The Visual Image and The Political Image: A Review of Visual Communication Research in The Field of Political Communication

This article was downloaded by: [HINARI]
On: 21 March 2015, At: 10:35

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Review of Communication
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rroc20
The Visual Image and the Political

Image: A Review of Visual
Communication Research in the Field
of Political Communication
Dan Schill
Published online: 13 Apr 2012.
To cite this article: Dan Schill (2012) The Visual Image and the Political Image: A Review of Visual
Communication Research in the Field of Political Communication, Review of Communication, 12:2,
118-142, DOI: 10.1080/15358593.2011.653504
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15358593.2011.653504
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions
The Review of Communication

Vol. 12, No. 2, April 2012, pp. 118142
The Visual Image and the Political

Image: A Review of Visual
Communication Research in the Field
of Political Communication
Downloaded by [HINARI] at 10:35 21 March 2015
Dan Schill
Visual symbols have long been a central component of political communication, and
their importance has increased as the visual medium of television has become the
dominant source of political information. Politicians understand the significance of
visuals and work equally hard to construct effective image bites as they do powerful
sound bites. In short, visual images play a central role in constructing political images.
Despite their central position in political communication, scholars have historically
overlooked visual symbols in their research. Based on a review of the growing and
substantial literature, this study argues that it is time for political communication
scholars to delve deeper into how visual symbols function in public affairs. To that end,
this paper seeks to provide a theoretical and literature base to facilitate this change in
focus and to suggest future avenues of research in this area.
Keywords: Visual Communication; Political Communication; Visual Rhetoric; Image
Bite
You get only forty to eighty seconds on any given night on the network news, and
unless you can find a visual that explains your message you cant make it stick.
VISUALS. I am sure the purists, who want their news unfiltered and their heroes
unrehearsed, gag on the word visuals. But in the Television Age, it hasnt happened, or
at least it hasnt registered, if people cant see what you see.*Michael Deaver,
President Ronald Reagans Deputy Chief of Staff (Deaver & Herskowitz, 1987, p. 141).
We pay particular attention to not only what the president says but what the
American people see. Americans are leading busy lives, and sometimes they dont
Dan Schill (Ph.D., University of Kansas) is Assistant Professor for the Communication Studies Department at
Southern Methodist University. Correspondence to: Dan Schill, PO Box 750113, Dallas, TX 75275-0113, U.S.A.
E-mail: dschill@smu.edu
ISSN 1535-8593 (online) # 2012 National Communication Association
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15358593.2011.653504
The Visual Image
119
have the opportunity to read a story or listen to an entire broadcast. But if they
can have an instant understanding of what the president is talking about by seeing
60 seconds of television, you can accomplish your goals as communicators.*Dan
Bartlett, President George W. Bushs communications director (quoted in Bumiller,
2003)
Despite the rising popularity of online news, television is by far the most
important communication channel in contemporary political affairs (Bennett, 2011;
Denton & Kuypers, 2008; Hollihan, 2001). Nearly 60% of Americans watch TV news
on a daily basis, compared to roughly a third of the public who get news online each
day (Pew, 2010). Moreover, Americans spend triple the amount of time watching
television news versus viewing online news. As indicated by the opening quotations,
the increasing impact of television in political campaigns is well documented.
Television has decreased the importance of political parties (Cook, 1998), focused
attention on horse race coverage (Patterson & McClure, 1976), increased the
importance of emotional appeals (Hart, 1999), shifted campaign spending to
television advertising (Kaid, 2004), and multiplied the importance of visual symbols.
Television is a visual medium at its core (Griffin, 2001) and in the words of Robert
Schmuhl (1990, p. 87), Television is a medium highly dependent on engaging
pictures. There is a visual imperative. As more voters depend on television for
political information and the reach of newspapers and magazines diminishes, the
importance of visual symbols intensifies. While words and text remain fundamental,
Doris Graber observed that television has restored nonverbal symbols to a primacy
previously enjoyed only in the preliterate age of human history (1981, p. 212).
Political communication today is built on a visual foundation; images are primary
and words and text are often secondary (Grabe & Bucy, 2009).
