A certain smile

Offers a look at the effects of Peter Jennings' smile on the presidential election. Study by Carolyn Copper; Facially favored candidates; The Peter Jennings Factor; Experiment; Details; Results.

By PT Staff, published on January 01, 1992

After Views

When Peter Jennings smiles, do presidents get elected? Silly as the idea seems, the 1992 election may hinge on it. Call it the Peter Jennings Factor.

One set of studies has shown that the ABC anchor's pro-Republican bias was beamed to viewers in 1984 and 1988. It was not a matter of anything he said; it was, rather, his facial expressions. He smiled more often when Reagan was seen or mentioned on air during the 1984 campaign, and again whenever Bush came up in the 1988 elections. Post-election analysis revealed that those who tuned in to Jennings were more likely to vote for the facially favored candidates than were voters who tuned in to other stations.

The effect is definitely there, according to research psychologist Carolyn Copper. In a controlled experiment involving simulated newscasts in a congressional election, she demonstrated that newscasters could indeed influence viewer attitudes toward candidates with nothing more than a smile. Further, Copper explored how such an effect could occur.

Did Jennings inadvertently bias his audience by transmitting good feelings about the candidate in his smile? Or did viewers already favoring Reagan and Bush gravitate toward Jennings because such "facial positivity" reinforced their preexisting stance?

It was a little bit of both, Copper found. It's true that a newscaster's smiles can lead viewers to see that candidate as more likable, but only when the viewers prefer the candidate to start with. "There's no question that such facial bias affects people who have a predisposition to one candidate as indicated by political ideology," Copper said. "If you are a Democrat and the newscaster smiles on a competing Republican candidate, you will like the Republican candidate more than when you started, but not more than the Democratic candidate." And the same effect holds if you are a Republican watching a Democrat-biased newscaster.

So, if you still like your candidate more, what's the big deal about a little smile? First, says Copper, she only studied the effects of one-time exposure. "It is likely that multiple exposure could exacerbate the findings and prompt viewers to vote for the candidate who is the object of the bias."

What's more, Copper points out, "evidence shows that people not strongly affiliated with a political party are more likely to be influenced by media phenomena."

The effect of a smile, admits Copper, is a pretty subtle thing--but it's real.