Communication Modes and Candidate Image 1

Comparing the Effects of Communication Mode in Election 2004:

An Analysis of Image Evaluations

Competitive Paper Submission

NCA 2007

Political Communication Division

 Communication Modes and Candidate Image 2

Comparing the Effects of Communication Mode in Election 2004: An Analysis of Image

Evaluations

This study was designed to examine how young people respond to political candidates by

examining the effects of exposure to the messages presented through television advertisements,

televised debates, and campaign Web sites on ratings of the candidates’ images. Using a 3

(communication mode) x 3 (political party) MANOVA procedure, this study tested two

hypotheses and one research question. The results indicated significant differences in the

candidates’ image ratings based on the type of campaign communication mode to which the

subjects were exposed and significant differences with regard to the importance of political

affiliation as an influence on how young people rated the candidates’ images.

 Communication Modes and Candidate Image 3

Comparing the Effects of Communication Mode in Election 2004: An Analysis of Image

Evaluations

Research on political candidate images has long supported the argument that voters make

voting decisions based on the perceived image of the candidate (for a review see Hacker, 1995,

2004). As presidential campaigns spend enormous amounts of money on such message outlets

as political advertising, time in negotiation and preparation for televised debates, and creative

energies in formulating messages for multiple audiences on their campaign Web sites, they do so

in order to persuade voters to vote for them. Although multiple sources of campaign information

assist voters in making evaluations about candidate images (Pfau, Cho, and Chong, 2001),

televised advertising and campaign Web sites represent two distinct sources of mass

communication over which candidates can exert the most control over message, design, and

image, as well as reach the voters directly with their message. In other words, the message has,

as Kaid (2002) points out, a linear, “direct effects” transmission (p. 28), uniquely different from

the third party interpretation involved with other transmission sources, such as news media

coverage, talk shows, and blogs. From a mass communication perspective, debates also serve an

important function for candidates. Although the candidates may not have same element of

control, at the moment of message consumption by the viewer they do have the opportunity for

the same “direct effects” transmission.

In 2004, young voters were the target of not only these forms of campaign-related

messaging, but also messages from non-profit, governmental, and media sources. The past

decade has witnessed increased concern over the seemingly disengaged young voter population.

Organizations such as MTV, the National Secretaries of State, the Center for Information and

Research on Civic Learning (CIRCLE), the American Democracy Project, the Harvard
 Communication Modes and Candidate Image 4

University Institute of Politics, and Campus Compact have pursued initiatives designed to

increase civic engagement among young people, often primarily in the form of voting. These

groups were rewarded with exciting results when the 2004 votes were tallied. In total, more than

11.6 million American youth voted in the presidential election (Lopez, Kirby, & Sagoff, 2005).

Young voter turnout was at a twelve-year high in the 2004 general election with a 47% voter

turnout (Lopez et al.). Considered a triumph, the young voter demographic showed an 11%

increase from the 2000 to the 2004 election—the largest increase of any age demographic during

that time (Lopez et al.). Young voters also represented a larger share of the total votes cast in

2004 (9.3%) than in any of the previous eleven years (Lopez et al.).

Perhaps not surprising, based on increased turnout, the Pew Research Center reported in

the fall of 2004 that young people were more interested in the election and in voting than four

years earlier, although they were less firm in their candidate preference (Pew, 2004). It is the

evaluation of candidates that leads to candidate selection, with which this study takes interest.

With the high interest in improving young people’s turnout at the polls and the subsequent

increase in young voter turnout, the 2004 general election is a unique case study for examining

how young voters responded and connected to the candidates. Specifically, this study seeks to

understand the relationship between young voters image perceptions of the presidential

candidates as developed through exposure to three candidate-centered modes of mass

communication—television advertisements, televised debates, and campaign Web sites.

Through this analysis of message influence we seek to provide further understanding of

campaign-related message effects on young voters and their participatory decisions.

Literature Review
 Communication Modes and Candidate Image 5

Over the past several decades presidential candidates have enjoyed the opportunity to

reach millions of Americans through mass forms of campaign communication, such as television

spot ads and televised debates; and, in the past decade campaign Web sites have emerged as an

important campaign tool. In fact, Kaid and Postelnicu (2004) argue that in 2004 the presidential

candidates’ Web sites became “a very visible part of the campaign communication” (p. 265).

This recent infusion of the Internet and campaign Web sites into the realm of political

communication has again raised the issue of whether message channel, or mode, influences

audience perception and interpretation of campaign messages. In other words, how does our

evaluation of candidates differ when we are exposed to the differing messages available through

various forms of campaign communication?

Katz and Feldman’s (1962) well-known study of the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon debate

provided early indications that in fact channel does matter, finding that declaration of a candidate

as the debate winner was dependent on the channel to which the audience was exposed. These

results, along with McLuhan’s (1964) suggestion that message is intertwined with medium, lead

many to argue that different effects emerge from exposure to different media (Kaid, 1981; Kaid,

2002; Kaid & Postelnicu, 2005; McKinnon, Tedesco, & Kaid, 1993). However, as new

technologies offer campaigns new channels through which to disseminate messages and

influence voter attitudes and perceptions, the study of message channel—or mode—remains an

important line of continuing inquiry.

Comparison of Message Mode

Although the research on individual campaign communication modes has contributed an

extensive and rich understanding of message effects, the frequent choice of scholars to examine

individual campaign communication modes in isolation from other modes does not reflect the
 Communication Modes and Candidate Image 6

complex mediated nature of modern campaigns. Pfau, Cho, and Chong (2001) argue that “this

isolated approach is flawed” (p. 88) and call for more work in the study of multi-mode effects. It

is well documented that voters are exposed to many campaign-related messages throughout a

presidential election cycle and scholars have sought to determine which serve as primary sources

of influence. Yet, few studies have focused on a comparison of the different effects that might

exist between multiple candidate-controlled communication sources in campaigns, and

particularly the effects these messages have on candidate evaluations and voting behavior.

