Vote for the best personality: personalization effects on citizens’
evaluation of (fe)male politicians
Master thesis of Communication Science; Political Communication and Journalism Graduate School of Communication
Haarlem, 21/11/2014
Michelle Audiffred BSc dr. Sanne Kruikemeier
Abstract
Political personalization refers to a shift of focus from a political party to an individual politician, which is regarded as being highly present in the media. Although this shift of focus is often investigated, we still know little about the consequences of personalization. There still is not much research about the effects of personalization on voters and to what extent there is a difference in effect on the evaluation of female and male politicians when the media focus on politicians as individuals. This research examines the consequences of personalized and privatized news on respondents’ evaluations of the politicians. This study points out that there is a difference in effect between female and male politicians, where female politicians are evaluated as more positive than male politicians. Additionally, privatized media coverage of politicians lead to positive feelings about the politician. Moreover, female politicians are often evaluated as more positive than male politicians. It does not mean that potential voters will switch their vote after exposure to personalized or privatized media coverage, but personalized and privatized media coverage has consequences for citizens’ political evaluations..
Key words:
personalization, privatization, citizens’ political evaluations, gender, politics, and media coverage.
Last couple of years, there occurred a shift of focus from the group, political party or organization, to an individual person. This shift of focus relates to a well-know concept for scholars: personalization of politics. Which means that media or political campaigns are not just about political cases anymore, but personal life of an individual politician is also
media; tabloidization, where competition increased and the coverage of scandals and
entertainment grew (Blumler & Kavanagh, 2010). The news became ‘softer’, where the news values of coverage are driven by entertainment, and sensational stories. Tabloids attract the mass audience, with this news. They produce more emotional and personal stories, so the readers and viewers will pay attention, and not go to the concurrent. Tabloidization and the more commercial work-way of papers made it more important to keep their public interested (Vliegenthart, Boomgaarden & Boumans, 2011; Blumler & Kavanangh, 2010). So it seems that the personal life and private issues of politicians are nowadays important and interesting for media coverage, because these are the subjects their public like to read: the media needs to build an emotional rapport that leads to personal involvement (Elmelund-Præstekær &
Hopmann, 2012).
This shift in tabloids and papers is adapted not only by the mass media, but also by political campaigns where individual politicians are now more portrayed as private persona with a private life (Van Aelst, Sheafer & Stanyer, 2011). Personalization of politics, is one of the key concepts in research on political communication (Esser, Strömbäck, & de Vreese, 2012).
Many scholars made it clear that this shift of focus in the media is going on in political communication; but in what way does these changes affect voters? This shift of focus from political parties to an individual politician is seen as a shift that caused a different view for citizens; a view named ‘new’ politics (Garzia, 2011). And relates to a new perception of how citizens see politics; it is not about the party anymore, but about their leader. Because of the focus on the personal lives of the politicians, they become more ‘human’ and more ‘one-of-us’ (Garzia, 2011). And when to vote for your potential leader, it is also good to know that he or she is a ‘good’ person in real life.
Although there is a lot of research, there still exists a gap in knowledge of the effect of personalization, and the existing research about the effects is not consistent. There are
scholars that found that personalization raises cynicism towards politics (Jebril, Albæk, & de Vreese, 2013). And there is research that found that personalization is positive for the
democracies (Balmas, Rahat, Sheafer & Shenhav, 2012). As is the research not consistent about the consequences of personalization, there is also not much research about the effects of personalization between female and male politicians. It is therefore not sure if personalization has a different effect on the evaluation of voters after being exposed to personalized media coverage and if this effect differs for evaluating female and male politicians. There exists a gap in knowledge about the effect of personalization on citizens’ political evaluations and the difference in effect on this evaluation of female and male politicians. Which leads to two central questions: To what extent does political personalization affect citizens’ political
evaluations and what is the role of politicians’ gender?
This research is going to examine if personalization is present in Dutch media, and if personalization has effect on citizens’ political evaluations. Additionally will be investigated if there is a difference in citizens’ evaluation between female and male politicians. Therefor there will be an online experiment held with five conditions. The effect is tested with a manipulation of personalized, and non-personalized media and moderated by the gender of the politicians. This research will complement existing research and will fill in the gap of knowledge about these few known consequences of personalization on citizens’ political evaluation. The outcome of this research is important for upcoming political campaigns, and for future media coverage, especially during elections. To generalize the finding effects, there will be held an explanatory experiment to the presence of personalization on Dutch television talk shows. The findings of this research are socially important, because the media and the political election campaigns can persuade their voters, and personalization can be used as a
tactic. But it also completes the scientific research about personalization, and tells us if the effect of personalization is different for male and female politicians. It is important to complete existing research about personalization, to expand the existing area of knowledge about voting behavior and political media exposure.
Theoretical background Personalization
Personalization is a concept that can be measured in different ways. Balmas, Rahat, Sheafer and Shenhav (2012) divided personalization in two concepts: centralized personalization and decentralized personalization. Which implies the difference between the flow of power
upwards: from the group (party, cabinet) to a single leader (like a party leader, prime minister, president) whereby the focus of personalization is on the political leader and not on the
overall party or cabinet. Decentralized personalization is the flow of power downwards: from the group to individual politicians who are not party or executive leaders (like candidates, members of parliament or ministers) whereby the focus of personalization is on individual politicians who are not leaders of parties and cabinets, but whereby the focus is on more candidates in a democracy with a more personalized competition (Balmas, Rahat, Sheafer & Shenhav, 2012). Van Aelst, Sheafer and Stanyer (2012) made another distinction in the concept of personalization: They say that there is a difference in personalization where they focus on the individual; the politician as a central actor, who is a leader and is not seen as a member of a political party, with his/her own ideas, capacities and policies. This concept is called individualization. In the second form of personalization the focus of media is on the politician as a private individual; this is a shift in media focus from the politician to a women or man with a personal private life, family and personal characteristics.
behavior (Balmas, Rahat, Sheafer & Shenhav, 2012; Van Aelst et al., 2012;
Elmelund-Præstekær & Hopmann, 2012). Personalization increased citizens’ involvement with politics, while the focus of politicians was on their personalities (Kruikemeier, Van Noort,
Vliegenthart & De Vreese, 2013). Which showed that personalization has a positive effect on political involvement. Other research showed that voters get the feeling that they can get in contact with the politician; that they can bond with the politician, and that personalization can increase their interest in politics (Garzia, 2011; Biocca, Harms & Burgoon, 2003).
