A Face for Radio? How Viewers and Listeners Reacted Differently to the Third Leaders' Debate in 2010
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1467-856X.2011.00465.x |
| Author | Robert Johns,Mark Shephard |
| Published date | 01 February 2012 |
| Date | 01 February 2012 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
A Face for Radio? How Viewers
and Listeners Reacted Differently to
the Third Leaders’ Debate in 2010
Mark Shephard and Robert Johns
Neil Kinnock expressed scepticism about Gordon Brown’s likely showing in the 2010 election
debates, suggesting that the Labour leader had a ‘radio face’. We report an experiment in which
students were split randomly between audio and video conditions for the third debate. As Kinnock
predicted, Gordon Brown was more often proclaimed the winner by listeners. Nick Clegg, not David
Cameron, benefited most from television. These differences were statistically significant despite a
small sample (n =63). We test three explanations for Clegg’s advantage: (i) that television boosts
the salience of certain traits (notably attractiveness); (ii) that television boosts the importance of
‘style’ over ‘substance’; (iii) that listeners form judgements based on performance throughout the
debate, while viewers are disproportionately influenced by memorable incidents or remarks. There
is evidence supporting all three explanations.
Keywords: 2010 election; leader debates; television versus radio; experiment
Introduction
Now talking of attractive politicians, of course Gordon has got a radio face
and nothing can get away from that. But I actually think that in so far as
these things matter, that evidence of dedication, of hard work, of total
commitment to the national interest, cragginess if you like is going to
work to his advantage (Lord Kinnock speaking on The Andrew Marr Show,
BBC 2010).
The 2010 general election marked the first time in British electoral history that there
had been a series of televised debates between the leaders of the main three parties.
Prior to this, individual leaders had been interviewed, but never together. This is in
stark contrast to the USA, for example, where such debates between the main
presidential candidates have been a standard feature of politics for over 50 years, and
have been shown to influence voters’ assessments and decisions (e.g. Hellweg et al.
1992; Kraus 2000; Benoit and Hansen 2004). Even in less overtly personalised
systems, such as Canada and Germany, there is ample evidence that leader debates
can have an impact on voters (e.g. Schrott 1990; Lanoue 1991; Blais et al. 2003). The
sharp increase in public support that the Liberal Democrats enjoyed following the
first 2010 debate, of which their leader Nick Clegg was widely declared the winner,
suggests that debates have at least the potential for considerable influence in Britain
too. Even if the eventual election results implied a much more restrained
estimate of this influence, the wider impact of debates on the election was
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-856X.2011.00465.x BJPIR: 2012 VOL 14, 1–18
© 2011 The Authors. British Journal of Politics and International Relations © 2011
Political Studies Association
unmistakable (Kavanagh and Cowley 2010, ch. 8). Jane Green (2010, 86) goes as far
as to argue that the leadership debates ‘derailed’ Conservative strategy to the extent
that the party’s regular campaign became a ‘sideshow’. The result is that politicians
and party strategists are likely to take future debates, and possibly even choice of
leader, much more seriously (Allen et al. 2010, 199).
Given this potential for impact—especially in a close election like that of 2010—
and the fears of the former Labour leader that Brown had a ‘radio face’, the TV
debates for the 2010 general election call for research attention. We therefore
report on a split-half experiment in which respondents were randomly assigned
either to watch the third 2010 debate on television or to listen to it on the radio.
The design is modelled on that reported by James Druckman (2003) in his ret-
rospective study of one of the 1960 US presidential debates between Kennedy
and Nixon. Via the experimental contrast, we can estimate the impact of the
additional visual information provided by televising the debate. We explore
whether image was as important as Kinnock suggests: did ‘cragginess’ work to
Gordon Brown’s advantage, or did his ‘radio face’ work against him? More gen-
erally, we examine whether there are other—less superficial—aspects of leader
performance whose impact is modified or magnified by the visual nature of these
debates. Thus, our experiment contributes to a broader literature about the
impact of different modes of communication on political judgements. It also
extends research on leader debates which has hitherto focused more on
whether than on how they influence voters. Since leader debates are likely to
become an integral part of British general elections, attention to these issues is
timely.
Theoretical Considerations and Hypotheses
We have already cited studies from other countries showing the potential impact
of leader debates. These studies show that the principal effect is to reinforce exist-
ing impressions of candidates, and that the influence of debates is predictably
shaped by partisan predispositions. Yet there are significant exceptions to this
general rule. Debates can affect voters’ candidate evaluations and ultimately their
party choice (Benoit and Hansen 2004). There is no obvious reason to doubt that
debates have the same potential for impact in UK general elections. Several studies
attest to the growing personalisation of British politics around prime ministers and
their rivals for the post (e.g. Crewe and King 1994; Foley 2000; Mughan 2000).
Models of British voting behaviour confirm that leader evaluations are significant
and often powerful predictors of party choice (Clarke et al. 2004 and 2009; Evans
and Andersen 2005), whether because voters choose personalities that they find
more appealing or because they use judgements of leaders’ capacities and characters
as heuristics for judging the likely performance and priorities of parties (Bartle
2003; Clarke et al. 2004). Anthony King (2002) and Richard Rose (2001, 127)
caution against overstating the impact of party leaders, noting that they seldom shift
vote shares by more than a percentage point or two (though see Evans and
Andersen 2005). Yet, in a close election like the general election of 2010, this was
enough potentially to make a major difference to the outcome in terms of party
strength and government formation.
2MARK SHEPHARD, ROBERT JOHNS
© 2011 The Authors. British Journal of Politics and International Relations © 2011 Political Studies Association
BJPIR, 2012, 14(1)
To continue reading
Request your trial