Despite their importance in political communication, communication scholars
traditionally overlook examining visual symbols in their research, instead focusing on
other elements, such as rhetorical strategies, issue framing, and tactical use of
linguistic symbols (Griffin, 2001). An early review of political communication
research found that only 5 out of more than 600 articles examined visual symbols
(Johnson, 1990) and in these studies, the term image was typically defined as the
perceived ethos of the candidates instead of the visual elements present in the media
(Hacker, 1995; Johnson, 1990). The visual aspects of political communication remain
one of the least studied and the least understood areas, and research focusing on
visual symbols in political communication is severely lacking. Critics have repeatedly
called for increased analysis of visuals in political communication (see Adams &
Schreibman, 1978; Graber, 1996b, 2001; Griffin, 1992; Lowry & Shidler, 1995, 1998)
and scholars in communication, political science, psychology, visual studies, and
other fields have begun to respond to these calls (e.g., Bailenson, Iyengar, Garland, &
Yee, 2006; Barnhurst & Steele, 1997; Erickson, 2000; Gilliam & Iyengar, 2000; Grabe &
Bucy, 2009; Graber, 2001; Masters, 1981; Messaris & Abraham, 2001; Morello, 1988,
1992; Mullen, 1997; Olivola & Todorov, 2010; Rosenberg, Bohan, McCafferty, &
120 D. Schill
Harris, 1986). However, this substantial and growing body of research often
approaches the topic from vastly different theoretical and research traditions,
including impression management, framing, behavioral biology, visual rhetoric,
cultivation, face-ism, nonverbal communication, cognitive neuroscience, and media
studies.
There is an urgent need for more research, both theoretical and applied, that
examines the functions of visual symbols in political contexts. This essay attempts to
partially fulfill that need by bringing together literature from political communication, media effects, political science, visual communication, and nonverbal communication, and anecdotal evidence. To this end, this essay has three goals: (1) to
provide a theoretical and literature base to encourage the study of visual symbols in
political communication, (2) to build toward a theory of how visual symbols
function in political contexts and (3) to suggest future avenues of study in this area.
The essay begins with a discussion of the image bite and a review of the relevant
literature on the subject, followed by an overview of the functions of visual symbols
in political contexts. The essay concludes with a discussion of future areas of research
on this topic.
Image Bite
Politicians have perfected the art of the sound bite*speaking in brief, complete
statements that are easily incorporated into media accounts and support the
candidates objectives. Newsmakers must communicate information quickly and
efficiently because the length of the sound bite has steadily decreased from 43 s in
1968 (Hallin, 1992) to 8.9 s in 2008 (Farnsworth & Lichter, 2011). While speaking in
sound bites remains an important strategy, creating image bites*brief visual shots or
video clips where candidates are shown but not heard*is quickly growing in
significance; see also Lowry and Shidlers (1995, 1998) discussion of video bites and
Masters, Frey, and Bentes (1991) visual quotes. In their study of network television
news from the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 American presidential campaigns, Bucy
and Grabe (2007) observed that sound bites accounted for 14.3% of election coverage
while image bites comprised 25.1% of coverage, with candidate-focused image bites
averaging 25.8 s per story in 2004 (see also Grabe & Bucy, 2009).
Since candidates have a limited amount of time to reach voters on television,
candidates attempt to squeeze-in as many favorable symbols, both verbal and visual,
into their sound and image bites (Schill, 2009). These visuals can convey evidence for
verbal arguments, provide heuristic cues for cognitive elaboration, or serve as
arguments via association, connotation, and juxtaposition. Image-makers attempt to
control the politicians dress and facial expression, lighting, setting, backdrop, and
other elements in the visual frame. Media events are staged such that photographers
and videographers are limited to camera angles selected by the campaign. Newsmakers cannot control the medias coverage decisions, but they can largely control
The Visual Image
121
how their message is presented visually on television (Shea & Burton, 2001) and
journalists are pressured to bring viewers dramatic, compelling, and evocative images
(Irby, 2004). Patrick Halley (2002), a media advisor to Hillary Clinton, explains how
politicians use visual imagery to tell their story and get their point across: Ours is a
very visual business, and its driven by the television set, the most powerful weapon in
politics. (p. 19). Candidates and their consultants like Halley think visually and
strategically construct events to create the most powerful pictures that support the
politicians goals, whether that is to get on the nightly news or appear as a strong
leader (Shea & Burton, 2001). In advertisements, speeches, press conferences, and
other forms of communication, every visual element is carefully managed (Jamieson,
1996; Moffit, 1999). Image consultants instruct candidates as to which color of
clothing they should wear and with whom to be photographed (Hendrix, 2001;
Strother, 1999; Wray, 1999).
Politicians put these visual communication suggestions into practice every day.
President George W. Bush nearly perfected the art of the image bite*he had multiple
former television producers on staff to mold his image and went to great lengths to
stage visuals (Bumiller, 2003). When Bush spoke about jobs, for example, audience
members seated behind the president were instructed to remove their neckties so
Bush would appear as a man of the people on television (Shella, 2003) and when
Bush spoke at Mount Rushmore, his communications staff positioned a camera
platform so his profile would be superimposed on the mountain when viewed
on television (Bumiller, 2003). Of course, visual image making is not limited to the
43rd president (Strachan & Kendall, 2004). To demonstrate their unity after the long
and contentious 2008 primary, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton held a joint rally
in Unity, New Hampshire in which the candidates hugged and smiled in colormatched outfits, delivered nearly identical speeches, and stood in front of huge letters
spelling U-N-I-T-Y.