Additionally, personalization may help citizens to make decisions; who to vote for. With personalization voters see politicians as people more ‘like us’, and they can identify themselves with the politicians (Garzia, 2011). Personalized media coverage can lead to
social presence where people get the idea of being with another (Biocca, Harms & Burgoon,
2003). It is showed in research that people base their vote rather on basis of their evaluations of individuals, than on parties, because they can identify themselves with an individual. This makes the choice for a voter sometimes easier, especially for the floating voter could
personality be the decisive (Lilliker, 2005). Additionally personalized media coverage can lead to preferential voting, which means that voters take in considerations who they prefer more as a person, and less as a politician (Elmelund- Præstekær & Hopmann, 2012; Bennet, 2012; Kaase, 1994). They also found that with more political knowledge and a higher education degree the choice for a preferential vote is higher. Besides values, also believes, gender and reasons of the voter can interfere in their voting decision (Caprara, 2007; Elder & Greene, 2003). The research described above pointed out the effect personalization could have, and led to hypothesis 1:
H1: Personalization (vs. non-personalization) has a positive effect on citizens’
Privatization
As showed in earlier research, personalization is so complex, that it cannot be measured in just a single concept (Balmas, Rahat, Sheafer & Shenhav, 2012; Van Aelst, Sheafer & Stanyer, 2012; Elmelund-Præstekær & Hopmann, 2012; Holz-Bacha, Langer & Merkle, 2014). It is hard to give a consistent definition of personalization, because of a lot of different perspectives on personalization. There is a difference between individualized and privatized personalization. The first is focused on a leader, but should not specifically contain personal information. The focus is on an individual person, so this focus can also be on his
functionality and professional characteristics. The second is focused on the politician as private persona; here is the politician not seen as just a politician, but as a parent or a friend with private and personal characteristics (Van Aelst et al., 2012; Elmelund-Præstekær & Hopmann, 2012; Holz-Bacha, Langer & Merkle, 2014). Privatization is focused on the personal life and personal characteristics of the politician (Van Aelst et al., 2012; Balmas, Rahat, Sheafer & Shenhav, 2012; Elmelund-Præstekær & Hopmann, 2012; Holz-Bacha, Langer & Merkle, 2014). This form of popularization is an increased media-attention on the private life of a politician (Van Santen, & Van Zoonen, 2012). And these shifts in focus, personalization and privatization media coverage, are mostly seen in democratic Western countries nowadays (Elmelund-Præstekær & Hopmann, 2012; Holz-Bacha, Langer & Merkle, 2014; Bennet, 2012).
Media use personalized and privatized media coverage more than before as a focus, because news consumers prefer to read about other people, and not about cabinets or
bureaucracies (Garzia, 2011). Plus with increasing tabloidization; personal and individualized stories are becoming important for selling the news (Holz-Bacha, Langer & Merkle, 2014). Which caused a shift from political news to non-political news; also called ‘soft news’ (Van Aelst et al., 2012). Televised debates are seen as the main cause for this shift. The new topics
of the news coverage nowadays, are all more personal than political: coverage of family news, information about past life, coverage of leisure time like hobbies and vacations, and their love life (Van Aelst et al., 2012). But also online media plays a big part in this shift (McAllister, 2005).
Earlier research showed that million of voters base their decision on the personal characteristics of the politician (Baum, 2005; Elmelund- Præstekær & Hopmann, 2012). These personal characteristics are covered in media attention. It is examined that citizens use their ‘everyday framework’ with comparing the comparative candidate with everyday people (McAllister, 2005; Ohanian, 1990). It is an everyday framework, with personal traits like characteristics, hobbies, and life happenings, that citizens use while looking for
representatives. They use the framework to find out whom they can trust, and mostly to find the leaders and politicians that are being like them (Garzia, 2011). Personal traits will point out what kind of leader the politician will be, and will help a citizens to evaluate the politician in multiple ways: evaluate a politicians as a leader, but also evaluate his skills and
functionality in the future. The mass media has great influence on voters, and affects their perception of politics by exposure to this ‘soft’ news (Elmelund- Præstekær & Hopmann, 2012; Bennet, 2012; Holz-Bacha, Langer & Merkle, 2014; Hermans & Vergeer, 2012).
Media coverage with privatized personalization contains private information and can cause a growing intimacy between the voter and the politician, but can also lead to a
damaging public debate and raised cynicism (Elmelund-Præstekær & Hopmann, 2012; Bennet, 2012). When voters feel intimate to another person, in this case the politician, they will trust the man or women more, and they believe that he is going to pursue his promises. Garzia (2011) found that when politicians make mistakes, that this would hurt voters more when they ‘feel in touch’ with the politician, then when they did not felt this ‘connection’ with the politician. This means that voters can get hurt faster when feeling closer to the
politician who cannot come after his promises (Garzia, 2011; Biocca, Harms & Burgoon, 2003). This process can lead to a negative evaluation of the politician. Privatized media coverage can cause social presence: where citizens get the feeling that ‘they are being with another’, and that they are getting close to the reported politician (Biocca, Harms & Burgoon, 2003). So personal information is important for voters to base their vote on, but private information is also important to evaluate the politicians as a person, and use this information to identify themselves with the politician. This change in evaluating the politician lies in the changing expectations of voters (McAllister, 2005). Hypothesis 2 is based on earlier research about privatized media coverage and the consequences of exposure to this media coverage:
H2: Privatization (vs. non-personalization) has a positive effect on citizens’ evaluations of
politicians.
Difference between male and female politicians
Also gender plays a big role in explaining voting behavior as a consequence of personalized media coverage of politicians. It has been shown that the media coverage of woman in politics differs from the reporting about male politicians (Bligh, Casad, Schlehofer & Gaffney, 2012). And also the evaluating process of a female politician differs from that of a male politician. This difference lies within the gender stereotypes of men and women (Bligh, Casad,
Schlehofer & Gaffney, 2012; Elder & Greene, 2003). Bligh et al., (2012) found out that voters ascribe different traits to their candidates, and that they use gender stereotypes to infer
candidates’ ideological orientation. The use of these gender stereotypes affects how voters perceive politicians; for example are female politicians regarded as more liberal than man. With the stereotypes of the sexes in mind, voters evaluate female candidates as better
women less as leaders, because leaders are more associated with masculine characteristics, like: strong, independent and competent (Bligh, Casad, Schlehofer & Gaffney, 2012). This means that voters will evaluate female politicians more negative than man, before they know what the female politician is capable of.
Citizens also find masculine characters important for the political office. Women who are leaders, political leaders, are now seen as women who are having more masculine
characteristics like self-confidence and dominance. It appears that voters still favor male traits, and choose man over women when it comes to leadership (Blight et al., 2012). This stereotypical gender evaluation of voters means that media coverage can make a success or failure of a female or male politician when he or she is still unknown (Van Aelst et al., 2012; Bligh et al. 2012; Elder & Greene, 2003; Ohanian, 1990). Personalized and privatized media exposure can influence citizens’ vote a lot, because of the stereotypical framework voters still use as a base of their evaluation of politicians. When a woman has more masculine
characteristics, she is favorable over a woman with feminine characteristics. Privatized and personalized media coverage is focused on the individual and on family stories. This means that family information and hobbies can be evaluated as extreme negative, because these normally are evaluated as feminine characteristics; a mother who cares for her child is a feminine stereotype.
