Candidate perception communication and voting choice (rome 2015)
-
Upload
patriziacatellani -
Category
News & Politics
-
view
290 -
download
0
Transcript of Candidate perception communication and voting choice (rome 2015)
Candidate perception,
communication, and voting choicePatrizia Catellani and Mauro Bertolotti
Comparative Perspectives on Electoral Behaviour: The Impact of the Electoral and
Party System. Academia Belgica, Rome, 16-18 September 2015
Catellani & BertolottiAcademia Belgica, 16-18 September 2015
Factors in vote choice
VOTE
MACRO
MICRO
DIST
ANT
Rokkan, 1982
-Party system-Electoral laws-Socio-economic and territorial cleavages
-Economic climate-Salient political issues-Perception of leaders
-Ideology-Political alignment-Socio political values
-Cognitive factors-Affective factors-Motivational factors
PROX
IMA
L
Catellani & BertolottiAcademia Belgica, 16-18 September 2015
Factors in vote choice
VOTE
MACRO
MICRO
DIST
ANT
Rokkan, 1982
-Party system-Electoral laws-Socio-economic and territorial cleavages
-Economic climate-Salient political issues-Perception of leaders
-Ideology-Political alignment-Socio political values
-Cognitive factors-Affective factors-Motivational factors
PROX
IMA
L
Catellani & BertolottiAcademia Belgica, 16-18 September 2015
Research questions
O Does candidate evaluation affect vote choice? O Does the effect depend on the political context?O Does the effect depend on the candidate?O Does the effect depend on voters'
characteristics?
O How does the perception of candidates affect their evaluation and vote choice?O Does the effect depend on the political context?O Does the effect depend on the candidate?O Does the effect depend on voters'
characteristics?
Catellani & BertolottiAcademia Belgica, 16-18 September 2015
Candidate-based voting
Candidate evaluation is a widely used heuristic among voters (Lau & Redlawsk, 2001; Marcus, Neuman, & McKuen, 2000).Attention to candidates in vote choice is increased by:
O The personalisation and mediatization of politics (Hallin & Mancini, 2004; Mazzoleni & Schulz, 1999; Strömbäck, 2008).
O A shift towards electoral systems that emphasise the role of candidates/leaders (Poguntke & Webb, 2007).
Catellani & BertolottiAcademia Belgica, 16-18 September 2015
Sources of candidate evaluation
O Voters use available cues to detect candidates’ dispositions and make inferences regarding their likely behaviour if elected in office.
O Basic features of candidates:O age, gender, race, physical appearance, clothing (Rosenberg,
Bohan, McCafferty, & Harris, 1986; Rosenberg & Kahn, 1987). O More subtle features of candidates’ demeanor:
O speech, tone of voice, nonverbal behaviour (De Landtsheer, 2000, 2004; De Landtsheer, De Vries, & Vertessen, 2008).
O Information regarding candidates' affiliation to relevant social groups:O Wealth, religion, profession (Miller, Wattenberg, & Malanchuk, 1986).
O Candidates' personality traits:O competence, integrity, reliability, charisma (Miller et al., 1986).
Catellani & BertolottiAcademia Belgica, 16-18 September 2015
Self-reported factors in vote choice
Miller, Wattenberg, Malanchuk, 1986
Catellani & BertolottiAcademia Belgica, 16-18 September 2015
Method
We compared data from the latest American and Italian electoral surveys:O ANES 2012 (N = 5914)O ITANES 2013 (N = 1508)
Main variables:O Vote choice: voting intention (ANES), self-reported vote choice
(ITANES)O Candidate evaluation: 100-point feeling thermometer (ANES),
11-point rating (ITANES)O Candidate perception (traits): leadership, competence,
morality, sociability (ANES & ITANES)O Ideology: liberal-conservative (ANES), left-right (ITANES)O Political sophistication: political knowledge, political interest
(ITANES), interest in the campaign (ANES)
Catellani & BertolottiAcademia Belgica, 16-18 September 2015
Vote choice as a function of ideology and candidate
evaluation
Democratic Presidential
Candidate
Republican Presidential
Candidate
B Exp(B) p B Exp(B) p
Constant -.792 .453 .000 -1.914 .148 .000
Ideology -.414 .661 .000 .729 2.072 .000
Candidate Evaluation 2.491 12.072 .000 2.440 11.471 .000
Nagelkerke R2 .643 .665
Catellani & BertolottiAcademia Belgica, 16-18 September 2015
Vote choice as a function of ideology and candidate
evaluation
Centre-Left
Coalition
Centre-Right
Coalition
5-Star
MovementCivic Choice
B Exp(
B)
p B Exp(
B)
p B Exp(
B)
p B Exp(
B)
p
Constant -
1.658.191 .000
-
1.879.153 .000 -
1.988.137 .000
-
3.703.025 .000
Ideology -
1.361.256 .000 1.3984.046 .000 -.332 .718 .002 .434 1.543 .006
Leader
Eval.1.2923.639 .000 1.7125.539 .000 2.0207.539 .000 2.1028.179 .000
Nagelk. R2 .542 .728 .487 .439
Catellani & BertolottiAcademia Belgica, 16-18 September 2015
Vote choice as a function of political sophistication
Low High0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.5
2.5282.357
.747.705
Vote for Romney
Low High0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.5
2.3082.616.295
.486
Vote for Obama
Political Sophistication
Political Sophistication
Ideology
Candidate eval.