Images are the dominant mode of learning (Barry, 2005), and neurologists have
identified that visuals have a foundational role in developing a sense of self and
consciousness (Damasio, 1999). The language of images quickly and memorably
communicates impressions to viewers in a fashion that is easily understood (Barry,
1997; Messaris, 1997). As Blair (1996, p. 23) observes, the visual component of
movies, television programs and commercial and political advertising, are enormously powerful influences on attitudes and beliefs. Experimental research
in political communication has found that: a single photograph can have a clear
impact on voters judgments regarding a candidates congressional demeanor,
competence, leadership ability, attractiveness, likeableness, and integrity (Rosenberg,
Bohan, McCafferty, & Harris, 1986, p. 123). Audiences process visuals faster and
more efficiently than written text and visuals contain more information than other
symbol forms (Graber, 1996b, 2001; Paivio, 1979). Images are also more memorable
and aid in information recall (Berry & Brosius, 1991; Brosius, 1991, 1993; Brosius,
Donsback, & Birk, 1996; Edwards, 2004; Edwardson, Grooms, & Proudlove, 1981;
Findahl, 1981; Kipper, 1986), particularly when the visuals contain dramatic and new
information (Graber, 1990, 1996b). One study (Newhagen & Reeves, 1992) showed
122 D. Schill
that images from news stories are recalled much more readily than the story topics or
narrative content, particularly when the stories contained compelling negative images
(see also Newhagen, 1998). Political rhetoric scholars Nelson & Boyton (1997)
explain that the persuasion (of political messages) is in the delivery, and the delivery
is in the details (p. 90), adding that the delivery is in the memorable flavors, colors,
images, movements, voices, musics, and characters (p. 94). The power of visual
communication lies in its ability to transmit those flavors, colors, images, and
movements. Relatedly, empirical studies have found: (1) that people believe what they
see more than what they read or hear (Schweiger & Adami, 1999; Shea & Burton,
2001), (2) that when visual and verbal messages are in conflict, viewers have difficulty
remembering the verbal information (Drew & Grimes, 1987; Grimes, 1991; Lang,
1995), and (3) that visual messages override other messages when processed
simultaneously (Krauss, Apple, Morency, Wenzel, & Winton, 1981; Noller, 1985;
Posner, Nissen, & Klein, 1976).
Our current understanding of images suggests visual symbols have 10 important
functions in politics: they serve as arguments, have an agenda setting function,
dramatize policy, aid in emotional appeals, build the candidates image, create
identification, connect to societal symbols, transport the audience, and add
ambiguity. Each of these functions is discussed in detail in the next section.
Ten Functions of Visuals in Politics
Image as Argument Function
The most important function of images in political communication is that they can
have rhetorical impact and make persuasive arguments to viewers (Birdsell &
Groarke, 1996, 2007; Blair, 2004; Gallagher & Zagacki, 2005; Kenney & Scott, 2003;
Newhagen, 2002). While images lack a visual syntax that can convey precise
relationships among objects or ideas, images can be juxtaposed to suggest
associations, causal connections, contrasts, analogies, and generalizations (Blair,
2004; Messaris, 1997). Images do not function independently; rather, they tap into
existing cultural and historical knowledge within the audience and typically operate
in conjunction with linguistic or textual arguments. Although some rhetorical
theorists disagree with using the term argument (e.g., Fleming, 1996), visual
rhetoric, like all forms of communication, is a system of signs (Foss, 2005). A
candidate may stand in front of a flag to co-opt the meanings the flag visual evokes
and suggest a causal connection between the candidate and the patriotic attitudes
associated with the flag (Barry, 1997). Typically, images act as enthymemes, or
implied arguments, with the audience filling in a portion of the evidence, reasoning,
or claim to complete the argument (Blair, 2004). If one considers a political ad that
features pictures of the candidate at a hospital, meeting with farmers, walking in slow
motion with family members, and writing legislation in an office, it is clear that those
images are making arguments about the candidates fitness for office, character
qualities, and issue positions. While not explicit, these images invite enthymematic
The Visual Image
123
conclusions by the viewer. For instance, images of Iraqis cheering American troops
removal of a statute of Saddam Hussein during second Iraq War invited viewers to
conclude that the war was over, that the American coalition had triumphed, and that
Iraqi citizens supported American efforts (Fahmy, 2007).