Additionally are strong, independent women seen as competent, but people evaluate them as a cold personality, and on the other hand are social men evaluated as warm
personalities, but are evaluated as incompetent (Bligh et al. 2012). This means that personal information in media coverage can also be evaluated negative for male politicians. The only thing is, to what extent do these stereotypical frames changed over the last few years? Women are more feministic nowadays, so they might change their stereotypes and will think more positive about female politicians with feminine characteristics. There is not much research of
these media coverage effects on female and male politicians, so the difference between the consequences of personalization and privatization on citizens’ evaluation of female and male politicians is not clear yet. This led to research question one:
RQ1 To what extent does gender of the politician moderate the effect of personalization and privatization on citizens’ evaluations of politicians?
Preparatory study
In this research I am going to investigate the effect of personalization on citizens’ political evaluations. But before I start describing the experimental design, I did a preliminary explorative examination of the presence of personalization. Earlier research showed that appearance of politicians in talk shows changed attitudes of voters and that exposure to talk shows had more effect than traditional news shows (Baum, 2005). I am going to examine if personalization is present on the Dutch television before I am examine the consequences. It is important to know if personalization is present in our media before to test the effects, so that we can apply the founded results of this research to the Netherlands.
In this preparatory study I am going to examine whether or not personalization occurs in talk shows. In addition, it is examined in earlier research that the image of the politician is formed in a talk show through a content analysis (Baum, 2005; Van Santen, & Van Zoonen, 2012). For this research I am going to examine the two most popular talk shows in the Netherlands: De Wereld Draait Door and Pauw & Witteman. I am qualitatively investigating the appearance of personalization in these shows and therefor I am going to code for each show four episodes; three episodes before the local elections of 19 March 2014, and one episode after the local election. The timeframe of the episodes is based on the fact that
impression of politicians in talk shows, and the local elections of March are the most recent elections.
I watched four episodes of two programs, so eight episodes in total, and while I watched the episodes I filled in a codebook (see appendix A). The episodes showed that from the eight episodes in six of them the politician was most of the time the central actor of the conversation, and not the party. When the conversation was about the personal life of the politician, most of the time the politician talked about the subject him/herself. A few times asked the host about the age of the politicians and for personal motives for being a politician. Most of the time the politicians and the talk show host discussed characteristics of other politicians, like: ‘he is a arrogant guy’, ‘she is really kind’, ‘his actions are inappropriate’. The names of the politician were named more frequently than the name of the parties. A further notion is that the politicians talked a lot about feelings, how he of she felt about what happened and about what they think of another politician. In all of the episodes the overall subject remained politics, but emotions, personal motives and personal characteristics were clearly present, and the politician was always present as an individual and not as
representative of his party.
These investigations made clear that the politicians are seen as individuals, and that personal characteristics indeed play a role in media coverage; in this case coverage in talk shows on the Dutch television. Conform to these findings I can conclude that personalization is indeed present in Dutch television media coverage.
Method Experimental design
The preparatory study showed that personalization is present in Dutch televised talk shows. So in the next part of this study I am going to investigate the effect of personalization on
citizens’ political evaluations, and I will investigate if there is a difference in evaluation of personalization of female and male politicians. This is examined by using an experimental design, with five conditions. More specifically, the differential effect of a focus on the private persona of female en male politicians is examined. In addition, the moderating role of gender of the politicians of the news articles will be investigated. The research design is a 2 x 2 between subject design and one control group (that focuses on a political party, with no personalization of privatization manipulation).
Table 1 Experimental design
Manipulation Effect on voting intention Manipulation Effect on voting intention
Personalization female
Positive / negative No personalization female
Positive / negative
Personalization male
Positive / negative No personalization male
Positive / negative
Earlier scholars found that mass media has high influence on public, and that the only way to look at the difference in influence of personalization, is giving the respondent a
personalization manipulation and a non-personalization manipulation (Kaase, 1994). With five different articles and a control group, the difference in the privatization manipulation can be measured. And with a pre-test the manipulation will be checked. We choose for articles with an image of the politician, because visuals can help voters to evaluate the politician better (Garzia, 2011). And to get a clear effect, we only used personalization and the
privatization concept of Van Aelst et al. (2012) as a manipulation. The pre-test makes sure the research is valid and reliable, because the pre-test checks if the actors are measured in a good way, and that the readers can see the difference between the stimulus materials so the internal validity is guaranteed.
We held a survey with five randomized articles. The first stimulus material is about a female politician with private information; a privatized manipulation, which means that the
article contains information about her private life, and about her children and hobbies. The second article was about a female politician without the privatized manipulation, but with only a personalized manipulation: the article was focused on an individual politician, but there was no information about children or hobbies. The third and fourth articles were manipulated the same way as the first two, only now the articles were about male politicians. So the third was a privatized article with family news and hobbies, and the fourth is a personalized article focused on the individual politician without family information. The fifth stimulus material was the control group- article, about the political party D66. The article does not contain any personal or individual information, but only contains information about the party, this control group makes sure that the external validity is good, where the control group can be measured next to the stimulus materials and were no manipulation was used. I used an actual political party: D66, because this party is the largest party in local government in Amsterdam, where I study. It is a neutral but well-known party, which can be used in a good way for the control group. With the control group I can measure the general political evaluation of the
respondents, and compare these outcomes to the manipulated groups. The control group will ensure that the findings are reliable and that the external validity is guaranteed.
Participants
The respondents (N = 105) who participated in the online experiment had to read an article and fill in a survey. The respondents who cooperated in the experiment were collected random and are aged between 18 and 60 with an average age of 28 years (M = 28.46, SD = 10.37). Most of the respondents were women (n = 80, 76,2%), and they are all educated well: almost halve of the respondents studied on university or on HBO level (47,6%). 49,1% of the respondents were still students, and 41,9% already graduated.
The data is collected through email and Facebook recruitment. 144 participants started the survey, but only 105 respondents actually finished the survey, so there was a dropout rate of almost 27%. The five stimulus articles were divided random to the respondents.
Manipulation check pre-test
In the pre-test we looked at the effect of a private life manipulation in five different articles. The first stimulus material was an article without private life information about a female politician. The second article was an article with information about her private life. The third one was an article about a male politician without private information. The fourth was an article with private information about the male politician. And the last article was the control group check: this article was about the political party D66 without the presence of an
individual politician and without private information. In the manipulation check we asked if the article was about an female or male politician or about a party, we asked whether or not there was private information in the article, if the article was plausible and realistic and whether or not the article would influence their vote if there where elections going on.
The manipulation was checked by a one-way ANOVA, which can measure the different means between the conditions. The manipulation check showed that our
measurements were usable and that the gender of the politician was clear, plus the visibility of private information was clear. The check if male politicians were clearly visible was
significant with F (4, 17) = 171.17 p < .001. And also during the check were female politicians significant visible in the stimulus materials F (4,17) = 729.35 p < .001. Plus we checked if it was clear that there was private information about politicians present and if there was information about family life present in the articles, these were also significant. Where both private information F (4,17) = 56.04 p < .001, and information about family were found
significant F (4,17) = 10.23 p < .001. So the difference between personalization and privatization was manipulated in a clear way.