Indeed, the few studies that have examined to what extent such effects might exist find

support for the presence of mode-based influence, although the inconsistent results do not offer

firm answers. For instance, during the 1992 election McKinnon, Tedesco, and Kaid (1993)

compared reactions to a presidential debate that was simultaneously aired on television and

radio. While the results revealed significant changes in image perception for some of the

candidates based on the mode of communication, the findings were not consistent across all

candidates. In her study of effects resulting from traditional (television) versus nontraditional

(internet) exposure to the same campaign advertising messages during the 2000 presidential race,

Kaid (2002) determined that in fact vote choice changed based on communication mode

exposure although evaluations of the candidates did not. In 2000, Bush benefited from exposure

through television and Gore benefited in the Internet exposure group. Kaid and Postelnicu

(2005) used a similar approach during the 2004 election, exposing a young voter audience to the

same campaign ads on television and online. Their results did find that evaluations of the

candidates significantly changed from the pretest to posttest when voters viewed the ads through

the candidates’ Web sites; Kerry’s evaluations increased significantly and Bush’s evaluations

decreased significantly. However, candidate evaluations did not differ when the candidate ads
 Communication Modes and Candidate Image 7

were viewed via television. Importantly, participants from the Internet group reported perceiving

the ads as significantly less credible than did the television group.

During the 2000 presidential campaign Pfau et al. (2001) examined the influence of 13

“modalities” on voters’ perceptions of candidate image for the two major party presidential

candidates. Using a survey approach, the authors asked respondents to report their

communication modality use and attention to messages, some of which were candidate-

controlled and most of which were not. Their results indicated that the use of “non-traditional”

forms of communication (i.e., political talk radio, television entertainment talk shows, television

news magazines) had the most influence on perceptions of candidate image. While debates—a

“traditional” form of communication—also influenced perceptions of candidate image, other

traditional forms such as newspapers, magazines, and television news exerted limited influence.

Although the previous studies differ in purpose and design from the current study, they

provide support for the notion that the different communication modes can produce different

effects among voters. Clearly, each of the individual modes of communication are important for

candidates; however, the candidate-centered, or candidate-controlled, modes of mass

communication available to a candidate—such as television advertising, debates, and Web sites

—provide an interesting point of comparison with regard to their effects on candidate assessment

and voting behavior. Therefore, this current study seeks to expand the prior work on campaign

communication effects across multiple modes. Specifically, this study explores differences in

young voters’ perceptions of candidate image based on exposure to messages across three

different forms of campaign media. Image effects research based on each of these

communication modes is considered next.

Candidate Image Assessments

 Communication Modes and Candidate Image 8

Studies focused on televised campaign advertising, televised debates, and Internet

messages indicate that exposure to these forms of communication during a campaign aids voters

in evaluating candidates and making vote choices. Viewing television campaign advertising

typically results in positive effects on assessments of candidate image, although negative effects

have been noted (Kaid, 2004; Tedesco & Kaid, 2003). In terms of positive effects, televised

campaign ads have been found to increase candidate name recognition (Kaid, 1982) as well as

improve overall evaluations of candidate image following exposure to the ads (Kaid & Johnston,

2001; Tedesco & Kaid, 2003). Exposure to political advertising has resulted in higher candidate

ratings for characteristics such as intelligence, strength, dependability, honesty, and fairness

(Cundy, 1986). In terms of negative effects on candidate assessment or image, findings typically

reflect that exposure to negative advertising produces negative image evaluations of the

opponent (Friedkin & Kenney, 2004; Jasperson & Fan, 2002; Kaid, 1997; Tedesco & Kaid,

2003). The positive and negative effects are important findings because both indicate that

televised ads influence perceptions of candidate image which is considered an important

predictor of voter decision-making (Miller, Wattenberg, & Malanchuk, 1984; Nimmo & Savage,

1976).

The literature on political debates also suggests that viewers develop perceptions of

candidates’ images as a result of exposure to a debate (Benoit, McKinney, & Stephenson, 2002;

Best & Hubbard, 1999; Dailey, Hinck, & Hinck, 2006; McKinney, Dudash, & Hodgkinson,

2003; McKinney, Kaid, & Robertson, 2001; McKinnon, Tedesco, & Kaid, 1993) and that

debates provide an opportunity for voters to assess and better understand the candidates’

personalities and images (McKinney et al., 2003). Specifically, candidate image evaluations

have shifted significantly based on debate viewing (Best & Hubbard, 1999; Dailey, Hinck, &
 Communication Modes and Candidate Image 9

Hinck, 2006), with changes occurring in evaluations of the candidate’s competency (Dailey et

al., 2006), character, and viability (Best & Hubbard, 1999). Lanoue and Schrott (1991) conclude

that “viewers are far more likely to use debates to gain insight into each candidate’s personality

and character” (p. 96) than their issue positions. Because of the length of exposure time that is

available to voters for evaluative purposes, as well as the opportunity for direct candidate

comparison and for the candidates to in essence talk “directly” to the viewers; debates remain an

important mode of communication for presidential candidates. Further, candidates do have an

opportunity to exert some control over their preparation, responses, structure, and issues covered

during a debate (Self, 2005). Therefore, this element of control and opportunity for the

candidates to speak directly to the viewing audience make campaign debates an important mode

of communication to study in comparison with television advertising and the more recently

developed form of candidate-controlled mass communication, campaign Web sites.

Due to the relatively recent emergence of campaign Web sites as modes of campaign

communication, research is advancing rapidly in its analysis of Web site exposure effects on

voter evaluations of candidates’ images and on voter behavior. In their study of the effects of

Web site design and complexity on candidate image, Sundar, Kalyanaraman, and Brown (2003)

found that more complex Web site designs led to lower candidate evaluations when compared to

less complex Web sites. In this experimental design, participants were exposed to one of three

Web site designs—low, medium, and high interactivity—for a fictitious candidate. Candidate

image ratings were significantly lower in the high interactivity group than either the low or

medium interactivity group. The authors concluded that Web site designers need to be “cautious

in their use of new media tools” (p. 52), and to keep the message as the focus of a campaign site

as opposed to burying the message in graphics and hyperlinks.

 Communication Modes and Candidate Image 10

Tedesco’s (2006) study of young voter efficacy and Web interactivity found that

exposure to the interactive sites increased participants’ internal and external efficacy, and their

feelings of being informed. Other scholars have confirmed that in fact exposure to campaign

information online significantly impacts political knowledge, political efficacy, and participation

(Kenski & Stroud, 2006). Internet use for obtaining political information has also been found to

be predictive of political interest, campaign interest, likelihood to vote, and political

involvement. Beyond the work by Kaid and colleagues (Kaid, 2002; Kaid & Postelnicu, 2005),

little attention has been paid to understanding how voters develop image perceptions of the

candidates from exposure to their campaign Web sites.