Catellani & BertolottiAcademia Belgica, 16-18 September 2015Low High
0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.5
2.4251.843
.534
.333
Five-star Movement
Low High0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.5
2.158 1.913.289 .378
Civic Choice
Vote choice as a function of political sophistication
Low High0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.5
1.367 1.255
1.310 1.439
Centre-left
Low High0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.5
1.721 1.707
1.397 1.404
Centre-right
IdeologyCandidate eval.
Catellani & BertolottiAcademia Belgica, 16-18 September 2015
Candidate perception
O Two fundamental dimensions in social judgements (Cuddy, Judd & Yzerbyt, 2008; Cuddy, Fiske & Glick, 2008; Wojciszke, 2005).
O Some findings indicate that the same bi-dimensional scheme applies to candidate perception (Caprara, Barbaranelli, & Zimbardo, 1999; 2002; Cislak & Wojciszke, 2008).
Agency Communion
Catellani & BertolottiAcademia Belgica, 16-18 September 2015
Agency Communion
More dimensions?
O Recent research has showed that individuals make more nuanced judgments, based on specific sub-dimensions within the Big Two dimensions (Leach, Ellemers, & Barreto, 2007; Brambilla et al., 2011; Carrier et al, 2014)
O These sub-dimensions had already emerged in research on candidate perception (Kinder, 1986; Miller et al., 1986; Pierce, 1993).
O The American National Election Studies (ANES) have been regularly measuring them since the 1980's.
Morality Sociability
Leadership
Competence
strong leader knowledgeable honest empathetic
Catellani & BertolottiAcademia Belgica, 16-18 September 2015
Perceived traits of American presidential candidates 1980-2004
80 84 88 92 96 00 041.80
2.00
2.20
2.40
2.60
2.80
3.00Leadership Sociability
Hayes, 200580 84 88 92 96 00 04
1.80
2.00
2.20
2.40
2.60
2.80
3.00Leadership Sociability
Catellani & BertolottiAcademia Belgica, 16-18 September 2015
Perceived traits of Italian centre-right and centre-left leaders 2001-2008
2001 2006 20080
102030405060708090
100Rutelli/Prodi/
Veltroni
%
2001 2006 20080
102030405060708090
100 Berlusconi
LeadershipCompe-tenceSociabilityMorality
Barisione, Catellani e Garzia, 2014
Catellani & BertolottiAcademia Belgica, 16-18 September 2015
Candidate perception 2012-2013
Obama Romney1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
Berlusconi
Bersani Grillo Monti1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
LeadershipCompetenceMoralitySociability
Catellani & BertolottiAcademia Belgica, 16-18 September 2015
The relative importance of personality dimensions
O Several studies found a general primacy of morality in social judgements (Abele & Wojciszke, 2007; Leach, et al., 2007; Brambilla et al., 2011).
O The primacy of morality is moderated by contextual factors, such as actor/observer status, interdependence, etc... (Wojcizke, 2005; Abele & Bruckmuller, 2011).
O Which dimension is more important in the political context?
O Some research indicates that morality is more important in the evaluation of politicians (Cislak & Wojciszke, 2008; Catellani & Bertolotti, 2014; 2015)...
Catellani & BertolottiAcademia Belgica, 16-18 September 2015
The relative importance of personality dimensions
O ...Other studies found perceived competence to be a better predictor of candidate evaluation and vote choice (Todorov, et al., 2005; Antonakis & Dalgas, 2009; Castelli, et al., 2009; Johns & Shephard, 2011; Olivola & Todorov, 2010).
O Further research showed that the effect is strong only among less politically involved voters (Lenz & Lawson, 2011).
Catellani & BertolottiAcademia Belgica, 16-18 September 2015
The relative importance of personality dimensions
O The relative importance of candidates' personality dimensions might depend their political affiliation (Hayes, 2005).
O Voters have certain expectations regarding candidates' personalities, based on party tradition ("trait ownership"):O Leadership (Rep.) vs. Sociability (Dem.) (Hayes, 2005)O Leadership (centre-right) vs. morality (centre-left) (Caprara et
al., 2007).O Candidates' deviations from these stereotypical
expectations are particularly salient.O Reminiscent of the negativity effect phenomenon
(Baumeister, et al., 2001; Peeters & Czapinski, 1990).
Catellani & BertolottiAcademia Belgica, 16-18 September 2015
Leader evaluation as a function of personality
perception
RomneyObama0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0.207
0.313 0.1090.058
0.252
0.272
0.3250.303
SociabilityMoralityCompetenceLeadership
Obama Romney1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
Catellani & BertolottiAcademia Belgica, 16-18 September 2015
Leader evaluation as a function of personality
perception
Berlusconi
Bersani Monti Grillo0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.001
0.1710.144
0.008
0.131
0.212
0.060.261
0.46 0.1970.322
0.289
0.264
0.205 0.2550.194
SociabilityMoralityCompetenceLeadership
Berlusconi Bersani Grillo Monti1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
Catellani & BertolottiAcademia Belgica, 16-18 September 2015
Candidate impression management
Candidates actively try to influence voters' perception of them through:
O AppearanceO BehaviourO Speech
Some voters are more attentivethan others to these attempts (Pierce, 1993; Bertolotti et al., 2013).
Catellani & BertolottiAcademia Belgica, 16-18 September 2015
Conclusions
O Candidate-based voting is affected by contextual, political and individual factors.
O Candidate evaluation weighs more in vote choice when other elements are absent or less informative to voters.
O The perception of candidates's personality dimensions differentially affects their evaluation.
O The negativity effect applied to candidate perception results in varying diagnosticity of different dimensions in candidate evaluation.