Variables
As variable we will test the effect of personalization and personalization on the citizens’ political evaluations, so the dependent variable is: citizens’ political evaluations. This
evaluation is based on different characteristics that are meant in earlier research: Voters base their evaluation of politicians on personal traits, stereotypes, social presence, and
attractiveness (Bligh et al., 2012; Garzia, 2011; Ohanian, 1990; Biocca, Harms & Burgoon, 2003). The dependent variable is measured by different questions in the survey, based on these earlier named factors. The questions refer to the personality of the politician, in what way the respondents think the politician is capable of his/her function, if they think the politician is attractive and if they think they got to know the politician, and feel a connection with the politician: social presence (Biocca, Harms & Burgoon, 2003). When the respondents read the randomized article, they have to answer a few questions about the politician. All the questions relate to the overall question: what did you think of the politician after reading the article? For the control group we asked the same questions, but these were based on the party D66, and besides to the earlier named factors was also asked if they got a negative or positive feeling of the party after reading the article, which also measures the political evaluation. The questions for the control group measure the general citizens’ political evaluation.
These four latent variables were tested by a few words to what extent they thought about the politician or party. Attractiveness was tested by five items on a seven-point scale whereby the respondents have to tell in what way they thought of the attractiveness of the politician (‘not sexy – sexy’, ‘not attractive – attractive, not nice – nice, ugly – pretty, not elegant - elegant’). Personality was also tested by five items whereby the respondents had to
fill in on a seven-point scale in what way they thought of the politician (cold – warm, not personal – personal, not active – active, not intimate – intimate, not social – social). Social
presence was tested by four items that could be answered on a seven-point scale (‘got to know
the politician’, ‘got an image of the politician’, ‘can imagine the politician vividly’, ‘could be friends with him/her’). And functionality was tested by ten items that also could be answered on a seven-point scale (‘not professional – professional’, ‘ not trustful – trustful’, ‘not
ordinary – ordinary’, ‘not involved – involved’, ‘not honest – honest ‘, ‘not competent – competent’, ‘not experienced – experienced’, ‘not capable – capable’, ‘not reliable – reliable’, ‘not authentic – authentic’). All these items were also used for D66; to test the respondents’ general political evaluation. I choose to use the same questions for the control group, to control the manipulation in a complete way. Although not every question fitted to the party as a subject, most of them could relate to the party as well, and could show some differences between the personalized stimulus materials against no manipulation in the stimulus materials.
To test if the words defined the variable, there was held a factor analysis for the variables, to find out if the words measured on the same scale. For three variables this was the case, one variable loaded on two components, whereby one factor had to be removed (this was the case for personality, the factor activity did not measured on the same scale, so this factor was not computed into the variable personality). The factors that did load on the same factor, were made to one variable; personality, attractiveness, functionality and social presence.
Next to these four latent variables there was asked if the article made the respondents think more negative or positive about the politician or party and if the article would influence their vote. All those factors will test the dependent variable: citizens’ political evaluations, which will be measured by several factors all be falling under the umbrella concept: political’
evaluations.
Analysis
To test the two hypotheses and the research question it is important that all five conditions are compute into one variable, so that they can be tested as one group. To find out if there is a difference between the five conditions, a one-way ANOVA test will compare the means. This test shows the difference between the conditions within the groups. All the different variables will be tested separately and will lead to the effect on the citizens’ political evaluations.
Results Personalization effects
To test my expectations if personalization and privatization media coverage has an effect on citizens’ political evaluations I conducted ANOVA’s. First, I investigated whether
personalization (n = 83) affected citizens’ evaluations of politicians compared to non-personalization (i.e., news article about the party): the control group (n = 22). The results show that the personalized politicians in the articles were evaluated as more attractive (M = 3.26, SD = .92) than the control group evaluated the D66 article (M = 2.80, SD = 1.03), F (1,103) = 3.98, p < .05 η2 = .04. Politicians in the personalized articles were also evaluated as more competent, experienced and involved (M = 5.06, SD = .85) than the control group article (M = 4.54, SD = .82), F (1,103)=6.70 p < .05 η2 = .06. The personality of the characters in the articles of the personalized articles were also evaluated as more positive (M = 4.98, SD = 1.06) than was the personality evaluated of the party (M = 4.24, SD = 1.32), F (1, 103) = 7.58
p < .05 η2 = .07. These significant effects show that the first hypothesis is partly accepted.
Attractiveness, functionality and the personality of the personalized politicians were
expectations. However, personalized articles do have a positive effect on the citizens’ political evaluations. In this case, the positive evaluation was not significant (p = .37) and neither was social presence (p = .41). The results point out the difference between a personalization manipulation versus a non-personalization manipulation.
Privatization effects
Hypothesis two is focused on the effect of privatized information in the articles (N = 41), about female and male politicians, compared to personalized articles about female and male politicians (N = 42). With an ANOVA, the difference in means between the manipulations showed if privatization engenders a positive evaluation.
The test showed that: Respondents thought more positive (M = 4.46, SD = 2.00) about the politician after reading the privatized article than without the manipulation of a privatized article (M = 3.76 SD = 1.43). The effect is found significant F (2, 102) = 3.36 p < .05 η2 = .06. The politicians in the articles with private information are significant evaluated with a higher social presence (M = 4.20, SD = 1.20) than without the privatized manipulation (M = 3.08, SD = 1.24) F (2,102) = 10.40 p < .001 η2 = .17. And politicians in privatized articles are
evaluated as better competent to the function (M = 5.18, SD = .83) than politicians without the privatized manipulation (M = 4.94, SD = .87) whereby the effect is significant F (2,102) = 4.24 p < .05 η2 = .08. And at last are the personalities of the politicians in the privatized articles evaluated significant as more positive (M = 5.48, SD = .91) than the personalities of politicians in the personalized articles (M = 4.49, SD = .96) F (2,102) = 13.98 p < .001 η2 = .22. Conform to the founded results the hypothesis can be confirmed. The factors positive evaluation, social presence, functionality and the personality scored better and more positive compared to the non-privatized manipulation and confirms my expectations. Privatized
articles do have a positive effect on the citizens’ evaluation of politicians. The post-hoc test pointed out that attractiveness was not significant (p = .074).
Table 2 Citizens’ Evaluation of the politicians with a privatized against personalized
manipulation Privatization M (SD) Personalization M (SD) Positive thoughts 4.46 (2.00) 3.76 (1.43) Social Presence 4.20 (1.20) 3.08 (1.24) Functionality 5.18 (.83) 4.94 (.87) Personality 5.48 (.91) 4.49 (.96)
Note. The table contains four factors with their means and standard deviations. Every factor could be answered on a seven-point scale, so the evaluation could score a maximum of 7 that means that the politician is evaluated as very positive, till a score of 0 as minimum that means that the politician is evaluated as very negative.
