Presidential Oratory Trumps Ideology for Some Voters

Newswise — To influence voters, especially those without strong ideological beliefs, presidential candidates should pay as much attention to their oratorical skills as to their stances on issues, according to research by Vanderbilt University political scientist Christian Grose.

"We find that most voters prefer more sophisticated speech in their presidential candidates," said Grose, who has co-authored an article on the importance of rhetoric and persuasion in presidential campaigns. "Voters value the ability to speak complexly and emotionally in tone, and, of course, they prefer candidates who agree with them on issues. Sometimes, however, voters can be convinced to vote contrary to their issue preferences if a candidate's rhetoric is impressive enough."

The findings also show that highly educated voters are more likely than those with fewer years of schooling to be influenced by complex speech. "The conventional wisdom might be that highly educated voters " with their advanced cognitive abilities and high levels of information " would be less likely 'to have the wool pulled over their eyes' by rhetoric, Grose said. "This was not the case with our research."

Grose and Jason Husser, a Vanderbilt doctoral student in political science, evaluated a candidate's rhetorical style two ways, sophistication of speech and quality of emotional connections, such as optimism and inspiration in the tone. They used the Flesch-Kincaid grade level scale to measure the presidential candidates' complexity of speech in the debates, such as the number of syllables in their choice of words. To evaluate the quality of emotional connections by various candidates, the researchers used the Roderick Hart's Diction algorithm, which attempts to measure the tone of speech.

The researchers also used data from the National Election Survey, 1976-2004, to determine whom people voted for in the general presidential elections and whether or not they were in agreement with the candidates on the issues. They combined the election data with their measurements regarding rhetoric to draw their conclusions.

"When a voter is close to a candidate on the issues, yet that candidate is a poor speaker, the voter will still vote for that candidate," Grose said. "However, if a voter is relatively indifferent between two candidates on the issues, then the power of high-quality candidate rhetoric can persuade voters to vote contrary to their ideological preferences."

Grose points out that those with the most advanced educational degrees will be most strongly affected by complex rhetoric. "Voters prefer candidates who, in a sense, speak their language," he said. "Voters with lower levels of education will not be moved as much to vote for candidates with complex speaking patterns."

Even though the research focused on general elections for the presidency, the race for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination is pertinent to these findings, according to Grose. "Sen. Barack Obama has succeeded in moving up in the polls in part due to what some perceive as superior rhetorical skills compared to Sen. Hillary Clinton, his chief rival," Grose said. "How could an opponent with weaker rhetorical skills defeat Obama? By taking stances highly congruent with the voters " or by convincing voters that Obama is out of step with them on the issues." Grose said time will tell if Clinton will convince voters that she is more in line with their beliefs on key issues. He also suggested that Clinton's argument that Obama was a fan of President Reagan's ideas indicates that she is positioning herself as the candidate more congruent with Democratic primary voters on the issues.

The manuscript by Grose and Husser is "The Valence Advantage of Presidential Persuasion: How Presidential Candidates Use Oratorical Skills to Persuade Voters to Vote Contrary to Ideological Preferences." It was recently presented at the 2008 meeting of the Southern Political Science Association in New Orleans, La.