What did our ratings reveal? When compared to presidential
candidates in the 20th century, neither Bush nor Gore stands out as
especially optimistic or pessimistic. Gore was somewhat more optimistic
than Bush, but this was largely due to his high scores on the externality
dimension, i.e., he attributed bad events to sources other than himself.
Zullow's findings indicate that Gore should be somewhat more appealing to
the electorate than Bush. However, our own more resent research suggests
that when leaders occasionally acknowledge responsibility for bad events,
their followers are mope reassured than when responsibility is constantly
eschewed. In terms of explanatory style and the impression it conveys,
then, Bush looks better than Gore.
A closer look at our ratings shows that Gore was pessimistic when
talking about the environment. In explaining problems with the physical
well-being of the planet, Gore invoked stable and global causes, and he
invariably included himself (as an inhabitant of the planet) as pat of
the problem. If we remove these sorts of explanations (about 15% of the
ones we coded for Gore) from the comparison, then Gore becomes notably
more optimistic than Bush. Our advice to Gore? Stop talking about the
environment--or start talking in more upbeat terms about the possibility
of change--if you want to appeal to the public.
The other comparisons we made verified the popular stereotypes that
Bush is not as deep a thinker as Gore. Explanations offered by Bush were
more vague, more likely to be spun, and less cognitively complex. Of
these characteristics, we know only that spin plays poorly. Vagueness
appears unattractive, but it may bolster a candidate because it makes it
difficult to ague that he is wrong. Cognitive complexity, despite its
known consequences for leadership style, may or may not be attractive in
a presidential candidate. Certainly, an overly complex candidate runs the
risk of being dismissed as a wonk, and Gore is therefore treading on thin
ice.
We're not going to predict a winner. But we will suggest that Gore
may lose if he makes the environment a key campaign issue in the terms he
has used in the past. We'll be following the campaign ahead with
particular attention to how these differences play out. Will the
candidates work at managing the impressions they make, or will they
become even more characteristically themselves?
by Christopher Peterson, Ph.D., and Fiona Lee, Ph.D.
READING THEIR LIPS
Gore is stiff. Bush smirks. These are the platitudes of the 2000
presidential election. Political pundits and armchair psychologists have
made whole chapters in their careers speculating on what we should make
of Gore's Flat demeanor and that slightly crooked upturn of George W.'s
mouth, which turns even his serious expressions awry.
What's really going on? Dacher Keltner, Ph.D., professor of
psychology at the University of California-Berkeley, is part of a growing
psychological field that can help us understand. This science of "reading
faces" codes each muscle movement in the face, locates consistent facial
gestures, and draws conclusions about what those patterns mean. Looking
at a wide range of photos of Bush and Gore expressing everything from
exuberance to serious thought, Keltner analyzed the candidates'
characteristic expressions. If you want to see the difference between
Gore and Bush, Keltner told PT, look in two places: the mouth and the
eyebrows. (See chart at right.)
"One clearly sees character emerge in their expressive styles,"
Keltner told PT. "How will this affect their leadership? One might
hypothesize that people (body politic, journalists, leaders of other
countries) might trust Gore more but perhaps like Bush more. Reagan
showed how powerful simply being liked can be." But that, he warns, would
just be speculation.
--Sara Blustain
RELIABLE LINKAGES
Scientists like Keltner hesitate to tie these facial gestures to
personality, but infer conservatively that they have been shown to relate
consistently to states of mind. His conclusions are Fascinating: Gore
expresses dominance, Bush, submissiveness. Gore shows concentration, Bush
playfulness.
CHARACTERISTIC EXPRESSIONS
Below, Dacher Keltner, Ph.D., highlights the idiosyncratic aspects
of the facial expressions typical of Al Gore and George Bush, accompanied
by the industry-agreed-upon numerical codes (AU=action unit) for each
expression, and the corresponding muscle name in parentheses.
In shorthand: first, Bush's eyebrows go up and Gore's go down. It
doesn't matter if each is smiting or answering questions or resting
neutrally. Second, Bush's mouth rests unevenly, while Gore's is often
pursed. And third, in every photo studied, the gaze and head orientation
of Gore are the same (if he looks up, his head orients up); Frequently
for Bush, his gaze and head orientation disagree, suggesting he's
communicating to multiple audiences, present or elsewhere.
Gore
1. The lip press (AU24; Oribicularis oris). Shows this when smiling
and in neutral pose.
2. The eyebrow down (AU4; Corrugator supercilii, Depressor
supercilii). Shows this in positive and negative expressions.
3. The lip purse (AU18; Incisivii labii superioris and Incisivil
labii inferioris) and lip tighten (AU23; Obicularis oris) This accounts
for the tightened pursed expression in Gore's mouth.
Bush
1. The asymmetrical smile (AU12; Zygomaticus major). Many of Bush's
smiles have stronger muscle action on one side of the face.
Tags:
albert gore,
gaining momentum,
governor george bush,
grassroots advocacy,
mental health,
mental health advocates,
mental health association,
mental health policy,
mental illness,
mental illness stigma,
national mental health,
national mental health association,
people with mental illnesses,
personality,
political expressions,
Political psychology,
politics,
politics of mental health,
public policy,
tipper gore,
vice presidency,
vice president albert,
visual diary,
wife tipper