Gender evaluations
Besides to the difference of privatization and personalization, the research tested if gender has a moderating role in the effect of privatization and personalization. With the two
manipulations (personalized and privatized articles) for a female politician (N = 43), and for a male politician (N = 40) the difference between the manipulations of the gender of the
politician will be clear.
At first the overall effect is tested, this showed a significant effect of social presence, whereby female politicians are evaluated with a higher social presence (M = 3.94, SD = 1.34) than male politicians (M = 3.25, SD = 1.28) F (2,102) = 3.30 p < .05 η2 = .06. Additionally are female politicians evaluated with higher competence for their function (M = 5.24, SD = .82) than female politicians (M = 4.87, SD = .85) this effect is also significant F (2,102) =
as more positive (M = 5.03, SD = .99) than the personality of the male politicians (M = 4.92,
SD = 1.14) F (2,102) = 3.86 p < .05 η2 = .07.
But the one-way ANOVA also showed that there is a difference in effect in manipulation and the evaluation of the gender of the politician: a difference in effect of
privatized and personalized articles between female and male politicians. The test showed that the evaluation of the respondents on privatized female politicians (M = 4.82, SD = 1.10) was more positive than the evaluation of privatized male politicians (M = 4.06, SD = .97). And personalized female were evaluated at more positive (M = 3.90, SD = 1.18) than the personalized male politicians (M = 3.62, SD = 1.66). This effect is a significant effect F (4,100) = 2.72 p < .05 η2 = .10. This test showed that female politicians were overall
evaluated as more positive than were male politicians evaluated (see figure 1.1). This was not what was expected, but the post-hoc test (Bonferroni) made it clear that with not much significance between the privatized and personalized manipulation there was not much difference within the manipulations and gender.
The significant effect of social presence (see figure 1.2) made clear that female politicians are evaluated with a higher social presence after reading privatized articles (M = 4.59, SD = 1.19) than privatized male politician (M = 3.76, SD = 1.07). Personalized female politicians are also evaluated with a higher social presence (M = 3.25, SD = 1.15) than
personalized male (M = 2.79, SD = 1.31) F (4,100) = 7.08 p < .001 η2 = .22. The post-hoc test showed that the comparison of privatized female politician to other groups was not significant (p = .28), but the other comparisons were significant (p < .05).
Respondents also evaluate female politicians as more competent to the function (see figure 1.3) after reading the privatized articles (M = 5.32, SD = .90) than do they evaluated privatized male politicians (M = 5.02, SD = .72). Personalized female politicians also score better on the competent scale (M = 5.14, SD = .73) than personalized male politicians (M =
5,53 4,5 5,4 4,48 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Privatization Personalization
Female politician Male politician
4,82 3,9 4,06 3,62 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Privatization Personalization
Female politician Male politician
Figure 1.1 Citizens’ positivity evaluation of
female and male politicians in two manipulations.
Figure 1.2 Citizens’ social presence evaluation of
female and male politicians in two manipulations.
4,59 3,25 3,76 2,79 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Privatization Personalization
Female politician Male politician
Figure 1.4 Citizens’ personality evaluation of
female and male politicians in two manipulations.
Figure 1.3 Citizens’ functionality evaluation
of female and male politicians in two manipulations. 5,32 5,14 5,02 4,74 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Privatization Personalization
4.74, SD = .96), and as shown in the test do female politicians score generally better than male politicians where functionality is a significant effect F (4,100) = 3.13 p < .05 η2 = .11. The post-hoc test showed that individual comparisons were not significant, so in comparison there is not much difference between female and male politicians.
The respondents evaluate the personality (see figure 1.4) of female politicians as nicer, warmer and better after reading privatized articles (M = 5.53, SD = .92) than privatized male politicians (M = 5.40, SD = .92). Personalized female politicians also score higher on the scale (M = 4.50, SD = .77) than the personality of personalized male politicians (M = 4.48, SD = 1.15). This effect is significant as well F (4,100) = 6.90 p < .001 η2 = .22.
Taken together, these effects show that there is indeed a difference in the effect of privatized and personalized articles on the gender of the politician. The test showed that female
politicians are evaluated different than male politicians, and that there is a difference in mean between privatized and personalized female and male politicians as well.
Discussion
In this study I examined the effect of personalized media coverage on citizens’ political evaluations, and if this effect has different consequences for female and male politicians. Additionally, I focused on the privatized media coverage, with a focus on politicians as individual, but also on the politician as a person with a private life with a family life and hobbies (Van Aelst, Sheafer & Stanyer, 2011). I examined if these types of media coverage had any effect on citizens’ political evaluation. Evaluation is hosted by: the evaluation of the personality of the politician, the evaluation of the attractiveness of the politician, the
evaluation of the functionality of the politician and the social presence of the politician and positive or negative evaluation of politician and party.
In the first phase of the study I did a preparatory study, which showed that
personalization is indeed present on Dutch television in the two most popular talk shows. This outcome is important for further results, because earlier research showed that talk shows can create personalization frames, and these frames have an influence on voters (Baum, 2005).
First I tested if personalization has a positive effect on citizens’ political evaluations whereby the evaluation of respondents, that read the manipulated articles, is compared to the evaluation of the control group. The effect of the exposure to the personalized manipulated article showed that voters evaluate politicians more positive in contradiction to the control group. They also evaluated the personality and the functionality of the politicians as more positive, which confirmed my expectations in hypothesis one. These outcomes confirm earlier research, where personalization led to preferential voting and a higher political interest
(Balmas, Rahat, Sheafer & Shenhav, 2012; Van Aelst et al., 2012; Elmelund-Præstekær & Hopmann, 2012). The evaluation of personalization is more positive than the evaluation of the control group, which means that personalization actual affect citizens’ evaluation.
In the second test we evaluated the media exposure to privatized media coverage of the politicians. This privatized manipulation showed that voters evaluated the politicians as even more positive than they did with personalized articles. They thought more positive about the politician after reading the article, and they felt a higher social presence with the politician after reading the article. Conform to earlier research, the findings show that privatization give voters the feeling that they connect with the politician after reading privatized articles
(Biocca, Harms & Burgoon, 2003). They evaluated the politician as more competent to his or her function and they evaluated the personalities of the politician as more positive than the personalized articles. This is consistent with earlier scholars where trustful politicians were seen as a leader, and where was pointed out that voters base their vote on politicians’ personal traits (Garzia, 2011; McAllister, 2005). With these results hypothesis two is also accepted.
The final part of the results tested the research question (RQ1) and showed that the overall citizens’ evaluation of female politicians is more positive than the evaluation of male politicians. Although was expected by earlier research that this effect should be the other way around: where politicians were evaluated by stereotypical frames and leaders were seen as somebody with a masculine character (Bligh, Casad, Schlehofer & Gaffney, 2012). But the results showed the opposite. The tests pointed out that privatized female politicians were evaluated as most positive; with a higher social presence evaluation, as better competent for the function as a leader, and with a nicer personality. Where earlier research showed that a leader should contain masculine characteristics, points this research out that information about family and hobbies does not mean that a female politician will be rejected by her feminine side. Her feminine characteristics led in fact in this research to a more positive evaluation. And privatized information led also for the male politician to a positive evaluation. Both sexes were evaluated as more positive in the privatized manipulation with personal and family characteristics than in the personalized manipulation, which is also the answer to the research question. Female politicians are evaluated as more positive than male politicians, so gender does play a role in the effect of personalization and privatization of citizens’ evaluation of female and male politicians.
