Candidate Performance and Observable Audience Response: Laughter and Applause–Cheering During the First 2016 Clinton–Trump Presidential Debate

Laughter and effective presidential leadership: A case study of Ronald Reagan as the 'great communicator'

Former United States President Ronald Reagan's use of media and his charismatic connection with viewers earned him the moniker "the great communicator". One aspect of his charisma, the influence of elicited laughter, during a highly critical 5-minute news story by CBS reporter Leslie Stahl during the 1984 US presidential election is examined here. Two experiments examining the effects of audience laughter on perceptions of charismatic leadership are reported. In the first experiment the effects of audience laughter in response to Reagan's comments were investigated. Here, Reagan's perceived warmth as an effective leader significantly diminished when strong laughter is removed, whereas perceptions of competence remained unaffected. The second study carried out on an older cohort replicated and extended the first in a pre-registered design by considering the perception of trait charisma. Here, the presence or absence of audience laughter did not affect judgements of charisma. Additionally, the affective response before, and then after, the presentation of the news story was measured. Emotions associated with a positive appraisal all decreased after being shown the news story while emotions associated negative appraisal all increased. However, only participant anger was significantly increased when audience laughter was removed. Taken together the findings of both studies converge on the fact that subtle changes in media presentation of political leaders can have a significant effect on viewers. The findings show that even after 40 years in office the social psychological effects of presidential charisma can still influence observers.

Time does tell: An analysis of observable audience responses from the 2016 American presidential campaigns

In this study a microanalysis of OAR (Observable Audience Responses) in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election was conducted. OAR were coded into dimensions including response rate (frequency per minute), response type, and categorised as either a unitary (a single response), composite (two or more simultaneous response types) or sequential (a unitary or composite response that is followed by a different response type) response form. It was found that U.S. audiences made use of all three response forms (unitary, composite, and sequential) and that certain response forms had been under-represented when contrasted with findings from previous research. This study was also the first to measure the duration of OAR in the context of an election, and it was observed that response form significantly affected the duration of response. It was inferred from this that the audiences might select different responses as a means to control the force of reply. This study failed to replicate previous research that had found a correlation between response rate (affiliative OAR per minute) and voter share on polling day, but instead found a stronger, significant correlation between the duration of OAR and voter share. It was interpreted that duration of OAR may be a superior indicator of wider voter enthusiasm as it captures the length of response as well as the incidence.