The role of background behavior in televised debates: Does displaying nonverbal agreement and/or disagreement benefit either debater?

Journal of Social Psychology

Volumn 150, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 278-300

  Seiter, John ^a   Weger Jr , Harry ^b   Jensen, Andrea ^a   Kinzer, Harold ^a  

^a UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA   (United States)

Author keywords

Debate; Impression management; Nonverbal communication; Persuasion; Television

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; CONFLICT; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION; PERCEPTION; PERSUASIVE COMMUNICATION; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; SOCIOMETRIC STATUS; SPEECH; TELEVISION;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ATTENTION; DISSENT AND DISPUTES; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION; PERSUASIVE COMMUNICATION; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; SOCIAL PERCEPTION; SOCIOMETRIC TECHNIQUES; SPEECH; TELEVISION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 77953821076     PISSN: 00224545     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00224540903510811     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Andersen, P. A. (2004). Influential actions: Nonverbal communication and persuasion. In J. S. Seiter & R. H. Gass (Eds.), Perspectives on persuasion, social influence, and compliance gaining (pp. 165-180), Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
2. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
3. Bennett, A. (1981). Interruptions and the interpretation of conversation. Discourse Processes, 4, 171-188.
4. Benoit, W. L., McKinney, M. S., & Holbert, R. L. (2001). Beyond learning and persona: Extending the scope of presidential debate effects. Communication Monographs, 68, 259-273.
5. Burgoon, J. K., & LePoire, B. A. (1993). Effects of communication expectancies, actual communication, and expectancy disconfirmation on evaluations of communicators and their communication behavior. Human Communciation Research, 20, 67-96.
6. CBS News (2008, October 16). Uncommitted voters and the final presidential debate. Retrieved March 11, 2009, from http://www.cbsnews.com/ htdocs/pdf/2008Debate3.pdf
7. Chambliss, C. A., & Feeny, N. (1992). Effects of sex of subject, sex of interrupter, and topic of conversation on the perception of interruptions. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 75 (3), 1235-1241.
8. Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Influence: Science and practice (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
9. Dailey, W. O., Hinck, E. A., & Hinck, S. S. (2008). Politeness in presidential debates: Shaping Political face in campaign debates from 1960 to 2004. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
10. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Anchor/ Doubleday.
11. Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce? Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
12. Harris, J. F., & Vandehei, J. (2008, October 16). Debate III: McCain sheds no new light. Politico. Retrieved March 11, 2009, from http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/ 14620.html
13. LaFrance, M. (1992). Gender and interruption: Individual infraction or violation of the social order? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 16, 497-512.
14. Leathers, D. G. (1997). Successful nonverbal communication: principles and applications (3rd ed). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
15. Levine, T. R., Anders, L. N., Banas, J., Baum, K. L., Endo, K., Hu, A. D. S., et al. (2000). Norms, expectations, and deception: A norm violation model of veracity judgments. Communication Monographs, 67, 123-137.
16. Luntz Research Companies (2004, October 1). Florida swing voters speak: Kerry swings the swing vote. Retrieved December 20, 2004, from http://www.luntz.com/recentfindings.htm
17. McCroskey, J. C., Hamilton, P. R., & Weiner, A. M. (1974). The effect of interaction behavior on source credibility, homophily, and interpersonal attraction. Human Communication Research, 1, 42-52.
18. McCroskey, J. C., Jenson, T., & Valencia, C. (1973, April). Measurement of the credibility of peers and spouses. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Montreal, Canada.
19. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
20. Petty, R. E., Rucker, D. D., Bizer, G. Y., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2004). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In J. S. Seiter & R. H. Gass (Eds.), Perspectives on persuasion, social influence, and compliance gaining (pp. 65-89), Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
21. Pfau, M., & Kang, J. G. (1991) The impact of relational messages on candidate influence in televised political debates. Communication Studies, 42(2), 114-128.
22. Place, K. S., & Becker, J. A. (1991). The influence of pragmatic competence on the likeability of grade-school children. Discourse Processes, 14, 227-241.
23. Remland, M. (1982). The implicit ad hominem fallacy: Nonverbal displays of status in argumentative discourse. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 19, 79-86.
24. Robinson, L. F., & Reis, H. T. (1989). The effects of interruption, gender, and status on interpersonal perception. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 13, 141-153.
25. Rosenthal, R., Rosnow, R. L. & Rubin, D. B. (2000). Contrasts and effect sizes in behavioral research: A correlational approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.
26. Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
27. Schneider, W. (2000). Al Gore's problem. National Journal, 32, 3450.
28. Schrott, P. R., & Lanoue, D. J. (1992). How to win a televised debate: Candidate strategies and voter response in Germany, 1972-87. British Journal of Political Science, 22, 445-467.
29. Segrin, C. (1993). The effects of nonverbal behavior on outcomes of compliance-gaining attempts. Communication Studies, 44, 169-187.
30. Seiter, J. S. (1999). Does communicating nonverbal disagreement during an opponent's speech affect the credibility of the debater in the background? Psychological Reports, 84, 855-861.
31. Seiter, J. S. (2001). Silent derogation and perceptions of deceptiveness: Does communicating nonverbal disbelief during an opponent's speech affect perceptions of debaters' veracity? Communication Research Reports, 7(2), 203-209.
32. Seiter, J. S., Abraham, J. A., & Nakagama, B. T. (1998). Split-screen versus singlescreen formats in televised debates: Does access to an opponent's nonverbal behaviors affect viewers' perceptions of a speaker's credibility? Perceptual and Motor Skills, 86, 491-497.
33. Seiter, J. S., Kinzer, H. J., & Weger, H. (2006). Background Behavior in Live Debates: The Effects of the Implicit Ad Hominem Fallacy. Communication Reports, 19(1), 57-69.
34. Seiter, J. S., & Weger, H., Jr. (2005). Audience perceptions of candidates' appropriateness as a function of nonverbal behaviors displayed during televised political debates. The Journal of Social Psychology, 145, 225-235.
35. Seiter, J. S., Weger, H., Jr., Kinzer, H. J., & Jensen, A. S. (2009). Impression management in televised debates: The effect of background nonverbal behavior on audience perceptions of debaters' likeability. Communication Research Reports, 26, 1-11.
36. Sigelman, L., & Sigelman, C. K. (1984) Judgments of the Carter-Reagan debate: the eyes of The beholders. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 48, 624-628.
37. Tedeschi, J. T., & Reiss, M. (1981). Identities, the phenomenal self, and laboratory research. In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.), Impression management theory and social psychological research (pp. 3-22). New York: Academic Press.
38. Tracy, K. (2002). Everyday talk: Building and reflecting identities. London: The Guilford Press.
39. Walls, S. C. (2008, October 15). "Angry McCain" at final debate already famous on Youtube. The Huffington Post. Retrieved April 21, 2009, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/ 10/15/angry-mccain-at-final-deb-n-135071. html
40. Walster, E., Aronsen, E., & Abrahams, D. (1966). On increasing the persuasiveness of a low prestige communicator. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 325-342.
41. Zajonc, R.B. (1968). Attitude effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Monograph Supplement, 9(Pt. 2), 1-28.
42. Zajonc, R.B. (2001). Mere exposure: A gateway to the subliminal. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 224-228.