Perceptions of debater effectiveness and appropriateness as a function of decreasingly polite strategies for responding to nonverbal disparagement in televised political debates.

• Author: Weger, Harry, Jr.
• Position: Report

PERCEPTIONS OF DEBATER EFFECTIVENESS AND APPROPRIATENESS AS A FUNCTION OF DECREASINGLY POLITE STRATEGIES FOR RESPONDING TO NONVERBAL DISPARAGEMENT IN TELEVISED POLITICAL DEBATES

By many accounts the American public now expects candidates for public office to engage in some form of debate during an election campaign. Beyond their social significance, debates remain a significant object of research for communication and political scientists because they offer opportunities to examine points of intersection between communication performances and campaign outcomes (e.g., Dailey, Hinck, & Hinck, 2008). Although debates provide opportunities to advance public policy arguments, extant literature suggests candidates' ability to manage impressions, both of themselves and of their opponents, is a vital concern. Indeed, Lanoue and Schrott (1991) argue that, rather than focusing on issues, audiences are far more likely to use political debates to learn about a candidate's personality and character. Similarly, Jamieson (1988) argues that candidate image is the issue in campaigns.

Given the enormous costs and highly competitive nature of campaigns, it is clear that political candidates are on the lookout for opportunities to manage impressions not only of themselves, but of their opponents as well. Sometimes they do so in unconventional ways. For example, when debates are telecast using split screens, providing viewers access to nonverbal cues they otherwise would not normally see (i.e., behaviors of both the speaker and the nonspeaking opponent), debaters can attempt to manage impressions even when they do not hold the floor. Such practices have been common in recent presidential debates. Indeed, presidential candidates have been shown communicating disapproval of an opponent's message by engaging in background behaviors such as heavy sighing, head shaking, grimacing, and contorted facial expressions.

Previous work indicates that such behaviors affect audiences' perceptions of the nonverbal communicator's speaking opponent, sometimes favorably and sometimes not. Past studies indicate that when debaters express nonverbal disagreement during their opponent's speech (as opposed to remaining "stone faced"), the effect on audience perceptions of the debater's own credibility and appropriateness are strongly negative. The effects of background nonverbal disagreement also result in their opponents receiving higher ratings of appropriateness, character, competence, composure, and sociability (see Seiter, Abraham, & Nakagama, 1998; Seiter, Kinzer, & Weger, 2006; Seiter & Weger, 2005; Seiter, Weger, Kinzer, & Jensen, 2010) but lower ratings of extroversion (Seiter et al., 2010) and, under some circumstances, lower ratings of veracity (Seiter, 2001).

Because nonverbal disagreement can potentially affect audience perceptions of both debaters/candidates, a question naturally arises about the kinds of responses to this behavior that might potentially capitalize on the opponent's blunder. Despite the fact that previous work notes the need for such investigations (Seiter, Weger, Kinzer, & Jensen, 2009), we are unaware of any study that examines such responses. With that in mind, this study examines the effectiveness of various responses to derogatory background behavior in a televised political debate, focusing specifically on how various strategies might influence the audience's perception of a candidate's communication skill.

NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR AND ARGUMENTATION RESEARCH

One way in which the study of nonverbal behavior is relevant to the study of argumentation and debate involves the potential of nonverbal behavior to take on communicative functions usually associated with linguistic behavior. To illustrate this potential, Remland (1982) suggests argumentative fallacies, although traditionally associated with linguistic behavior, might also result from nonverbal behavior. Specifically, Remland distinguishes "explicit ad hominem arguments," which denigrate one's opponent verbally (via personal attacks), from "implicit ad hominem," which belittle an opponent nonverbally by showing signs of boredom, disgust, and frustration. Similarly, we suggest debaters might use nonverbal disagreement with the aim of rebutting an opponent's positions through mockery, expressions of disbelief, or expressions of simple disagreement. We further suggest that such behavior constitutes at least a dialectical fallacy (e.g., van Eemeren, Grootendorst, & Snoeck Henkemans, 2002) because, first, nonverbal disagreement visible to the audience potentially distracts the audience from the argument being made by the current speaker, denying the debater an opportunity to advance her/his argument in the debate. And second, nonverbal expressions of disagreement are fallacious because they allow the arguer to challenge the speaker's claims without meeting any requisite burden of proof in support of the challenge. Remland urges scholars to investigate the effects of nonverbal fallacies on audience member's perceptions of debates and debaters.

