Testing cognitive and interpersonal asymmetry vs. symmetry among voters in the 2020 Presidential primaries

During the 2020 U.S. Presidential primary season, we measured candidate support and cognitive and interpersonal variables associated with political ideology among 831 U.S. participants. Cognitive style variables included openness to experience, active open-minded thinking, dogmatism, and preference for one right answer. Interpersonal variables were compassion and empathy. We modeled candidate support across the political spectrum, ranging from the most conservative to the most liberal (Trump, Bloomberg, Biden, Warren, Sanders), testing competing pre-registered predictions informed by the symmetry and asymmetry perspectives on political ideology. Specifically, we tested whether mean levels on the variables of interest across candidate supporters conformed to patterns consistent with symmetry (i.e., a curvilinear pattern with supporters of relatively extreme candidates being similar to each other relative to supporters of moderate candidates) vs. asymmetry (e.g., linear differences across supporters of liberal vs. conservative candidates). Results broadly supported the asymmetry perspective: Supporters of liberal candidates were generally lower on cognitive rigidity and higher on interpersonal warmth than supporters of conservative candidates. Results and implications are discussed.

Do high engagement Instagram images influence presidential candidate evaluation? The moderating effect of familiarity

PurposeThis paper aims to examine how exposure to a presidential candidate's high engagement Instagram images influences a citizen's candidate evaluations.Design/methodology/approachData were collected via Amazon MTurk. A 3 × 2 experimental design was employed to test the persuasive effect of exposure of the “most liked” and “most commented on” images of the top four 2016 US presidential primary candidates on a US citizen's candidate evaluation.FindingsResults reveal that highly engaging Instagram images of unfamiliar presidential candidates positively influenced candidate evaluations. However, the same was not true for more well-known presidential candidates.Research limitations/implicationsThis study was not conducted during a live campaign and only examined four of the top 2016 presidential primary candidates.Practical implicationsThe research includes implications for marketers seeking to increase engagement and reach in Instagram marketing campaigns. This study shows that even brief exposure to a highly engaged post involving an unfamiliar person/product on social media can significantly alter evaluations of that person or product.Originality/valueTo the authors' knowledge, no experimental designs have addressed how Instagram posts influence users' political attitudes and behaviors within the political marketing and communications literature.

Provoste wins Chile's centre-left presidential primary

Headline CHILE: Provoste wins centre-left presidential primary

Strategic functions of linguistic impoliteness in US primary election debates

Since presidential primary debates in US election campaigns serve the function of identifying the most promising nominee for the subsequent presidency, they constitute a highly adversarial multilogue. Debaters do not only exchange factual arguments but also use diverse forms of impoliteness geared towards damaging the public image of political opponents and persuading audiences to vote accordingly. Combining political discourse analysis with pragmatic approaches to impoliteness, this paper examines the ways in which verbal aggression in debates inflicts damage on the addressee’s positive and negative face. On the basis of five Democratic and five Republican debates from 2016, it is shown that impolite utterances fulfil the four central strategic functions of (a) delegitimization, (b) coercion, (c) entertainment, and (d) (self-)defence, all of which support the macro-function of political persuasion through the construction of personal preferability.

Politics and Politeness: Analysis of Incivility on Twitter During the 2020 Democratic Presidential Primary

In the past decade, social networking sites have become central forums for public discourse and political engagement. Of particular interest is the role that Twitter plays in the facilitation of political discourse. To this end, the existing literature argues that a healthy political discussion space is key to maintaining a trusting and robust democratic society. Using Suler’s online disinhibition effect as a theoretical orientation, this study seeks to address the extent of incivility on Twitter in discourse regarding the top three 2020 Democratic primary candidates. A total corpus of 18,237,296 tweets was analyzed in an effort to assess the extent to which incivility dominated Twitter discourse surrounding these candidates. Our results reveal that tweets that mention Senator Elizabeth Warren were associated with higher levels of uncivil discourse than tweets that mentioned Senator Bernie Sanders and former Vice President Joe Biden. Interestingly, there does not appear to be a relationship with anonymity and incivility, as uncivil tweets were just as likely to originate from tweets that identified users’ names as they were to originate from anonymous or pseudonymous accounts. Finally, our findings provide evidence that certain policy issues are more closely related to uncivil discourse than others. Through the use of k-means clustering, our findings illustrate that the issue of gun control and immigration is closely related with mentions of Warren and fiscal policy with Sanders; however, we did not find any policy keywords linked to Biden.

More than “Fake News”?

While the debate around the prevalence and potential effects of fake news has received considerable scholarly attention, less research has focused on how political elites and pundits weaponized fake news to delegitimize the media. In this study, we examine the rhetoric in 2020 U.S. presidential primary candidates Facebook advertisements. Our analysis suggests that Republican and Democratic candidates alike attack and demean the news media on several themes, including castigating them for malicious gatekeeping, for being out of touch with the views of the public, and for being a bully. Only Trump routinely attacks the news media for trafficking in falsehoods and for colluding with other interests to attack his candidacy. Our findings highlight the ways that candidates instrumentalize the news media for their own rhetorical purposes; further constructing the news media as harmful to democracy.

Do Presidential Primary Debates Increase Political Polarization?

This study presents the results of a quasi-experiment to assess the effects of viewing a strategically manipulated portion of a 2020 Democratic Primary debate. Our aim was to assess the polarizing potential of primary debates on both ingroup (Democratic) and outgroup (Republican) viewers. Viewing the primary debate resulted in less perceived closeness with members of the opposing political party, greater feelings of social distance, and more attribution of malevolent intentions. These effects were consistent regardless of whether the viewer was a member of the political ingroup (Democrats) or outgroup (Republicans). Conversely, there was no effect of debate viewing on evaluations of outparty candidates (with respect to negative trait attributions or lower feeling thermometer evaluations)., nor did support for political compromise change as a result of viewing the debate. Both Democrats and independents reported improved evaluations of participating candidates, though Republican evaluations did not change.