Viewers naturally combine and associate the visual and aural and use the visual
messages to clarify the meaning of ambiguous verbal passages in a news story
(Doremus, 1992). When listeners perceive a sound, they are influenced not only by
the sound, but also by the visual and contextual information, a psychological
principle known as the McGurk Effect (McGurk & MacDonald, 1976). Additionally,
when the visual and the aural are combined, many viewers associate what is pictured
with what is said (Grimes & Drechsel, 1996). For example, when images of African
Americans were used to illustrate news stories on school vouchers and the threestrikes law, readers associated the ethnic groups with the social problem addressed in
the story (Abraham & Appiah, 2006, see also Valentino, Traugott, & Hutchings,
2002).
Facial expressions and gestures are one way images make arguments (Lanzetta,
Sullivan, Masters, & McHugo, 1985). It is political folklore that Americans who
watched the first 1960 presidential debate on television preferred the photogenic
Kennedy, while those in the hall and listening via radio favored Nixon (see White,
1961). Political communication scholar Rod Hart (1999, p. 34) argues that
Television turns faces into arguments. Nonverbal communication, such as facial
expressions and gestures, account for 65% of all communication (Birdwhistell, 1970)
and are more powerful, or at least equal to verbal and written communication
(Argyle, Salter, Nicholson, Williams, & Burgess, 1970; Argyle, Alkema, & Gilmour,
1972). Research examining such nonverbal symbols, which are communicated
visually, has found that voters rely on facial expressions to learn about and form
opinions of the candidates (Bucy, 2000, 2003; Englis, 1994; Lanzetta et al., 1985;
Olivola & Todorov, 2010; Sullivan & Masters, 1988), that physical attractiveness
creates a halo effect by increasing ratings of competency, trustworthiness, qualification, and leadership ability (Dion, Berscheid, & Walster, 1972; Efran & Patterson,
1974; Riggle, Ottati, Wyer, Kuklinski, & Schwarz, 1992; Surawski & Ossoff, 2006; see
also Ambady & Rosenthal, 1993) and that attractive candidates receive more votes
that unattractive candidates (Efran & Patterson, 1974; Rosenberg & McCafferty, 1987;
Sigelman, Sigelman, & Fowler, 1987). A great deal of voting appears to be driven, at
least in part, by the physical appearance of politicians (Banducci, Karp, Thrasher, &
Rallings, 2008; Benjamin & Shapiro, 2009; Johns & Shephard, 2011; Little, Burriss,
Jones, & Roberts, 2007; Olivola & Todorov, 2010; Poutvaara, Jordahl, & Berggren,
2009). Research suggests that evaluations of the candidates competence based
entirely on their facial appearance strongly predicts the outcome of elections
(Todorov, Mandisodza, Goren, & Hall, 2005) and that those evaluations can occur
in as little as a tenth of a second (Willis & Todorov, 2006; see also Engell, Haxby, &
Todorov, 2007). One study of TV news coverage of the 2000 campaign found that
Al Gore exhibited more positive nonverbal expressions and that George W. Bush
expressed more negative nonverbal behavior on the news, and that survey respondent
124 D. Schill
ratings of the candidates were significantly correlated with their exposure to the
visual portrayals (Coleman & Banning, 2006; see also Scheufele, Kim, & Brossard,
2007). Facial expressions are also capable of influencing viewers, even when they are
displayed in the background and without accompanying sound, the format typical of
an image bite (Lanzetta et al., 1985). The facial expression of newscasters can also
make an impact on how viewers understand politics and political leaders. A study
found that voters who regularly watched a newscaster who displayed positive facial
expression toward a candidate were more likely to vote for the smiled-upon
candidate (Mullen et al., 1986).
A second example of a type of argument advanced by visuals is a candidates use of
crowds (Schill, 2009). Crowds are used in media events to argue that the candidate
is popular, widely supported, and has momentum in the campaign. Pictures of the
candidate juxtaposed with cheering supporters, packed speech halls, and autograph
seekers act as a visual social proof*that what is popular must be good (Cialdini,
1993). Celebrities, such as movie stars, well-known athletes, and musicians, may also
appear with the politicians to indicate mass appeal or credibility. Candidates will go
to great lengths to generate pictures that communicate this social proof, and crowds
are a principal concern for media event advance staff (Halley, 2002).
This function of images has an important implication for political arguments.
Since visuals are at the core of political communication, the arguments advanced by
those images have tremendous influence on our political discussions. And when
many of those images are enthymematic*lacking explicit evidence, reasoning, or
conclusions*arguments are more difficult to verify and substantiate. While Coleman
(2006) found that images improve viewers ethical reasoning, communication scholar
Kathleen Hall Jamieson (1988, p. 13) asserts that the visual properties of television
allow politicians to use [it] to short circuit the audiences demand that . . . claims . . .
be dignified with evidence. Electioneering politicians no longer try to covert
through argumentation; rather, they attempt to say something we in the audience can
identify with, to project an image by what they say, to communicate something about
their personalities, argue Denton and Hahn (1986, p. 288). For this reason, it is
imperative that visual arguments be understood and further scrutinized.