Therefore, this study seeks to build upon prior research on advertising and debate effects

and expand research on campaign Web site effects to examine if and how perceptions of

candidate image develop differently for young voters across these three communication modes.

Delli Carpini (2004) argues that little is known about the impact of different communication

modes on groups, such as young voters. The examination of this target group and of three mass

communication modes offers the potential for a more comprehensive analysis of message effects

than the prior research has thus far assessed, as well as for a greater understanding of what

messages young people are more likely to process. To achieve this purpose, the study first poses

the following question:

RQ: Does the message mode influence how young people rate the candidates’ images?

A Pew poll (2005) reported that 52% of those who access the Internet for their political

information indicated that “the internet was important in giving them information that helped

them decide how to vote” (p. ii). While convenience remains the main reason people get their

political news online, more than half reported getting their news online because they prefer the
 Communication Modes and Candidate Image 11

ability to seek out information beyond that provided by the mainstream media (Pew, 2005).

Additionally, young people are reporting frequent Internet access for news gathering (Pew, 2005)

and Pew reported that 57% of these young web users got political information online for the

2004 election. Tedesco (2004) suggests that this increase in the Web as a source of political

news leads to the likelihood for young voters to access the Internet as the communication

medium of choice for their political information rather than traditional media (i.e., television

news, newspapers). Given the increased use of the Internet among this age group, there is a need

to examine whether this choice influences important variables such as candidate image

evaluations and how this mode of campaign communication compares to other modes for this

specific demographic. The findings of previous research with regard to young people’s media

consumption and political campaign communication modes, leads to the following hypothesis:

H1: Of the three modes tested, the candidate image ratings will be highest when the

messages are viewed through campaign Web sites.

Political Affiliation

Political affiliation has also been well documented as a strong indicator of voting

behaviors and candidate image evaluations, with political party affiliates preferring their party’s

candidate (for a review see Kaid, 2004; Paletz, 2002; Rahn, 1993; Powell & Cowart, 2003).

Considering that political socialization develops during young adulthood (Paletz, 2002), it is

quite important to learn whether political party is as strong of an indicator of voting behaviors

and candidate assessments in this demographic as it is in the adult demographic. Given that

research has repeatedly supported the influence of political affiliation within the general public,

the current study does not assume that the relationship will be different with young voters and

advances the following hypothesis:

 Communication Modes and Candidate Image 12

H2: Candidates will receive higher image ratings from young people affiliated with their

political party than from Independents or those affiliated with the other political party.

Method

A quasi-experimental procedure was used to respond to the research questions and to test

the hypotheses. In order to examine the reactions to each of the three types of messages—

televised advertisements, debates, and Web sites—groups of young voters were exposed to the

content from one of the three modes.

Participants

The participants consisted of 419 students enrolled in communication studies courses at a

large midwestern university. The participants signed up for one of the three exposures at random

and received course credit for their participation. Fifty-four percent of the participants were

women (n = 226) and 46% were men (n = 193) with a mean age of 19.97 (range = 18-25). The

majority of participants (81.4%) were Caucasian; 5.5% identified themselves as African-

American, 3.6% as Asian/Pacific Islander, 3.6% as Hispanic, 3.3% selected “other,” and 3%

refused to report their race/ethnic background. The political party affiliation of the participants

was evenly split at 35% Democrats (n = 147) and 35% Republicans (n = 147); 30% of the

participants indicated an Independent or “other” political affiliation (n = 125).

Two hundred thirty seven participants were exposed to the televised campaign

advertisements, 69 were exposed to the televised debates, and 113 were exposed to the campaign

Web sites. While efforts were made to generate comparable sample sizes, the study did result in

unequal sample sizes across the three communication modes therefore, careful attention to the

possible violation of homogeneity of variance was addressed in the data analysis.

Procedure
 Communication Modes and Candidate Image 13

The data collected for this study were gathered in conjunction with research being

conducted by the UVote 2004 national research team project. The items analyzed in this study

are a combination of questions included on the UVote questionnaire and items added specifically

for this site location. Therefore, this study reports findings from the local site location only. The

television advertising and debate stimuli to which participants were exposed were coordinated

with the larger team project.

A pre-test/post-test survey design was used for each of the sessions. In the pre-test

participants provided demographic information, rated perceptions of the presidential candidates’

images, vote choice for a presidential candidate, strength of that vote, and questions pertaining to

sources to which they turn for political information acquisition. The participants were then

exposed to one of three stimuli—televised advertisements aired on behalf of or by the

candidates, a televised debate, or the presidential candidates’ Web sites. The participants then

completed the post-test section of the questionnaire, rating their perceptions of the candidates’

images, identifying their vote choice, strength of vote, and providing responses to open-ended

about the candidates’ personal qualities that they recalled.

The television advertising group viewed one of two sets of advertisements for George W.

Bush and John Kerry.1 The first set of advertisements were shown during sessions held from

September 28 to October 2, 2004, and the second set of advertisements were shown during

sessions held from October 26 to October 29, 2004. The debate group viewed one of two

debates that aired nationally on September 30, 2004 and on October 8, 2004. Each debate

session was held in a common area of a dormitory on the university’s campus where television

access was available for a large viewing audience.

 Communication Modes and Candidate Image 14

The Web site group viewed the presidential candidate Web sites in a computer lab on the

university’s campus, where access to the Internet was consistent for all participants (i.e.,

download time was the same). Specific instructions for viewing the Web sites were provided for

each session. Participants were asked to open their Internet browsers to the first candidate’s

official Web site and were given eight minutes to view the Web site. The participants were

given no further direction regarding what areas of the site to view. At the end of eight minutes,

they were directed to the second candidate’s official Web site and given eight minutes to view

this site. The Web site viewed first was counterbalanced across groups of participants

(johnkerry.com or georgewbush.com). After viewing both Web sites the participants were asked

to close their Web browsers and continue with the last portion of the questionnaire. The Web

site sessions were conducted between Tuesday, October 19 and Tuesday, October 26, 2004, just

prior to the election.

