in a group and behind a leader and act in a determined manner, but also provides reassurance that the goal of confronting and overcoming the threat will be accomplished (Schubert et al 2002) (Table 2).…”

“…These facial expressions communicate the situation's importance to the viewer as if the speaker were present. In other words, more emotionally evocative messages, such as those presented by the leaders on television and face-to-face, can be expected to lead to higher levels of affective response by viewers and result in attitudinal change (Way and Masters 1996a, b;Schubert et al 2002), especially when compared to appeals that are written, audio-only or covered in a news report 1 (Schubert 1998;Patterson et al 1992). In sum, these studies suggest that personal delivery, communicating the leader's 1 Television news coverage introduces a confounding factor beyond the scope of this study; the effect of newscasters nonverbal delivery on viewer perceptions of and attitudes towards their leaders.…”

“…Research suggests viewers emotionally respond to facial expressions of political leaders during speeches (Masters and Sullivan 1993;Masters and Carlotti 1994;Masters and Way 1996;Way and Masters 1996a, b) and that attitudinal change occurs due to these expressions (Sullivan and Masters 1994). As a result, the viewer's emotional state, and their resultant behavioral intent (Fridlund 1994), may change through their response to the leader's facial expressions by influencing their interpretation of the situation and the speechmaker (Schubert et al 2002;Sullivan and Masters 1988).…”

Cry Havoc: Rhetorical Mobilization and Foreign Policy Decision Making During War-threatening Crises

“…Finally, while a leader's interests are radically more complex than merely maintaining power, holding power is instrumental to achieving any other objectives and is, therefore, a primitive interest (Milner 1997). Several studies suggest that while a successful war may enhance a leader's hold on power (Chapman & Reiter 2004;Chiozza & Goemans 2011;Curran, Schubert, & Stewart 2002;Lian & O'Neal 1993;Mueller 1973), unsuccessful wars may be less detrimental to a leader's tenure than conventional wisdom suggests (Chiozza & Goemans 2004;Debs & Goemans 2010), especially in democratic states.…”