Agenda Setting Function
Agenda-setting theory asserts that the news media can determine the stories or issues
that are important in the public agenda through which stories are considered
newsworthy and given prominence and space (McCombs, 2004). Moreover visuals
give candidates and campaigns the opportunity to control the news agenda by
providing news outlets with attention-grabbing images (Wanta, 1988; see also Klijn,
2003). Since television news and, increasingly, print and online news, has a visual
imperative, candidates can greatly improve the likelihood that their message will
garner coverage if they provide newsworthy pictures. As journalist Jim Lederman
(1992, p. 132) notes, Television news is enslaved to images. If an idea cannot be
recorded in the form of an image, it will rarely, if ever, be given extensive time on a
The Visual Image
125
nightly network newscast. Further, viewers are more likely to watch and respond to
appealing pictures because visual symbols are typically more interesting and vivid
than print or spoken symbols (Grabe & Bucy, 2009; Graber, 2001; Hill, 2004). In the
case of pictures, the needs of the politicians completely correspond with the needs of
those media personnel responsible for visuals*they both want dramatic pictures of
the candidate. A good picture for the White House is a good picture for print
photographers and television cameras (Berkman & Kitch, 1986, p. 206). In contrast,
stories without a compelling visual component, such as chemicals seeping into
the earth or global warming, are unlikely to receive extensive coverage. Pulitzer Prize
winning media critic Shaw (1992, p. A16) observes, Clear, dramatic pictures are the
key to both good television and to the impact a given story will have on viewers.
While politicians cannot control the editorial choices made by reporters, they can
to a large extent control the pictures the media are able to shoot from an event.
Matthew Bennett, former trip director for Al Gore, said that the reason that visuals
are so important is that we cant control the decisions made by the writer or editor
about what will be covered. . . . If the media wanted to run a horse race story and Al
Gore wanted to talk about policy, the advance team can at least convey the intended
message visually (cited in Shea & Burton, 2001, p. 178). Similarly, Hillary Clinton
consultant Halley (2002, p. 19) wrote that, A good rule of thumb is that the media
are going to highlight the most interesting picture you provide for them.
Not only can powerful visuals gain an issue or politician access to the public
agenda, images can also frame issues in the news (Messaris & Abraham, 2001) and the
information in a news photograph exerts considerable influence on the readers
perception of the issue covered in the story (Gibson & Zillmann, 2000; Perlmutter,
2007). The 1992 Gulf War, for example, was visually framed in newsmagazines as a
fantastical and antiseptic video game between the forces of good and evil (Moriarty &
Shaw, 1995; see also, Perlmutter, 1999). Fahmy (2010) compared war and terror
images from English- and Arabic-language outlets and concluded that each newspaper visually reported the news in a politically and culturally advantageous manner
reflective of the societies the newspapers reach. In addition, research has shown that
these visual frames influence how viewers respond to and process the messages. In
one study, news stories of war casualties with a photograph elicited more negative
emotion in readers, such as puzzlement, anger, and sadness, than those conveyed via
text alone (Pfau et al., 2006). A related study documented that when photographs of
conflict accompany stories of protests, readers react more negatively to the protest
groups and the protest issue (Arpan et al., 2006). Research has also demonstrated that
news images can have a priming effect on audiences (Domke, Perlmutter, & Spratt,
2002; Valentino, Hutchings, & White, 2002). That is, images can trigger previously
held attitudes in a receivers mind, making those viewpoints more accessible and
vivid, which are then used to evaluate the news story. In an experimental study,
Valentino et al. (2002) found that images of racial minorities in political television
advertisements prime racial attitudes in viewers, even when those images are subtle.
Reporters, editors, photographers, and videographers should be aware that the use
of images amounts to additional storytelling that journalists may not be aware of
126 D. Schill
when they select photographs to accompany news stories. Information provided

through photos, especially the ready exemplification of ethnicity and gender, can
indeed affect readers perception of the issue (Gibson & Zillmann, 2000, p. 365).
Working together with the on-screen graphics and voice-over text, images can prime
viewers to associate the individuals and groups depicted in an image with the issue
discussed in the story.
Dramatization Function
A function of visuals related to the agenda setting function is the dramatization
function. The nature of visual symbols allows candidates and other political
participants to give life to a policy and demonstrate its importance through pictures
(Luntz, 2007). Rhetoric theorist Walter Fisher (1984) argues that humans are
inherently story-telling animals, and the aesthetic qualities of images can facilitate
these narratives by setting the scene, depicting characters, and adding drama. The
film, The Cove (Stevens, DuPre Pesmen, & Psihoyos, 2009), brought attention to
Japans dolphin hunting culture by graphically depicting the process by which
dolphins are herded into a hidden cove and killed with spears and knives. Food, Inc.