In addition to increasing our understanding of argumentative behavior in political debate, studying nonverbal communication can help us understand how audiences react to a debater's nonverbal behavior. Communication theory, empirical research, and recent political history all suggest that nonverbal behavior plays an important role in audience perceptions of debaters. For example, theories concerned with the violations of social norms (e.g., Levine et al., 2000) and expectations for nonverbal behavior (Burgoon & LePoire, 1993) could reasonably extend to predicting audience reactions to expressions of nonverbal disagreement during a public debate. In general, audiences' expectations and social norms prescribe that candidates should not interrupt each other during public debates. As Remland (1982) explains, implicit ad hominem attacks function as nonverbal interruptions of the speaker by drawing audience attention away from the speaker who currently holds the floor. Research from the expectation and norm violation paradigms strongly shows that, when the norm violation is perceived negatively, norm violators are judged less favorably than norm followers (e.g., Levine et al., 2000; Seiter, 2001). Overall, the study of nonverbal expressions of disagreement during an opponent's speaking turn, and an opponent's reaction to them, has the potential to contribute to the field of argumentation.

POLITENESS IN TELEVISED POLITICAL DEBATES

In our attempt to examine potential strategies for responding to an opponent's nonverbal expressions of disagreement, we rely on concepts from politeness theory (e.g., Brown & Levinson, 1987). In their recent work, Dailey et al. (2008) have extended Brown and Levinson's politeness theory to provide a useful way for understanding how audiences might react to candidates in political debates. According to politeness theory, people desire both social approval (positive face wants) and autonomy (negative face wants). Nonverbal behaviors that communicate disapproval or derision during an opponent's speaking turn in a debate threaten the speaker's positive face. In addition, it seems reasonable to interpret nonverbal expressions of disagreement as a type of interruption (since the nonspeaking debater is intentionally using nonverbal signals in an attempt to hold the floor), and therefore a threat to the speaker's negative face as well.

We think that responses to an opponent's nonverbal disagreement can also be fruitfully analyzed in terms of politeness. Any attempt on the part of a debater to limit an opponent's nonverbal disagreement is a clear threat to the opponent's desire for autonomy. Brown and Levinson (1987) suggest a hierarchy of least to most polite strategies for engaging in face threatening behavior with the most polite, "Don't do the FTA" (i.e., Face Threatening Act), to the least polite, which involves, "Do the FTA ... [directly] ... without redressive action, baldly" (p. 60). We can imagine a number of decreasingly polite strategies debaters might use in responding to an opponent's nonverbal derision, ranging from the most confrontational, impolite, and disrespectful reactions (such as name calling and insults) to more polite and less confrontational behaviors (such as simply smiling or saying nothing in return). In this study, we will examine six different strategies starting with avoiding the face threatening act entirely (i.e., saying nothing), going off the record (i.e., the speaker shakes his head), going on record but being conventionally indirect (asking the moderator to stop the opponent's behavior), going on the record with redress (i.e., asking the opponent politely to stop his behavior by saying "please"), going bald on the record (i.e., demanding that the opponent stop), and finally, the least polite strategy will involve attacking the opponent's positive face using ridicule.

Understanding political debaters' behavior in terms of politeness theory has potentially important implications for understanding candidates' success in eventual elections. For example, Dailey et al. (2008) argue that successful candidates must find a balance between attacking an opponent while showing an appropriate degree of respect or politeness, and when they do not, negative outcomes often result. Indeed, following their detailed analysis of presidential and vice presidential debates across several decades, Dailey et al. note that in close races, direct threats to an opposing candidate's face do not seem to lead to favorable campaign outcomes. Specifically, they found that candidates who won elections were less likely to use face threatening messages during debates than did candidates who lost.

In addition, previous theoretical work focusing on violations of social norms (e.g., Levine et al., 2000) suggest that, when norm violations are perceived negatively, those who violate norms are judged less...