Instruments

Candidate image was measured with a semantic differential scale widely used in research

on political candidate image (e.g., Kaid & Chanslor, 1995; Kaid et al., 1977; Kaid & Tedesco,

1999; Sanders & Pace, 1977; Tedesco & Kaid, 2003). The scale utilized a series of twelve

bipolar adjective pairs, rated on a seven-point scale, describing characteristics of candidate image

(unqualified/qualified, unsophisticated/sophisticated, dishonest/honest, believable/unbelievable,

unsuccessful/successful, attractive/unattractive, unfriendly/friendly, insincere/sincere,

calm/excitable, aggressive/unaggressive, strong/weak, inactive/active). Consistent with previous

research mean candidate image ratings were calculated for each participant. When used in

previous research the scale achieved high reliability with Cronbach’s alpha levels ranging

from .83 (Kaid, Downs, & Raga, 1990) to .92 (Kaid, Leland, & Whitney, 1992). In this study,
 Communication Modes and Candidate Image 15

reliabilities for each dimension were assessed using Cronbach’s alpha, which resulted in an alpha

of .91 for Bush and .90 for Kerry.

Party identification was measured by asking participants “Which of the following best

represents your political beliefs?” Participants were given four options to choose from

(Democrat, Republican, Independent, Other). For the purposes of data analysis, participants

indicating an “other” affiliation were grouped with the “Independents.”

Pre-test evaluations

To account for potential differences of prior exposure to campaign communication and

speaking with others about the campaign, pre-test data was examined to determine if differences

existed between participants across the three modes on the candidate image variable. Two, one-

way analysis of variance tests were conducted to evaluate the relationship between ratings of

Bush and Kerry’s image and participants in each of the three modes of exposure—televised ads,

television debates, and campaign Web sites—prior to exposure to the stimulus. The ANOVA

test for Bush’s image ratings across modes was not significant, F(2, 146) = 1.20, p = .30 and the

ANOVA for Kerry’s image ratings across modes was also not significant, F(2, 146) = .835, p

= .44. In other words, participants did not differ significantly across the three different modes in

their ratings of Bush’s image nor in their ratings of Kerry’s image prior to exposure to the stimuli

in this study, despite the potential for varied exposure to campaign messages or discussions

about the candidates occurring external to this study. Given this lack of significance in the pre-

test data, any significant differences in the ratings of candidate image following exposure were

interpreted as an effect of campaign communication mode or political affiliation rather than a

result of prior exposure.

Results
 Communication Modes and Candidate Image 16

This experiment tested two hypotheses to examine the influence communication mode

and party affiliation on candidate image. It also addressed one research question regarding the

influence of campaign communication modes—television advertisements, campaign Web site,

and televised debates—on ratings of candidate image. The hypotheses and research question

were tested through a 3 (communication mode) x 3 (political party) multivariate analysis of

variance procedure for judgments of the two candidates on the dependent variable.

Hypothesis 1 predicted that candidate image ratings would be highest when the messages

were viewed through campaign Web sites when compared to the other modes of communication.

To test this hypothesis, a multivariate analysis of variance was conducted with the image ratings

for each candidate as the dependent measures. A preliminary analysis evaluating the covariance

matrices of the dependent measures across groups indicated that the relationship between the

groups was not equal, Box’s M = 209.28, F (24, 72260) = 8.50, p = .000. Due to the unequal

variances, Pilai’s Trace, which takes this violation in account, is reported for this analysis.

Results from this analysis revealed significant main effects of party and communication

mode, and a significant party by communication mode interaction (see Table 1). Univariate tests

showed that these effects were significant for both Bush and Kerry (see Table 1). Therefore, the

party by communication mode interaction was analyzed for both candidates.

[TABLE 1 about here]

Bush Image

Simple main effects analysis indicated that communication mode had a significant effect

on Bush’s image ratings for Republicans, F (2, 144) = 59.08, p = .000, η2 =.45, and

Independents, F (2, 122) = 8.23, p = .000, η2 =.12, but not for Democrats, F (2, 144) = 1.86, p

> .05, η2 =.03. Pairwise comparisons (Green & Salkind, 2003) revealed that Republicans who
 Communication Modes and Candidate Image 17

viewed the debates rated Bush’s image significantly higher than those who viewed the televised

ads and his campaign Web site (see Table 2). Independents rated Bush’s image significantly

higher in both the debates and his campaign Web site than in televised ads (see Table 2).

[TABLE 2 about here]

Simple main effect analyses also indicated that political party had a significant effect on

Bush’s image ratings in each of the three modes of campaign communication: Ads, F (2, 234) =

37.95, p = .000, η2 = .25; Debates, F (2, 66) = 31.44, p = .000, η2 = .48; Web sites, F (2, 110) =

16.38, p = .001, η2 = .23. Pairwise comparisons (Green & Salkind, 2003) revealed that

Republicans rated Bush’s image significantly higher in his ads than did Independents and

Democrats. With regard to the debates, participants from each political party varied significantly

in their ratings of Bush’s image with Republicans rating his image highest, followed by

Independents, and Democrats rating his image lowest. Finally, Independents rated Bush’s image

significantly higher in his Web site than did Republicans and Democrats.

Kerry Image

Following the procedures outlined by Green and Salkind (2003), simple main effects of

communication mode on image ratings for each candidate were examined within political party.

These analyses indicated that judgments of Kerry’s image varied significantly across the three

communication modes for participants in each political party: Democrats, F (2, 144) = 33.64, p =

.000, η2 = .32; Republicans, F (2, 144) = 9.64, p = .000, η2 = .12; Independents, F (2, 122) = 4.25,

p < .05, η2 = .07. Pairwise comparisons (Green & Salkind, 2003) revealed that Democrats who

viewed the debates rated Kerry’s image significantly higher than those who viewed televised ads

and his campaign Web site (see Table 2). In contrast, Republicans who saw the debates rated

Kerry’s image significantly lower than those who viewed the televised ads and his campaign
 Communication Modes and Candidate Image 18

Web site (see Table 2). Finally, Independents who viewed the debates rated Kerry’s image

significantly higher than those who viewed his campaign Web site, while ratings from

Independents who viewed the ads did not differ significantly from those for the other two

communication modes (see Table 2).

