|
"Response: Appropriate Emotion in Politics: A Communication Perspective"
by Erik P. Bucy
As a field, political communication is distinguished by its interdisciplinary character. Part communication, part political science, part sociology, and part psychology, the field can be described as a “meta-discipline” that recombines the theory and methods of established areas in new and exciting ways. A laudable example is the roundtable on the study of emotion in political communication in the fall 2006 issue of Political Communication Report. Kudos to editor David Ryfe for putting together such an interesting and informative forum—and to each of the contributors who summarized their valuable work.
But this very strength can also be a weakness. Consider Jack Glaser’s semi-speculative essay on candidate emotionality in the same forum, which glossed over the existing state of knowledge. In his essay, Glaser wonders what researchers might discover if they investigated questions involving the emotional “display rules” operative in a given situation. In fact, a substantial amount of research has already been conducted in this area, although not under the rubric of “political emotional intelligence.”
In several studies published since 1999, Bucy and colleagues have investigated the emotional, evaluative, and physiological consequences of inappropriate leader displays (Bucy, 2000, 2003; Bucy & Bradley, 2004; Bucy & Newhagen, 1999). These studies, which build on the work of the Committee for the Experimental Study of Social and Political Behavior led by Roger Masters, Denis Sullivan, and John Lanzetta at Dartmouth College in the 1980’s and 90’s (see Masters & Sullivan, 1993), have empirically investigated and conceptually elaborated the phenomenon of emotional appropriateness in politics.
Interestingly, Glaser cites the work of the Dartmouth group in his commentary but, unfortunately, did not carefully consider their findings—or take the extra step of searching for more contemporary work representing the current state of the art.
For instance, my own work on the emotional appropriateness heuristic examines how the communicative behavior of public figures has become increasingly central to evaluations of political effectiveness (Bucy & Newhagen, 1999). In response to anxiety provoking news events—military interventions, terrorist strikes, political crises, and the like—viewers are reassured by a leader who appears serious and in control (a display rule, perhaps?). At such critical moments, inappropriate displays convey the wrong emotional tone and, instead of promoting curiosity or other harmless cognitions, invite uncertainty and negative evaluations (Bucy, 2000).
More specifically, presidential reactions regarded as appropriate elicit faster visual recognition times, more favorable thought-listing comments, and prompt fewer thoughts than message reactions seen as inappropriate (Bucy & Newhagen, 1999). Inappropriate displays, on the other hand, activate normative interpretations of communicative behavior and focus attention more sharply on the source, producing critical assessments of the leader. Inappropriate displays thus constitute a type of nonverbal expectancies violation discussed in the interpersonal communication literature (see Burgoon & Hale, 1988).
Consistent with the affective intelligence model that shows how novel and threatening stimuli compels attention and invites more detailed consideration of the circumstances at hand (Marcus, Neuman, & MacKuen, 2000), expectancy violations theory posits that expectancy violations make characteristics of the communicator more salient, thereby intensifying reward effects (Burgoon, 1993). In the case of negative violations, the outcome of the evaluation process is likely to be unfavorable to the source. Interestingly, these evaluations register at an emotional and psychophysiological level.
Physiologically, evaluations of display appropriateness moderate how much attention is given to a display, the affective direction of facial muscle activation, and the level of autonomic activation, or arousal (Bucy & Bradley, 2004). In this study, viewers were shown a series of four news stories, followed by a 30-second televised reaction of then-President Bill Clinton. The story-reaction sequences varied by story topic, level of emotion, and degree of display appropriateness. Facial muscle activation (EMG) data showed that viewers frowned in response to positive expressive displays that followed positive news. Smiling activation also decreased for high-intensity, positive displays. By manipulating the valence and intensity of the associated news event, emotional responses were shown to be situationally influenced by the larger social and informational context.
During traumatic national events, attention to the news and scrutiny of leader communication becomes particularly acute. In a study examining processing of the 9/11 attacks (Bucy, 2003), viewers were shown a series of news reports featuring negative compelling images of the attacks followed by close-up reactions and statements by President Bush. The news images varied in their intensity, while the presidential reactions varied in their potency. When paired with low intensity images of traumatic news, high potency Bush reactions had the effect of allaying viewer anxiety; in contrast, potent appearances lost this influence when shown in conjunction with high intensity images.
The finding that presidential communication high in emotional potency appears to have a calming effect when shown in conjunction with low intensity news images suggests a strategy for effective political message making – and news construction – during times of crisis. Leaders confronted with an anxious public in the midst of a crisis should remain cognizant of the importance of their self-presentation and take strides to appear commanding and in control through appearances that are high in potency, and which inspire more confidence than uncertainty, even if events are overwhelming.
At the same time, television news editors might pause to consider the anxiety-inducing nature of traumatic news and, weighing the trade-off between exploiting tragedy and serving the public interest, their capacity to moderate the intensity of images shown. Low intensity images seem to provide the context for potent presidential communication to mitigate viewer anxiety. In contrast, even potent displays appear to lose their influence when paired with negative compelling (high intensity) images.
