Abstract
The contribution of this article is twofold: the adaptation and application of models of deception from psychology, combined with data-mining techniques, to the text of speeches given by candidates in the 2008 U.S. presidential election; and the observation of both short-term and medium-term differences in the levels of deception. The method of analysis is fully automated and requires no human coding, and so can be applied to many other domains in a straightforward way. The authors posit explanations for the observed variation in terms of a dynamic tension between the goals of campaigns at each moment in time, for example gaps between their view of the candidate’s persona and the persona expected for the position; and the difficulties of crafting and sustaining a persona, for example, the cognitive cost and the need for apparent continuity with past actions and perceptions. The changes in the resulting balance provide a new channel by which to understand the drivers of political campaigning, a channel that is hard to manipulate because its markers are created subconsciously.
Highlights
Political speeches are a campaign‘s most direct channel for influencing voters
Rates are in bold font when they disagree with the expectations of the deception model.The average persona deception score from the beginning of 2008 until the election for the three candidates is: McCain: 0.04 (SD 0.84); Obama: 0.11 (SD 0.52); and Clinton: -0.49 (SD 0.50)
Our results suggest that the level of persona deception achieved by a campaign at any given moment comes from a dynamic tension between factors that increase persona deception, and factors that act to limit it
Summary
Political speeches are a campaign‘s most direct channel for influencing voters. They provide an important opportunity both to convey attractive ideas and policies, and to present an attractive and competent candidate. To appear more like the ideal electoral choice for the office concerned and better than the other candidates, campaigns appeal to voters‘ desires, perhaps more than presenting policy contrasts. There is considerable motivation to use deception, in a full range of communication including direct factual deception, evasion, spin (presenting agreed-upon facts in the best possible light), nonresponsiveness, and negative advertising. Persona deception describes the way in which candidates and their campaign staff present themselves asbetter‘, across multiple dimensions, than they are – more experienced, more able, more knowledgeable, and so on. It is possible to present oneself as better than one is intentionally, psychological research suggests that there is a parallel, predominantly subconscious, process driven by an individual‘s self-perception – and as such not subject to deliberate manipulation
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