Simple main effect analyses also indicated that political party had a significant effect on

Kerry’s image ratings in each of the three modes of campaign communication: Ads, F (2, 234) =

19.04, p = .000, η2 = .14; Debates, F (2, 66) = 33.31, p = .000, η2 = .50; Web sites, F (2, 110) =

7.69, p = .001, η2 = .12. Pairwise comparisons (Green & Salkind, 2003) revealed that Democrats

rated Kerry’s image significantly higher in his ads than did Independents and Republicans. With

regard to the debates, participants from each political party varied significantly in their ratings of

Kerry’s image with Democrats rating his image highest, followed by Independents, and

Republicans rating his image lowest. Finally, Democrats rated Kerry’s image significantly

higher in his Web site than did Independents, while the Republicans’ ratings of Kerry’s image

did not differ significantly from the ratings by Democrats or Independents.

Summary

These results provide little support for Hypothesis 1 that participants who viewed the

Web sites would give candidates the highest image ratings. In two instances (Republicans rating

Kerry and Independents rating Bush) participants who viewed Web sites gave higher ratings to

the candidates than those who viewed one of the other communication modes. However in both

of those cases, the Web site ratings were equivalent to the rating from the third mode. Viewing

the debates led to the highest candidate image ratings in three cases: Republicans rating Bush,

Democrats rating Kerry, and Independents rating Kerry.

Hypothesis two received more support with candidates receiving higher image ratings
 Communication Modes and Candidate Image 19

from young people affiliated with their political party than from Independents or those affiliated

with the other political party, with one exception. For Bush, Republicans rated his image higher

in both his ads and the debates than both the Independents and Democrats. In the Websites,

however, the Independents rated Bush’s image higher than did the Republicans and Democrats.

John Kerry’s image was rated highest by the Democrats in each of the three modes of campaign

communication.

In this study, the overall mean image ratings of the candidates centered around the mid-

point of the image scale. The candidate image measure utilized a semantic differential scale with

a series of twelve bipolar adjective pairs, rated on a seven-point scale with higher values

representing higher candidate image ratings. For Bush’s image, the Democrats rated him below

the scale mid-point in each of the three forms of communication, while the Republicans and

Independents rated him above the scale mid-point in each of the three forms of communication.

In contrast, Kerry’s image was rated below the scale mid-point only once (Republicans rating in

the debates). Although several ratings were above the scale mid-point of “4.0,” the average

ratings for each candidate were never greater than 4.88, which indicate a relatively neutral image

rating for both candidates.

Discussion

This study examined how young people respond to political candidates, specifically the

2004 Presidential candidates. Of importance was the effect of three candidate-controlled, mass

communication modes—televised advertisements, televised debates, and campaign Web sites—

on how young voters rated the candidates’ images. From a review of the literature, the study

advanced one research question and two hypotheses. The research question inquired whether

message mode influenced how young people rated the candidates’ images and was coupled with
 Communication Modes and Candidate Image 20

a hypothesis that predicted the candidate images would be rated most positively by the group

viewing the campaign Web sites. The results indicated that differences existed in the candidates’

image ratings based on the type of communication mode to which the subjects were exposed.

Of the three modes examined, the study hypothesized that the ratings of candidate image

by young people would be highest when viewed through the Web sites. This hypothesis was not

supported by the results despite research indicating an increase in the use of the Web as a source

of political information among the young voter demographic. For instance, the Pew Research

Center [Pew] reported that the Internet was an important source of information when deciding

for whom to vote for a majority (52%) of Internet users in the 2004 election (Pew, 2005).

Additionally, 57% of young voters who accessed the Internet during the campaign did so to

obtain political information (Pew). However, while young people may prefer to get their

political information online (Pew; Tedesco, 2004), the results in this study indicate that exposure

to candidate messages on campaign Web sites does not necessarily lead to higher evaluations of

candidate image when compared to evaluations generated after exposure to candidate messages

from other modes of campaign communication. While ratings of candidate image were not

significantly higher following exposure to the campaign Web sites, significant differences did

emerge with both candidate’s images being rated highest overall following exposure to the

campaign debates.

This increase in ratings of candidate image following exposure to the debates provides

support for McKinney, Dudash, and Hodgkinson’s (2003) claim that debates have an influence

on evaluations of candidate images because the extended time of viewing provides an

opportunity for voters to assess and better understand the candidates’ personalities and images.

Specifically, this study’s results indicated that young people who were affiliated with a political
 Communication Modes and Candidate Image 21

party—Democrat or Republican—rated the image of their party’s candidate significantly higher

in the debates that in advertising or campaign Web sites, findings that confirm earlier work on

partisanship and debate effects (McKinnon et al., 1993; Payne, Golden, Marlier, & Ratzan,

1989). In other words, young Democrats rated Kerry’s image significantly higher when they

were exposed to the debates than when exposed to either the televised ads or the campaign Web

site; and young Republicans rated Bush’s image significantly higher in the debates than in the

televised ads or the campaign Web site. Conversely, young party affiliates rated the image of the

opposing party’s candidate lower in the debates when compared with the other modes of

campaign communication, although the some of these differences by mode were not statistically

significant.

While these findings do not support hypothesis one—which predicted candidate image

ratings would be highest when messages were viewed through campaign Web sites—they do

support hypothesis two—candidates will receive higher image ratings from young people

affiliated with their political party than from those affiliated with the opposing party. The results

indicate that, for young people affiliated with a political party, the debates provide a significant

point of comparison between the candidates that may serve to strengthen allegiance to the party

and/or the candidate. Similarly, McKinney and Carlin (2004) noted that debates result in very

little change in voters who have made a candidate choice, but instead debates are more likely to

serve as a means through which vote choices can be solidified for these viewers. As a result,

political candidates may be best served if young party affiliates are exposed to the presidential

debates in an effort to strengthen a candidate choice.