The conclusions described above led to the answer of the central research questions: Political personalization affects citizens’ political evaluation in a positive way, and gender does alter the effect of personalization and privatization on the effect of citizens’ political evaluations. Female politicians were evaluated more positive and although most of the times privatized politicians were evaluated more positively than personalized politicians, in
functionality were female politicians evaluated as more positive than male politicians. The answer to our central question is quite consistent. Political personalization affects citizens’ political evaluations in a positive way, whereby positivity rate, personality, attractiveness,
functionality and social presence where tested in the questionnaire and used as factors for citizens’ evaluations. Gender of the politician can play a role in the positivity of the
evaluation, female politicians score overall better on the positivity level than male politicians.
There are also a few limitations in this study, which maybe can infect the outcomes.
Randomization of respondents should lead to an equal divided respondents group, but for this research that was not the case. In this research 76% of the respondents are female and only 24% of the respondents are male. The expectation is that female voters are more positive to female politicians than male voters. So the outcome can be a little biased. With a more equal division of respondents, the outcome of the test can be different.
Another limitation of this research that can cause biased outcomes could be the fictiveness of the politicians that were used in the articles. The politicians that are named in the articles are not real existing politicians. This can exclude external validity, because the respondents cannot have earlier affections with the politicians yet, that can cause different outcomes. But this means that the evaluation of voters could also be different, because they never heard of the politician before. They do not know if the politician did a good job and what kind of politician he or she is. So in further research the experiment should test articles with existing politicians. To guarantee reliability and validity in a more complete way, they could test the respondents twice: before the manipulation and after the manipulation, so that it is delimited that the article changed their evaluation. In this research we only tested the evaluation after the article, but this could be the same evaluation they have about female or male politicians before they were exposed to the articles.
But overall it is very good that this research has been done. There is not much research about the consequences of personalization and this research fills in the gap of scientific
gender in citizens’ political evaluations, where earlier research found that voters evaluate female politicians as less capable, this research showed that female politicians have a chance in politics and that they were evaluated as more positive than male politicians. So it confronts earlier existing research. These are important conclusions, and point out that a researcher should always be critical to all the research that is done. This research showed that with a different view other results can be found. Further research can focus more on the voting motives of citizens why they specifically choose a certain politician. This can be compared with the effect of personalization and privatization effect, and a focus on stereotypical frames about female and male politicians can show light on the contradicted outcomes this research found in comparison to the research of Bligh, Casad, Schlehofer and Gaffney (2012). Also is this research important for further campaigns and media coverage, this research shows that personalization lead to positive evaluations, so it can be used as a tactic for future elections.
References
Balmas, M., Rahat, G., Sheafer, T., & Shenhav, S. R. (2012). Two routes to personalized politics: Centralized and decentralized personalization. Party Politics, 20(1), 37– 51. doi:10.1177/1354068811436037
Baum, M. A. (2005). Talking the vote: Why presidential candidates hit the talk show circuit. American Journal of Political Science, 49(2), 213-234.
Bennett, W. L. (2012). The personalization of politics: Political identity, social media, and changing patterns of participation. The ANNALS of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science, 644(1), 20–39. doi:10.1177/0002716212451428
Biocca, F., Harms, C. & Burgoon, J. K. (2003). Towards a more robust theory and measure of social presence: Review and suggested criteria. Presence, 12(5), 456–481.
but would you vote for her? Gender stereotypes and media influences on perceptions of women politicians. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(3), 560–597.
doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00781.x
Blumler, J. G., & Kavanagh, D. (1999). The third age of political communication: Influences and features. Political Communication, 16(3), 209–230.
doi:10.1080/105846099198596
Caprara, G. V. (2007). The personalization of modern politics. European Review, 15(02), 151. doi:10.1017/S1062798707000178
Elmelund-Praestekaer, C., & Hopmann, D. N. (2012). Does television personalise voting behaviour? Studying the effects of media exposure on voting for candidates or parties. Scandinavian Political Studies, 35(2), 117–140. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9477.2011.00284.x
Esser, F., Strömbäck, J., & De Vreese, C. H. (2012). Reviewing key concepts in research on political news journalism: Conceptualization, operationalization, and propositions for future research. Journalism, 13(2), 139-143.
Garzia, D. (2011). The personalization of politics in Western democracies: Causes and consequences on leader–follower relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(4), 697–709. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.05.010
Hermans, L., & Vergeer, M. (2012). Personalization in e-campaigning: A cross-national comparison of personalization strategies used on candidate websites of 17 countries in EP elections 2009. New Media & Society, doi:10.1177/1461444812457333
Holtz-Bacha, C., Langer, A. I., & Merkle, S. (2014). The personalization of politics in comparative perspective: Campaign coverage in Germany and the United Kingdom.
European Journal of Communication, 29(2), 153–170.
Jebril, N., Albæk, E., & De Vreese, C. H. (2013). Infotainment, cynicism and democracy: The effects of privatization vs personalization in the news. European Journal of
Communication, 28(2), 105-121.
Kaase, M. (2014). Is there personalization in politics ? Candidates and voting behavior in Germany, 15(3), 211–230.
Kruikemeier, S., Van Noort, G., Vliegenthart, R., & De Vreese, C. H. (2013). Getting closer: The effects of personalized and interactive online political communication. European
Journal of Communication, 28(53), 53-66.
Lilleker, D. G. (2005). The impact of political marketing on internal party democracy.
Parliamentary Affairs, 58(3), 570– 584. doi:10.1093/pa/gsi052
McAllister, I. (2007). The personalization of politics. In R. J. Dalton, & H. D. Klingemann (Eds.), Oxford handbook of political behavior (pp. 571-589). New York, USA: Oxford University Press.
Ohanian, R. (2014). Constructions and validations of a scale to measure celebrity endorsers ’ expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness. Journal of Advertising, 19(3), 39–52. Rahat, G., & Sheafer, T. (2007). The personalization(s) of politics: Israel, 1949–2003.
Political Communication, 24(1), 65–80. doi:10.1080/10584600601128739
Van Aelst, P., Sheafer, T., & Stanyer, J. (2011). The personalization of mediated political communication: A review of concepts, operationalizations and key findings.
Journalism, 13(2), 203–220. doi:10.1177/1464884911427802
Van Santen, R., & Van Zoonen, L. (2012). Stand van de wetenschap: Popularisering en personalisering in politieke communicatie. Tijdschrift voor Communicatiewetenschap,
37(2), 155-176
Vliegenthart, R., Boomgaarden, H. G., & Boumans, J. W. (2011). Changes in political news coverage: Personalization, conflict and negativity in british and dutch newspapers. In
K. Brants, & K. Voltmer (Eds.), Challenging the primacy of politics (pp. 92-110). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Appendix A
Codebook:
Personalization of politicians on Dutch
television
Instruction:
1. In this research it is necessary that the personalisation of the politician is coded. Try to listen carefully what the politician says in the item and if something is said about the politician.