(Kenner & Pearlstein, 2009), a documentary film examining corporate farming in the
United States, illustrated the story of the industrial production of meat, grains, and
vegetables with portrayals of killing rooms and chicken farms. These issues would not
have received the same attention or made the same impact without the dramatization
aspect of visuals.
Politicians frequently stage media events to dramatize their policy (Schill, 2009). In
this way, images are used to add interest and encapsulate a point. President Clinton
and Vice-President Gore, for example, strung computer cable at an elementary school
to dramatize their commitment to technology and education. When Reagan spoke
next to the Brandenburg Gate on the Berlin Wall, it allowed him to demonstrate his
strong commitment to fighting communism. In a media event to promote nutrition,
First Lady Michelle Obama planted a vegetable garden on the White House South
Lawn. The hand-shaking and back-patting photograph sessions that are staged for
cameras at international summits and negotiations are similarly designed to suggest
alliances or peaceful talks. Martin Luther King Jr. used his 1963 campaign to create
images that dramatized racial injustice, make visible the oppression of African
Americans, and force the nation to confront visual evidence of racism (Johnson,
2007). Further, these news images can be so dramatic that they serve as metonyms of
events and icons for social movements; for example, press images from the protests
during the 2001 G8 summit marginalized the antiglobalization movement by framing
the protestors as violent rioters (Perlmutter & Wagner, 2004).
Emotional Function
Visual symbols are uniquely equipped to produce an emotional response from
viewers (Hill, 2004; Lanzetta et al., 1985). Images tap into a reservoir of collectively
The Visual Image
127
held knowledge, activating powerful emotions and encouraging reflection and action
(Hariman & Lucaites, 2007).
Visuals can quickly communicate the full spectrum of emotions (Plutchik, 1980)*
joy, trust, fear, surprise, sadness, disgust, anger, and anticipation. Antiabortion
advocates frequently use images of dead fetuses to shock and appeal to the value of
life. Mehrabian (1972) suggests that nonverbals convey 93% of emotional meaning.
Gestures and facial expressions communicate emotions across cultures (Ekman,
1982), indicate the emotional state and behavioral intention of the communicator
(Bucy & Bradley, 2004; Masters & Sullivan, 1993; see also Bucy & Newhagen, 1999),
and provide heuristic cues as to how observers should react in crisis (Bucy, 2003).
Further, images in motion create more emotional arousal than still images*in one
study, viewers of motion pictures and video significantly increased their emotional
arousal in comparison to viewers of similar still images (Detenber & Simons, 1998).
American political advertisements are typically designed to make these motivational
appeals via visuals, such as a threatening bear symbolizing communism in Reagans
1984 spot, an empathic President Bush hugging 9/11 victim Ashley in his 2004 ad,
and George H.W. Bushs fear-inducing Revolving Door spot in 1988. Pictures also
play an important emotional role in television news*television is an emotional
medium and the news comprises stories that focus on the emotional and the visual.
Importantly, research suggests that this emotionality of visuals does not hinder the
ability of viewers to process the image logically and rationally. While studies of the
human brain have found that images are processed emotionally nearly instantaneously and before viewers can rationally process the message (Barry, 1997), images
activate both rational and affective processes, and these emotional and logical
frameworks are interrelated (Domke, Perlmutter, & Spratt, 2002). So while images
can stir emotions in a viewer, they can also encourage viewers to think logically, as
discussed in the previous sections.
Image-Building Function
Most Americans do not experience political leaders first hand; they instead rely on
the media to learn about their elected officials and candidates for public office. One
of the primary means citizens learn about those leaders is through pictures*the
visual image can construct the political image (Graber, 1987). In the words of political
psychologist Drew Westen (2007), visuals are a key element of a candidates curb
appeal or the feeling voters get when they drive by a candidate a few times on
television and form an emotional impression (p. 294). These curb appeal pictures
provide heuristic cues regarding the candidates background, personality and
demeanor, and directly shape a candidates image. Politicians, for example, may
build a compassion image by appearing with children, family members, admiring
supporters, or religious symbols or they may communicate ordinariness by
appearing in casual or athletic clothing, linking themselves to common folk by
visiting disadvantaged communities, or depicting themselves participating in physical
activity such as chopping wood, clearing brush, or hunting (Grabe & Bucy, 2009).
128 D. Schill
Research has documented that how an image is shot and framed can also influence
perceptions of image. In one controlled experiment, for instance, viewers rated those
photographed from a low angle as more active and powerful than those
photographed straight-on (Mandell & Shaw, 1973). Components of the picture
such as selection, lighting, proximity, and setting can also function as indicators for
viewers (Barry, 1997; Endelman, 1976; Graber, 2001; Messaris, 1997). Graber (1996a)
summarizes some of the meanings communicated by visuals:
When photographed from a low angle, people are judged to be taller and more
powerful than when the camera looks down on them. . . . Extreme angles tend to
produce negative evaluations. People tend to be evaluated more favorably when
they are photographed in motion rather than in stationery positions. The closer the
camera, the more people like what the candidate says. Close-ups also make people
seem friendlier and more approachable . . . . Forceful hand gestures during a speech
give the impression of strength and passion . . . . The background of the candidates,
including color and lighting, also alters the images and moods that are conveyed.