Additionally, young people who considered themselves as Independents also rated each

candidate’s image higher following exposure to the debates when compared to other modes of
 Communication Modes and Candidate Image 22

communication, thus further providing no support for hypothesis one that ratings would be

highest from exposure to the Web sites. Specifically, young Independents rated Bush’s image

significantly higher in the debates than in his televised ads, and, while not significant, they also

rated him higher in the debates compared to his Web site. For Kerry, the Independent voters

rated his image significantly higher in the debates compared to his Web site and higher in the

debates than his televised ads, although this last comparison was not significant. Thus, the

results of this study indicate that both of the candidates were best able to enhance their image

with young Independents during the debates, just as they were able to do with their own party’s

affiliates. Although the findings are not statistically significant in all instances (see Table 2), the

results are important in an effort to understand the value of campaign debates for presidential

candidates with regard to young Independent/unaffiliated voters.

Prior research has indicated that campaign debates may have more influence on

unaffiliated, undecided, and weakly committed voters than on decided voters or party affiliates

(Chaffee & Choe, 1980; Geer, 1998; Kraus & Davis, 1981; McKinney, 1994), particularly with

regard to candidate assessment and vote choice. McKinney and Carlin (2004) have argued that

viewing debates may aid in forming voting preferences, solidifying voting choices, and

providing reasons for a change in candidate selection for undecided voters. Specifically with

regard to the 2004 presidential election, Bush and Kerry courted “undecided voters” and

Independents. In addition, the “swing states,” those on which neither party had a strong hold,

received much attention from the campaigns.

Given that candidate image ratings were highest in the campaign debates and given the

previous literature attesting to the influence of debates on voting decisions for undecided and

unaffiliated voters, it seems that the debates are the mode of campaign communication where
 Communication Modes and Candidate Image 23

candidates may best be able to positively influence their image with young Independent voters.

Unlike party affiliates, Independents do not have a personal party cue to assist them in evaluating

and making a connection with a candidate, which may explain why the debates afford them the

opportunity to gather information they can use in forming an image of the candidates to use in

their voting decisions. Although these results echo those that indicate the importance of debates

for party affiliates, the findings with regard to influence of debates on Independent voters

provide a strong argument for campaign debates as a vital mode of communication for

Presidential candidates.

Therefore, the findings of this study serve to reinforce the claim that campaign debates

are vital to the citizenry’s evaluations of the candidates because they serve as platform for

comparing the candidates (McKinney & Carlin, 2004; Racine Group, 2002). The Racine Group

claimed that debates do matter, citizens do learn from them, and citizens use the information in

their voting decisions. This study’s findings support that claim and confirm its application to

young voters in particular as an addition to those studies focused on the public in general.

Although the debates may serve as an important opportunity for young people to

formulate their perceptions of each candidate’s image, this effect may not be widespread given

that few young people actually watch the campaign debates in part or in full when compared to

the general public (Patterson, 2005). While 28% of adults (over age 30) watched all of the first

debate, only 14% of young adults (18-29 year olds) watched the full debate—half the number of

older adult viewers (Patterson). Even more alarming is that 41% of young adults did not tune in

to watch any of the first debate (Patterson). Considering this apparent lack of interest in the

debates by young people, perhaps more needs to be done to encourage young people to watch the

campaign debates. Initiatives such as DebateWatch provide an example of a program that

 Communication Modes and Candidate Image 24

affords young people the opportunity to watch the debates and then discuss and clarify their

learning through open dialogue with other citizens. Buehler’s dissertation (2004) attests to the

importance of a public forum, such as DebateWatch, in which young voters in particular can

discuss their opinions and feel that they are valid. Given that campaign debates provide young

voters a valuable opportunity for learning about candidate images, programs and initiatives

whose purpose is to encourage political engagement of young people would do well to first

encourage young voters to tune in to the debates and then generate continued interest through

teaching young people how to seek out relevant political information through various sources,

such as campaign Web sites, newspapers, network and cable news, and other political news Web

sites. Providing additional emphasis that builds on what they learned in the debates may be

beneficial for encouraging interest by young people during the campaign that can be carried over

to participation at the polls on Election Day and perhaps even beyond.

Limitations and Future Research

This study utilized a quasi-experimental design to examine the responses to the 2004

Presidential candidates by young people. As in any other experimental study the current study

was able to control and manipulate certain variables but may lack the spontaneity of naturally

occurring communication situations.

While conducting this experiment during the course of the actual campaign is one

strength of this study, the campaign itself presents a potential limitation. Given that the

Presidential election is widely covered by the media—both mainstream and alternative—many

citizens had made a decision early in this campaign season regarding for whom to vote.

Additionally, President Bush was running for re-election, which meant that the public entered the

general election with four years of exposure to him as President, a timeframe in which voters had
 Communication Modes and Candidate Image 25

undoubtedly developed their perception of his image as a presidential candidate and as president.

that allowed the opportunity for constructing an image of him in their minds. Therefore,

research comparing multiple mode message effects could be particularly insightful when

conducted during open-seat Presidential elections. Future research should also focus on lesser-

known candidates, such as is often the case in lower-level races, to determine how exposure to

the different modes of communication influence ratings of candidates in low-information races.

Conclusions

The purpose of this study was to examine the responses of young people to political

candidates. Specifically, the study was designed to examine the influence of three modes of

candidate-controlled mass campaign communication—televised campaign advertising, televised

debates, and campaign Web sites—on ratings of candidate image. This study contributes to the

growing body of research on the effects of various modes of campaign communication on

important variables that might contribute to decisions for whom to vote. The experiment

revealed that communication mode does have an effect on how young people view the

candidates’ image. More importantly, the results indicated that this variable is influenced

differently by the modes with image being rated highest in the campaign debates. It seems as

though the modes of campaign communication in which young people must actively seek

information—campaign Web sites—or in which the candidates appear live—televised debates—

are the ones that are more appealing to this young generation who grew up with computers,

video games, reality television shows, and the Internet as forms of entertainment. As candidates

look to new ways to appeal to this large, but underrepresented voting group, the results seem to

indicate that they can best do this through new or active forms of campaign communication.
 Communication Modes and Candidate Image 26

Ultimately, young people have been an enigma in U.S. electoral politics. As a group,

young voters have not yet been mobilized in large numbers in an election, but significant strides

have been made over the past few election cycles. Young voters will continue to be a group

increasingly courted by candidates in elections. As this group continues to become important, it

is essential to understand how they respond to and connect with political candidates since

citizens go to the voting booth to cast a vote for a specific person. If candidates better

understand how young people respond to them, then they will not only serve their self-interest by

appealing to this group, but also serve the public interest by encouraging the political

engagement of young voters.