2. Read the instructions carefully. Some codes have their own instruction.
3. Look carefully if the personality of the politician is important and if it comes forward. 4. The personalisation of a politician is divided in 5 parts:
1. Individualization 2. Privatization
3. Professional qualities 4. Professional activities 5. Emotionalization
Every part is coded by several ‘questions’.
5. The part about the politician needs to be answered per politician separately.
6. The questions can be answered by several options. Per question it is mentioned how to answer the codes. (a number, yes or no, open or multiple-choice.)
I. General
Q1. Identification number of the episode
(Every episode has his own identification number, depending on program and date, look for the codes at the last page.)
Q2. Coder
1. Michelle Audiffred 2. Kirsten van Ewijk
Q3. URL of the episode
(Link of website where de item is streamed off)
Q4. Source (Program)
01. De Wereld Draait Door at 19.00h 02. Pauw & Witteman at 22.00h
Q5. Date (of the item)
-DD/MM/YY-
Q6a. Items in the show
(How much items does the show have, every subject is a new item.) ……….
Q6b. Number of items about the politician(s) or about a political subject
(Write down the number of items that have a subject about the politician, or if the item is about politics.)
………
Q7. Total of political actors in the item. (Maximum of 5).
(List the five most important political actors that are presented in the newsitem, code every politician seperately.)
………
Politician – general:
G2. Number
(most important politicans = 01, less important politicans gets # = 05)
Identify the number of political actors (if you have 2 for instance you have to code them both)
………..
G3. Name of the politician. (if named) G4. Gender of the politician
o Female
G5. Ethnicity of the politician
(An ethnicity is a socio-cultural identity, that a certain group of people or some groups connects. More ethnicities are possible.)
African American
Asian
East European
Latino’s (South America, Mexico) Native Americans
North African
Southeast Asians (Arabic) West European
South European
G6. Topic of the conversation.
(More topics can be picked.)
Economy Civil rights Health Argiculture Labor Education Environment Energy
Immigration & integration Transport & traffic
Justice & crime Social welfare
Town & country planning, housing, community Business, banking, national trade
Defence
Science, technology & communication Foreign trade
Foreign affairs Governmental affairs
Environmental planning, conversation, water management Art & culture
Local government
Weather & natural disaster Fires, accidents & calamities Sports
Obituaries Religion
Human interest Other, namely …
Characteristics of the politician
Is the focus of politicians nowadays more on the personality of the politician or is the focus of the talkshow still on the statements of the party, when a politician gets invited. Personality and characteristics of politicians don’t have to be mentioned directly but can also be paraphrased in episodes of the television programs.
Individualization = focus on politician instead of party
I1. Who is the central ‘actor’ in the program, the politician or the party?
A. Politician B. Party
C. On both the party and the politician D. Nvt
I2. Is the conversation about the individual politician?
o Yes
o No
Privatization = focus on private life of the politician (hobbies, leisure time, family life,
personal characteristics)
P3. Does the politician mention personal information about his/her life?
o Yes
o No
Professional qualities = focus on individual qualities of the politician
(competence/professional characteristics of politician)
PQ5. Is the politician characterised by the host of the program by certain aspects?
o Yes 6
o No 7
PQ6. By what characteristics?
(Name the three most important, notable.)
Ethnicity characteristics, namely:……… Character characteristics, namely:……….. Cultural characteristics, namely:……….. Professional characteristics, namely:……….
Professionalization activities = focus on professional activities of the politician
PA7. Is the conversation about political activities?
o Yes
o No
Emotionalization = focus on emotions and feelings of the politician
E8. Does the politician mention his/her feelings in the newsitem?
(Usually told in ‘I’-form, can be every feeling he/she discusses.)
o Yes
o No
Basic information about the ‘item’ in the show
B9. How often is the name of the politician mentioned in the program?
o 0
o 1 o 2 - 4 o 5 - 7 o > 7
B10. How often is the name of the party mentioned in the program?
o 0
o 1 o 2 - 4 o 5 – 7 o > 7
T11. Is the tone of characterization of the politician positive or negative?
o Positive o Neutral o Negative
Appendix B
18/ 11/ 2014 17: 50 Qualt ric s Survey So f t w are
Pag e 1 o f 1 6 ht t p s: / / uvac o m m sc ienc e. q ualt ric s. c o m / Co nt r o lPanel/ A jax.p hp ?ac t io n= Get S urveyP rint Preview &T= 16kIlz
Ik heb bovenstaande gelezen en ga akkoord met de deelname aan het onderzoek
Algemeen Beste deelnemer,
Je bent uitgenodigd deel te nemen aan een onderzoek voor een master scriptie aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam.
Tijdens dit onderzoek zullen wij je een artikel laten lezen plus een vragenlijst geven met daarin vragen over politiek. Het onderzoek duurt ongeveer 10 minuten. Omdat dit onderzoek wordt uitgevoerd onder de verantwoordelijkheid van ASCoR, Universiteit van Amsterdam, heb je de garantie dat:
Jouw anonimiteit is gewaarborgd en dat jouw antwoorden of gegevens onder geen enkele voorwaarde aan derden worden verstrekt. Je zonder opgaaf van redenen kunt weigeren mee doen aan het onderzoek of jouw deelname op ieder moment kunt afbreken. Deelname aan het onderzoek geen noemenswaardige risico’s of ongemakken met zich meebrengt, er geen misleiding plaatsvindt, en je niet met aanstootgevend materiaal zult worden geconfronteerd. Je uiterlijk 5 maanden na afloop van het onderzoek de beschikking over een
onderzoeksrapportage kunt krijgen.
Mocht je na het onderzoek toch klachten of opmerkingen hebben, dan kun je contact opnemen met het lid van de Commissie Ethiek namens ASCoR, per adres: ASCoR secretariaat, Commissie Ethiek, Universiteit van Amsterdam: Nieuwe Achtergracht 166, 1018 WV Amsterdam; 020-525 3680; ascor-secr-fmg@uva.nl. Een vertrouwelijke behandeling van jouw klacht of opmerking is daarbij gewaarborgd.
Wij hopen je hiermee voldoende te hebben geïnformeerd en danken je bij voorbaat hartelijk voor jouw deelname aan dit onderzoek. Dit is voor ons van grote waarde! Hartelijke groet,
Michelle Audiffred BSc michelle.audiffred@student.uva.nl Block 4
Browser Meta Info
This question will not be displayed to the recipient. Browser: Safari
Version: 8.0
Operating System: Macintosh Screen Resolution: 1280x800 Flash Version: 15.0.0 Java Support: 1
User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_10) AppleWebKit/600.1.25 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/8.0 Safari/600.1.25
Hieronder volgen enkele stellingen over politici in het algemeen. Geef voor elke stelling aan in hoeverre je het er mee eens of oneens bent:
Helemaal mee oneens
1 2 3 4 5 6
Helemaal mee eens
Politici beloven meer dan ze kunnen waarmaken. Ministers en staatssecretarissen zijn vooral op hun
eigenbelang uit.