Expressive displays are politically significant because they signal important information about the feelings and appraisals of leading political actors, developing expectations in viewers about future behavior and likely outcomes. During the unfolding of a national crisis, the news action provides the contextual setting for presidential response. To the degree that inappropriate leader displays signal insensitivity or a misreading of the political environment, viewers are likely to react aversively towards the president as they attempt to make sense of his unexpected display behavior.
A search of the ComAbstracts database would not only uncover these findings but important work by other communication researchers who have examined nonverbal expectancy violations (Burgoon & Hale, 1988; Burgoon & Walther, 1990), appropriate emotion in political debates (Shields & MacDowell, 1987; Smith & Hyde, 1991), defining moments in televised politics (Clayman, 1995), and extraordinary candidate-journalist encounters (Kaid, Downs, & Ragan, 1990).
Research on media and politics conducted from a communication perspective on these and other topics continues apace. At Indiana, two ongoing projects are currently investigating the visual environment of election news and the impact that “memorable moments” in presidential campaigns have on political understanding and candidate evaluations (Bucy, 2005; Bucy & Grabe, 2006).
The memorable moments project involves a series of focus group discussions in which participants are shown news clips of defining episodes in televised politics beginning with the Nixon-Kennedy debates of 1960. Although any number of defining moments since then have become part of campaign lore, political audiences are not asked often enough about their impressions of the candidates’ nonverbal communication. Group discussion of such pivotal episodes offer a rich source of interpretive data to assess the ways in which problematic candidate behavior affects viewer evaluations.
Our image bite study involves a longitudinal analysis of the visual content of presidential election news coverage by the major broadcast networks from 1992-2004, including detailed measurement of structural features, candidate portrayals, and thematic aspects of news coverage (Bucy & Grabe, 2006). Among other categories, we have painstakingly coded all political stories for camera shot angles and durations, the most frequently occurring facial displays evidenced by candidates, the appropriateness of candidate reactions to news developments during the campaign, and visual framing techniques. The primary goals of this research are to assess whether electoral success and favorable news coverage correlates with effective nonverbal communication – and explain the information value that news visuals have for viewers.
When launching the journal Press/Politics a decade ago, Kalb and Norris (1996, p. 1) wrote that their goals were to “stimulate dialogue among different branches of scholarship and leapfrog the sadly parochial borders” that separated scholars in different fields. As a multidisciplinary enterprise, political communication has many tributaries. Although progress has been made in bridging disciplinary divides over the past decade, the communication side of political communication remains less well known. Perhaps a future issue of Political Communication Report can explore this issue in greater depth.
Erik P. Bucy is an Associate Professor in the Department of Telecommunications and Adjunct Associate Professor in the School of Informatics at Indiana University, Bloomington.
REFERENCES
Bucy, E. P. (2000). "Emotional and evaluative consequences of inappropriate leader displays." Communication Research, 27(2), 194-226.
Bucy, E. P. (2003). "Emotion, presidential communication, and traumatic news: Processing the World Trade Center attacks." Press/Politics, 8(4), 76-96.
Bucy, E. P. (2005, February). Investigating political appropriateness. Grant-in-Aid of Research. Office of the Vice Provost for Research. Bloomington: Indiana University.
Bucy, E. P., & Bradley, S. D. (2004). "Presidential expressions and viewer emotion: Counterempathic responses to televised leader displays." Social Science Information/ Information sur les Sciences Sociales, 43(1), 59-94.
Bucy, E. P., & Grabe, M. E. (2006, September). Image bite news: An underappreciated source of political information. Paper presented to the American Political Science Association, Political Communication Division, Philadelphia, PA.
Bucy, E. P., & Newhagen, J. E. (1999). "The emotional appropriateness heuristic: Processing televised presidential reactions to the news." Journal of Communication, 49(4), 59-79.
Burgoon, J. K. (1993). "Interpersonal expectations, expectancy violations, and emotional communication." Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 12(1&2), 30-48.
Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. L. (1988). "Nonverbal expectancy violations: Model elaboration and application to immediacy behaviors." Communication Monographs, 55(1), 58-79.
Burgoon, J. K., & Walther, J. B. (1990). "Nonverbal expectancies and the evaluative consequences of violations." Human Communication Research, 17, 232-265.
Clayman, S. E. (1995). "Defining moments, presidential debates, and the dynamics of quotability." Journal of Communication, 45(3), 118-146.
Kaid, L. L., Downs, V. C., & Ragan, S. (1990). "Political argumentation and violations of audience expectations: An analysis of the Bush-Rather encounter." Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 34(1), 1-15.
Kalb, M., & Norris, P. (1996). Editorial. Press/Politics, 1(1), 1-2.
Marcus, G. E., Neuman, W. R., & MacKuen, M. (2000). Affective intelligence and political judgment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Masters, R. D., & Sullivan, D. G. (1993). "Nonverbal behavior and leadership: Emotion and cognition in political information processing." In S. Iyengar & W. J. McGuire (Eds.), Explorations in political psychology (pp. 150-182). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Shields, S. A., & MacDowell, K. A. (1987). “'Appropriate' emotion in politics: Judgments of a televised debate." Journal of Communication, 37(4), 78-89.
Smith, C. R., & Hyde, M. J. (1991). "Rethinking 'the public': The role of emotion in being-with-others." Quarterly Journal of Speech, 77, 446-466.
|