 Communication Modes and Candidate Image 27

References

Benoit, W. L., McKinney, M. S., & Stephenson, M. T. (2002). Effects of watching primary

debates in the 2000 U.S. presidential campaign. Journal of Communication, 52, 316-331.

Best, S. J., & Hubbard, C., (1999). Maximizing “minimal effects:” The impact of early primary

season debates on voter preferences. American Politics Quarterly, 27, 450-467.

Buehler, S. E. (2004). Interpreting political messages: Political awareness and Background

knowledge among young voters. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The University of

Kansas: Lawrence, KS.

Chaffee, S. H., & Choe, S. Y. (1980). Time of decision and media use during the Ford-Carter

campaign. Public Opinion Quarterly, 44, 53-69.

Cundy, D. T. (1986). Political commercials and candidate image: The effects can be substantial.

In L. L. Kaid, D. Nimmo, & K. R. Sanders (Eds.), New perspectives on political

advertising (pp. 210-234). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Dailey, W. O., Hinck, E. A., & Hinck, S. S., (2005). Audience perceptions of politeness and

advocacy skills in the 2000 and 2004 presidential debates. Argumentation and Advocacy,

41, 196-210.

Delli Carpini, M. X. (2004). Mediating democratic engagement: The impact of communications

on citizens’ involvement in political and civic life. In, L. L. Kaid (Ed.), Handbook of

Political Communication Research (pp. 395-434). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates, Inc.

Friedkin, K. L., & Kenney, P. J. (2004). Do negative messages work? The impact of negativity

on citizens’ evaluations of candidates. American Politics Research, 32, 570-605.

 Communication Modes and Candidate Image 28

Geer, J. G. (1988). The effects of presidential debates on the electorate’s preferences for

candidates. American Politics Quarterly, 16, 486-501.

Green, S. B., & Salkind, N. J. (2003). Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh: Analyzing and

Understanding Data (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hacker, K. (Ed.) (1995). Candidate Images in Presidential Elections. New York: Praeger.

Hacker, K. L. (Ed.) (2004). Presidential candidate images. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Jasperson, A. E., & Fan, D. P. (2002). An aggregate examination of the backlash effect in

political advertising: The case of the 1996 U.S. senate race in Minnesota. Journal of

Advertising, 21, 1-12.

Johnson, T. J. & Kaye, B. K. (2003). A boost or bust for democracy?: How the Web influenced

political attitudes and behaviors in the 1996 and 2000 presidential elections.

Press/Politics, 8, 9-34.

Just, M., Crigler, A., & Wallach, L. (1990). Thirty seconds or thirty minutes: What viewers learn

from spot advertisements and candidate debates. Journal of Communication, 40, 120-133.

Kaid, L. L. (1981). Political advertising. In D. Nimmo and K. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of

Political Communication (pp. 249, 271). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Kaid, L. L. (1982). Paid television advertising and candidate name identification. Campaigns

and Elections, 3 (Spring), 34-36.

Kaid, L. L. (1997). Effects of the television spots on images of Dole and Clinton. American

Behavioral Scientist, 40, 1085-1094.

Kaid, L. L. (2002). Political advertising and information seeking: Comparing the exposure view

traditional and Internet media channels. Journal of Advertising, 31, 27-35.

 Communication Modes and Candidate Image 29

Kaid, L. L. (2003). Comparing Internet and traditional media: Effects of voters. American

Behavioral Scientist, 46, 677-691.

Kaid, L. L. (2004). Political advertising. In L. L. Kaid, (Ed.), Handbook of political

communication research, (pp. 155-202). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kaid, L. L. & Chanslor, M. (2004). The effects of political advertising on candidate images. In.

K. L. Hacker (Ed.). Presidential Candidate Images (pp. 133-150). Lanham, MD:

Rowman & Littlefield.

Kaid, L. L., Downs, V. C., & Ragan, R. (1990). Political argumentation and violations of

audience expectations: An analysis of the Bush-Rather encounter. Journal of

Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 34, 1-15.

Kaid, L. L. & Johnston, A. (2001). Political advertising content & effects. In, Videostyle in

Presidential Campaigns: Style and Content of Televised Political Advertising, (pp.

13-24). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Kaid, L. L., Leland, C. M., & Whitney, S. (1992). The impact of televised political ads: Evoking

viewer responses in the 1988 Presidential campaign. Southern Communication Journal,

57, 285-295.

Kaid, L. L. & Postelnicu, M. (2004). Political advertising in the 2004 election: Comparison of

traditional television and Internet messages. American Behavioral Scientist, 49, 265-278.

Kaid, L. L., Singleton, D. L., & Davis, D. (1977). Instant analysis of televised political

addresses: The speaker versus the commentator. In B. Ruben (Ed.), Communication

Yearbook I (pp. 453-464). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Katz. E., & Feldman, J. (1962). The debates in light of research: A survey of surveys. In S. Kraus

(Ed.), The Great Debates (pp. 173-223). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
 Communication Modes and Candidate Image 30

Kern, M., & Just, M. (1995). The focus group method, political advertising, campaign news, and

the construction of candidate images. Political Communication, 12, 127-145.

King, D. C., & Matland, R. E. (2003). Sex and the Grand Old Party: An experimental

investigation of the effect of candidate sex on support for a Republican candidate.

American Politics Research, 31, 595-612.

Kraus, S., & Davis, D. K. (1981). Political debates. In D. D. Nimmo & K. R. Sanders (Eds.),

Handbook of Political Communication (pp. 273-296). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Lanoue, D. J., & Schrot, P. R. (1991). The joint press conference: The history, impact, and

prospects of American presidential debates. New York: Greenwood.

Lopez, M. H., Kirby, E., & Sagoff, J. (2005, July). The youth vote 2004. The Center for

Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement. Retrieved August 1,

2005, from http://www.civicyouth.org

McKinney, M. S. (1994). Design and implementation of the focus group study. In D. B. Carlin &

M. S. McKinney (Eds), The 1992 presidential debates in focus (pp. 21-35). New York:

Praeger.

