Visual Presentation Style 2: Influences on Perceptions of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton Based on Visual Presentation Style During the Third 2016 Presidential Debate

Abstract

A field experiment was conducted to analyze the third and final 2016 presidential debate. Randomly assigned participants watched the debate in the format of mainly solo camera shots that alternate between the candidates (i.e., switched feed), or with both candidates framed side-by-side on screen (i.e., split screen feed). Though viewer feelings of positivity toward the candidates did not differ, visual presentation style had a significant effect on trait judgments for Donald Trump overall. Participants watching Trump on the switched camera feed perceived him as significantly more Sophisticated, Honest, Attractive, Sincere, Strong, Active, Intelligent, Trustworthy, and Generous. There was not an effect for Hillary Clinton’s trait ratings overall, though she was perceived as significantly more Strong, Competent, and Intelligent by those watching the switched feed. This suggests that visual presentation style significantly influenced viewer perceptions. Political ideology was a significant predictor of all but one of the traits for each candidate.

Visual priming and framing of the 2016 GOP and Democratic Party presidential primary debates

“…As discussed, even subtle factors such as the choice of camera shot have the potential to influence perceptions of candidates through the visual frame being consumed by the audience. 20,21,22,29 As a result, negotiations between candidates, political parties, and the networks broadcasting the debates are often tense and highly contested, with debate contracts many pages long. 18,50 Despite attempts by campaigns to control how their candidates are presented, what actually transpires during a debate is not completely under their control.…”

“…10,11,13 While candidate debate performance through verbal response and nonverbal presentation affects audience evaluation, 16,17,18,19 the choices made by the debate producers and moderators in response to candidate behavior can play a major role in public perceptions. 20,21,22 Specifically, how the networks present the candidates affects how the candidates are able to portray themselves both verbally and nonverbally. 23,24,25,26,27 Although the questions asked and the speaking time given to the candidates can certainly influence how the candidates convey themselves and their policy positions, perhaps a more primal, subtle, and pervasive means by which the media affects public perceptions of candidates is how they visually depict each candidate.…”

Outcome-based dissonance and Morton's Fork: Evaluative consequences of unfavorable alternatives in the 2016 U.S. presidential election

“…The present study also contributes to a growing body of literature surrounding the 2016 election. Many others have capitalized on this unique election context to investigate topics as wide‐ranging as authoritarianism (e.g., Choma & Hanoch, ; Conway & McFarland, ; Ludeke, Klitgaard, & Vitriol, ), political correctness (Conway, Repke, & Houck, ), visual framing of presidential debates (Stewart, Eubanks, Dye, Eidelman, & Wicks, ), and ambivalent sexism (Cassese & Holman, ). If history serves as a guide, it seems unlikely that elections in the near future will be quite as negative as the 2016 election turned out to be.…”

Medial Shaping from the Outset: On the Mediality of the Second Presidential Debate, 2016

“…But in a split screen any action can be interpreted as a reaction, which usually leads to very reduced and limited backchannel behavior, both verbally and nonverbally. It is therefore not surprising that split screens and switched feeds affect reception differently (see Stewart et al 2017;Wicks et al 2017). But the use of split screens can also lead to orientation problems on the part of the audience: because the front view is predominant, it can become unclear who the candidates are looking or pointing at.…”