(pp. 1213)
Audiences find television is the best medium to make personality trait judgments
such as competence, leadership, and integrity, largely due to the prominence of visual
symbols (Bartels, 1993). Research has shown that newspaper images also play a role
(e.g., Moriarty, 1987); newspaper photographs shape how voters evaluate a
candidates general impression, the personal traits of that candidate, and their
decision of whether to vote for that candidate (Barrett & Barrington, 2005b).
Parmelee (2003) similarly found that visuals played a significant role in constructing
images of the 2000 presidential candidates.
Because visual symbols are critical in forming a politicians image, candidates and
their advisors consider how to use those pictures to communicate a desired image.
The image people work with concepts like charismatic, handsome, youthful, etc.
And they strive to keep their candidate moving*through shopping centers, oldage homes, schools, etc. They utilize visual information on television to
communicate this image. Television is thus conceptualized as a vehicle for bringing
the voters to the candidate, where they can see and experience his glorious image.
(Anderson & Van Winkle, 1976, p. 352)
There are numerous examples of such visual image-making: Jimmy Carter dressing in
blue jeans, Clinton playing the saxophone, Lamar Alexander wearing a work shirt,
and Paul Simon sporting a bow tie. No matter how difficult his political predicament,
Reagan always communicated an image of strength by smiling and waving to cameras
as he walked from the White House to his helicopter. A negative visual, of course, can
also create and reinforce negative perceptions, such as when Lyndon Johnson was
photographed lifting his beagle by the ears (German, 2008) or when Bob Dole was
filmed falling off a stage during a campaign event in 1996.
Glassman and Kenney (1994) found that images of the candidates in a presidential
campaign are likely to follow one of several mythic archetypes (see also Bucy &
Grabe, 2007). The most common visual archetype is a glad-to-see-you image of the
candidate waving, pointing, shaking hands, or giving a thumbs-up, usually with a
The Visual Image
129
crowd. The second visual archetype is the politician as dynamic speaker commanding
a podium. The third most common mythic image is the politician as beloved leader.
These images depict the candidate as applauded, accepting an award, or otherwise
receiving praise from a group. Fourth, candidates are illustrated in visuals as mythic
athletes or outdoorsman, such as playing football, hunting, or golfing. Other
common visual mythic archetypes include the candidate as media star, the candidate
as father figure, or the candidate as a family figure. In a study comparing visual
portrayals of Taiwanese politicians to politicians in the United States, Lee and
colleagues (2004) found that candidates in Taiwan are more likely to be depicted in a
glad to see you pose, with a camera angle looking down, with no expression, and as
an equal to others in the same photograph while U.S. candidates were more likely to
be depicted as beloved leaders, at leisure, from the side or back, looking determined,
and with cheering crowds.
Identification Function
Because visuals can quickly make arguments and communicate emotions, pictures
are uniquely equipped to create identification, or perceived similarity, between
politicians and audiences. In Kenneth Burkes (1950) terms, identification occurs
when individuals are united in substance (e.g., shared activities, attitudes, and ideas)
and this is important because the more a person identifies with a source, the more
power that source has to influence the person. In many ways, it is easier for audiences
to identify with an image than other communicative forms. In an experimental study
in which voters were asked to evaluate unfamiliar candidates based on an image of
the candidate morphed with their own image, Bailenson and colleagues observed that
voters respond most positively to candidates whose faces appear similar to their own,
especially when evaluating an unfamiliar candidate (Bailenson, Garland, Iyengar, &
Yee, 2006; Bailenson, Iyengar, Yee, & Collins, 2008). In other words, when voters see
themselves in the faces of politicians, voters are more likely to identify with that
candidate and view the candidate more favorably than candidates who do not look
similar. For example, in Barack Obamas keynote address at the 2004 Democratic
National Convention, the pictures of the multiracial Senate candidate identified him
with many in the Democratic Party, and were supported by the verbal content of his
speech. Importantly, the opposite effect is equally likely*that voters would
disassociate with candidates who look differently than themselves.