McKinney, M. S., & Carlin, D. B. (2004). Political Campaign Debates. In L. L. Kaid (Ed.),

Handbook of Political Communication Research (pp. 203-234). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

McKinney, M. S., Dudash, E. A., & Hodgkinson, G. (2003). Viewer reactions to the 2000

presidential debates: Learning issue and image information. In L. L. Kaid, J. C. Tedesco,

D. G. Bystrom, & M. M. McKinney (Eds.), The millennium election: Communication in

the 2000 campaign (pp. 43-58). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
 Communication Modes and Candidate Image 31

McKinney, M. S., Kaid, L. L., & Robertson, T. A. (2001). The front-runner, contenders, and

also-rans: Effects of watching a 2000 Republican primary debate. American Behavioral

Scientist, 44, 2232-2251.

McKinnon, L. M., Tedesco, J. C., & Kaid, L. L. (1993). The third 1992 Presidential debate:

Channel and commentary effects. Argumentation and Advocacy, 30, 106-118.

McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding Media. New York, American Library.

Miller, A. H., Wattenberg, M. P., & Malanchuk, O. (1984). Cognitive representations of

candidate assessments. In K. R. Sanders, L. L. Kaid, & D. Nimmo (Eds.), Political

communication yearbook (pp. 183-210). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University

Press.

Nimmo, D., & Savage, R. L. (1976). Candidates and their images: Concepts, methods, and

findings. Pacific Palisades, CA: Goodyear Publishing Company, Inc.

Paletz, D. L. (2002). Political Socialization. In, The media in American politics: Contents and

consequences (2nd ed.), (pp. 130-153). New York: Longman.

Patterson, T. E. (2005, February 2). Young voters and the 2004 election. Retrieved March 1,

2006, from www.vanishingvoter.org.

Payne, J. G., Golden, J. L., Marlier, J., & Ratzan, S. C. (1989). Perceptions of the 1988

presidential and vice-presidential debates. American Behavioral Scientist, 32, 425-435.

Pew Research Center for the People and the Press (2004, September 30). Young people more

engaged, more uncertain. Retrieved September 1, 2005 from www.pewinternet.org.

Pew Research Center for the People and the Press (2005, March). The Internet and Campaign

2004. Retrieved March 7, 2005 from www.pewinternet.org.

 Communication Modes and Candidate Image 32

Pfau, M., Cho, J., & Chong, K. (2001). Communication forms in U.S. Presidential campaigns:

Influences on candidate perceptions and the democratic process. Press/Politics, 6,

88-105.

Powell, L., & Cowart, J. (2003). Political campaign communication: Inside and out. Boston:

Allyn and Bacon.

Racine Group (2002). White paper on televised political campaign debates. Argumentation and

Advocacy, 38, 199-218.

Rahn, W. M. (1993). The role of partisan stereotypes in information processing about political

candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 472-496.

Sanders, K. R., & Pace, T. J. (1977). The influence of speech communication on the image of a

political candidate. In B. Ruben (Ed.), Communication Yearbook I (pp. 465-472). New

Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Self, J. W. (2005). The first debate over the debates: How Kennedy and Nixon negotiated the

1960 presidential debates. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 35, 361-375.

Sundar, S. S., Kalyanaraman, S., Brown, J. (2003). Explicating web site interactivity: Impression

formation effects in political campaign sites. Communication Research, 30, 30-59.

Tedesco, J. C. (2006). Web interactivity and young adult political efficacy. In, A. P. Williams

& J. C. Tedesco (Eds.), The Internet Election: Perspectives on the web in campaign 2004

(pp. 187-202). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Tedesco, J. C., & Kaid, L. L. (2003). Style and effects of the Bush and Gore spots. In L. L. Kaid,

J. C. Tedesco, D. G. Bystrom, & M. S. McKinney (Eds.), The millennium election:

Communication in the 2000 campaigns (pp. 5-16). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
 Communication Modes and Candidate Image 33

Tedesco, J. C. (2004). Changing the channel: Use of the Internet for communicating about

politics. In L. L. Kaid, (Ed.), Handbook of political communication research, (pp.

507-532). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

 Communication Modes and Candidate Image 34

Footnotes

1. The television advertising stimuli to which participants were exposed was coordinated

with the UVote 2004 national research team project and the compilation of

advertisements was selected by the research team as representative of the advertisements

being aired at the time of data collection. This study used two different UVote 2004 ad

compilations—one from late September 2004 and another from late October 2004.
 Communication Modes and Candidate Image 35

Table 1
Analysis of Variance for Bush Image and Kerry Image by Participant Party and Communication Mode

Source df Error df F η2 p
Multivariate Test
Party* 4 820 51.47 .20 .000
Communication Mode* 4 820 14.85 .07 .000
Party x Mode* 8 820 17.65 .15 .000
Univariate Tests Party
Bush Image* 2 410 83.90 .29 .000
Kerry Image* 2 410 50.99 .20 .000
Univariate Tests Communication Mode
Bush Image* 2 410 20.47 .09 .000
Kerry Image* 2 410 10.64 .05 .000
Univariate Tests Party X Mode
Bush Image* 4 410 21.69 .18 .000
Kerry Image* 4 410 20.50 .17 .000
*significant at the p<.001 level

Table 2
Means and Standard Deviations for Bush Image and Kerry Image by Participant Communication Mode
and Party

Communication Mode
Ads Debates Web site Total
M SD M SD M SD M SD
Bush Image
Democrat 3.942 0.62 3.671 0.97 3.711 0.91 3.83 0.78
Republican 4.63a1 0.45 6.17b2 1.13 4.33a2 0.53 4.88 0.95
Independent 4.08a2 0.61 4.66b3 1.17 4.52b2 0.49 4.33 0.69
Total 4.26 0.63 4.90 1.60 4.20 0.76
Kerry Image
Democrat 4.51a1 0.40 5.66b1 0.84 4.66a1 0.83 4.75 0.76
Republican 4.07b2 0.58 3.81b2 0.94 4.60a 0.41 4.10 0.68
Independent 4.332 0.41 4.56a3 0.57 4.16a2 0.56 4.29 0.51
Total 4.28 0.52 4.67 1.16 4.42 0.69
Note: Means in each row with different lettered superscripts differ significantly at p<.008.
Means in each column with different numbered superscripts differ significantly at p<.008.
Scale: Candidate image was measured on a 12-item, 7-point semantic differential scale with higher
values representing higher candidate image ratings