Kamerlid wordt je eerder door je politieke vrienden,
dan door je bekwaamheden.
Geef voor elke stelling aan in hoeverre je het ermee oneens of eens bent.
Helemaal mee oneens
1 2 3 4 5 6
Helemaal mee eens Ik ben goed in staat om een actieve rol te spelen in
de politiek.
Ik heb een goed beeld van de belangrijkste politieke
problemen in ons land.
Soms lijkt de politiek zo ingewikkeld, dat mensen zoals ik moeilijk kunnen begrijpen wat er speelt. Ik denk dat Nederlandse politici zich niet veel aantrekken van wat mensen als ik vinden. Over het algemeen verliezen gekozen politici snel
het contact met burgers.
Politieke partijen zijn alleen geïnteresseerd in de stemmen van mensen en niet in hun meningen. Verkiezingen zorgen ervoor dat de Nederlandse regering aandacht heeft voor wat mensen vinden. Door de jaren heen heeft de Nederlandse regering bij het nemen van beslissingen veel aandacht gehad voor wat mensen vinden.
Hieronder volgen een aantal vragen die gaan over jouw interesse in de politiek. Hoe weinig of hoeveel interesse heb je:
Heel weinig
1 2 3 4 5 6
Heel veel
in politieke onderwerpen in het algemeen? in de lokale politiek (bijvoorbeeld de politiek van de
Pag e 2 o f 1 6 ht t p s: / / uvac om m sc ienc e. q ualt ric s. c om / Cont r olPanel/ A jax.p hp ?ac t ion= Get S urveyP rint Preview &T= 16kIlz
Bij alle verkiezingen Bij bijna alle verkiezingen
Bij iets meer dan de helft van de verkiezingen Bij ongeveer de helft van de verkiezingen Bij iets minder dan de helft van de verkiezingen Bij bijna geen enkele verkiezing
Bij geen enkele verkiezing
in de lokale politiek (bijvoorbeeld de politiek van de
gemeente waar in je woont)?
in de landelijke politiek?
Wat is je politieke voorkeur?
Links Rechts
Heel weinig
1 2 3 4 5 6
Heel vaak
Hoe vaak volg je politiek nieuws in de media (bijvoorbeeld in de krant, televisie, internet)?
Zeker niet
1 2 3 4 5 6
Zeker wel
Stel dat er vandaag Tweede Kamerverkiezingen zouden worden gehouden, zou je dan gaan stemmen?
Sommige mensen stemmen bij elke verkiezing, anderen nooit, en weer anderen af en toe. Van alle politieke verkiezingen waar je mocht stemmen, hoe vaak heb je daadwerkelijk gestemd?
Hierna volgen een aantal vragen over Nederlandse politici. Hieronder staan 4 afbeeldingen van Nederlandse politici. Vul onder de foto's in wat de naam is van de politicus, bij welke de politicus hoort en welke functie de politicus heeft (minister, staatssecretaris, fractievoorzitter, partijleider, kamerlid, minister-president, voorzitter enzovoorts).
Als er een vraag is die je niet weet, vul dan een '?' in.
Wat is de naam van deze politicus? Bij welke partij hoort deze politicus? Welke functie heeft deze politicus?
Hoeveel dagen van een normale week lees je over politiek op het internet via een van de volgende bronnen?
0 dagen per week 1 dag per week 2 dagen per week 3 dagen per week 4 dagen per week 5 dagen per week 6 dagen per week 7 dagen per week Websites van kranten en televisieprogramma’s
zoals Telegraaf.nl, NOS.nl, Volkskrant.nl. Internet nieuwssites, zoals nu.nl, planetnieuws.nl,
nieuws.nl.
Weblogs over nieuws en politiek, zoals geenstijl.nl, sargasso.nl, weblogs van politici, of andere weblogs.
Sommige mensen weten zeker dat zij altijd op dezelfde partij zullen stemmen. Anderen bekijken elke keer opnieuw aan welke partij zij hun stem geven. Wil je aangeven hoe waarschijnlijk het is dat je ooit op de volgende partijen zult stemmen?
Gebruik hiervoor een schaal van 0 (ik zal nooit op deze partij stemmen) tot 11 (ik zal zeker wel eens op deze partij stemmen).
Pag e 3 o f 1 6 ht t p s: / / uvac om m sc ienc e. q ualt ric s. c om / Cont r olPanel/ A jax.p hp ?ac t ion= Get S urveyP rint Preview &T= 16kIlz
ik zal nooit op deze partij stemmen 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 wel eens SP GroenLinks PvdA D66 CDA VVD PVV SGP
Partij voor de Dieren
50+
Als er morgen verkiezingen zouden zijn, dan zou ik stemmen op: Block 10
Je krijgt nu een artikel te lezen.
Lees het artikel goed, de komende vragen zullen over het artikel gaan.
Je kunt na het lezen van het artikel niet terug keren naar het artikel. Let op: Je kunt pas na 30 seconden doorklikken. Vrouw met privé
These page timer metrics will not be displayed to the recipient. First Click: 0 seconds.
Last Click: 0 seconds. Page Submit: 0 seconds. Click Count: 0 clicks.
Pag e 4 o f 1 6 ht t p s: / / uvac om m sc ienc e. q ualt ric s. c om / Cont r olPanel/ A jax.p hp ?ac t ion= Get S urveyP rint Preview &T= 16kIlz
Hieronder volgen een aantal vragen over het artikel. Tijdens het lezen van het artikel vond ik Linda Rietveld:
Koud Warm
Onpersoonlijk Persoonlijk
Passief Actief
Niet intiem Intiem
Niet sociaal Sociaal
Tijdens het lezen van het artikel vond ik Linda Rietveld:
Onprofessioneel Professioneel
Onbetrouwbaar Betrouwbaar
Ongewoon Gewoon
Niet betrokken Betrokken
Oneerlijk Eerlijk
Niet competent Competent
Ondeskundig Deskundig
Onbekwaam Bekwaam
Ongeloofwaardig Geloofwaardig
Onauthentiek Authentiek
Na het lezen van het artikel vind ik Linda Rietveld:
Aantrekkelijk Niet aantrekkelijk
Leuk Niet leuk
Knap Lelijk
Elegant Niet elegant
Sexy Niet sexy
Beantwoordt de stellingen over het artikel hieronder met 1= helemaal oneens tot 7 = helemaal eens.
Helemaal oneens
1 2 3 4 5 6
Helemaal eens
Ik vond het artikel vervelend om te lezen. Het artikel sprak me niet aan. Ik vind het fijn hoe Linda Rietveld overkomt in het
artikel.
