TY - CHAP
T1 - In/appropriate aggression in presidential debate
T2 - How trump’s nonverbal displays intensified verbal norm violations in 2016
AU - Bucy, Erik P.
AU - Gong, Zijian Harrison
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2018.
PY - 2018/1/1
Y1 - 2018/1/1
N2 - This chapter takes an integrative, multi-methodological approach to the analysis of political attacks during presidential debates. Using continuous response measures (CRM) recorded from viewers in real time during the third and final US presidential debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in 2016, we identify an equal number of Trump’s character and issue attacks on Clinton. We then analyze the mean differences in CRM response to these episodes and subject each segment to nonverbal coding to determine candidate display behavior at the time of the incident. Results indicate that viewers, regardless of political party affiliation, penalize Trump more for character attacks than issue attacks. Independents show the most aversion to attacks overall. Several instances of Trump standing behind and appearing to “hover over” Clinton from the second debate were then shown to focus groups to probe the boundaries of norm violations and discern how nonverbal displays exhibited by Trump intensified the perceived aggression of his verbal attacks.
AB - This chapter takes an integrative, multi-methodological approach to the analysis of political attacks during presidential debates. Using continuous response measures (CRM) recorded from viewers in real time during the third and final US presidential debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in 2016, we identify an equal number of Trump’s character and issue attacks on Clinton. We then analyze the mean differences in CRM response to these episodes and subject each segment to nonverbal coding to determine candidate display behavior at the time of the incident. Results indicate that viewers, regardless of political party affiliation, penalize Trump more for character attacks than issue attacks. Independents show the most aversion to attacks overall. Several instances of Trump standing behind and appearing to “hover over” Clinton from the second debate were then shown to focus groups to probe the boundaries of norm violations and discern how nonverbal displays exhibited by Trump intensified the perceived aggression of his verbal attacks.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85063453531&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/978-3-319-94535-4_4
DO - 10.1007/978-3-319-94535-4_4
M3 - Chapter
AN - SCOPUS:85063453531
SN - 9783319945347
SP - 73
EP - 95
BT - The Facial Displays of Leaders
PB - Palgrave Macmillan
ER -