Documentation Function
Visual symbols can document and authenticate that an event occurred or that
something happened (Messaris, 1997). Just as footprints in the sand indicate that a
person walked along the beach, a photograph can indicate and document events that
have happened. In this way, images serve as evidence or proof of argumentative
claims. Viewers use sign reasoning to accept images and the implied associations
the images suggest. Two shots joined together in the context of a broader narrative
130 D. Schill
are read by the viewer as being part of a coherent stream of space, time, and action,
even if the shots were in fact taken at widely separate times and places (Messaris,
1994, p. 35). Of course, visuals can also challenge or disprove politicians statements,
such as when Hillary Clintons repeated claims during the 2008 presidential primary
of being under sniper fire during a 1996 visit to Bosnia were contradicted by archival
footage of Clinton and her daughter comfortably arriving and greeting children and
troops.
This documentation function is frequently demonstrated in television advertisements that depict the candidate visually*the candidate working in their office
documents that they work hard for their constituents, the candidate walking with
their children and spouse gives proof that they are committed to their family,
the candidate talking with blue-collar workers verifies that they are connected to
average Americans, and so on. This is a primary function in biography spots that
introduce the candidate to voters. Candidates often document their military service
in campaign communication, such as John Kerry using films of him serving in
Vietnam and Bob Dole using photographs of him recovering from war injuries. In
Bill Clintons A Man from Hope ad series in the 1992 campaign, images were used
to document that Clinton had a modest upbringing and was an average American:
Clinton was shown as a child holding a Bible, kissing his wife on his wedding day,
skipping stones with his daughter, and relaxing in a hammock. Though these images
are frequently staged, they can still be effective because claims made by visuals are
held to less strict standards of accountability than verbal claims (Messaris, 1997).
When images and words are in conflict, audiences are more likely to accept the visual
then the aural or written. We tend to believe what we see*which is the main reason
television news has higher credibility than other sources*and engaging visuals carry
their own meanings, frequently quite distinct from the words we might hear. The eye
overrides the ear (Schmuhl, 1990, p. 32).
Societal Symbol Function
Visuals are often used in political contexts to tap into iconic, societal symbols and
draw on the emotional power associated with those symbols (Lucaites, 1997;
Perlmutter, 1998; Spratt, Peterson, & Lagos, 2005). Both Ronald Reagan and George
W. Bush associated their presidencies with the American West and the story of
the mythic cowboy, a powerful concept in American culture (Hoffman, 2011).
Likewise, Joe Rosenthals Iwo Jima flag-raising photograph signifies American
military strength and patriotism, and the cultural power of this visual increased
after widespread media use of image following the September 11 attacks (Spratt et al.,
2005). Candidates frequently surround themselves with American flags to take
advantage of the flags patriotic, historical, and mythic symbolism. American flags
are ever present and ubiquitous at campaign events and in political advertisements
(see Schill, 2009). Candidates will go to great lengths to be photographed with the
American flag*for example, John Kerry hung an oversized flag on the ceiling for
cameras in the pit in front of the podium to capture when shooting up at the
The Visual Image
131
candidate and George H.W. Bush held a media event at a flag factory. Flags are not
the only patriotic visual used by candidates; American presidents rarely miss the
opportunity to speak at Mount Rushmore, the Statue of Liberty, Fourth of July
parades, National Parks, Air Force One, or the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. The
White House, Capitol, Supreme Court, and other sites around the National Mall are
also frequently used as backdrops.
Another type of societal symbol used by candidates is the military and military
personnel. Images of candidates with troops or military equipment are widespread,
especially during wartime. Politicians will commonly visit injured troops, don
military uniforms, and tour weapons-production facilities. These images tap into the
rally around the flag emotions Americans have for soldiers and associate the leader
with strength and commitment to national defense.
A third common societal symbol commonly communicated visually is the
candidate playing or attending sports*especially sports central to the American
experience. In their ads and media events, candidates regularly picture themselves
swinging a baseball bat, tossing around a football, or out on a hunt. Many candidates
attend sporting events and participate in game rituals such as throwing out the first
pitch of a baseball game. The president traditionally records a greeting to be aired
before the Super Bowl. In 1984, President Reagan became the first sitting president to
attend a NASCAR race when Air Force One landed behind the Dayton speedway on
race day. After the September 11 terrorist attacks, George W. Bush threw out the first
pitch at Yankee Stadium at the first post-9/11 baseball game*simultaneously
drawing on the emotions associated with baseball and the New York Yankees,
Americas team. Drawing on their communicative power, images from this event
were prominently featured in a meet-the-candidate documentary video at the
2004 Republican National Convention.
Finally, visuals are used to associate candidates with individuals who serve a mythic
or symbolic function. Congressional candidates often prominently feature themselves
with mythic leaders of their party, such as current or past presidents. These images
also suggest an implied endorsement. In the previously mentioned Man from Hope
series, Clinton was shown shaking hands with John F. Kennedy, a mythic figure for
many Americans, to appropriate the feelings associated with Kennedy. Images can
also be used by opposing campaigns to link a politician with an unpopular individual
or group. Clinton ads in 1996 visually linked Bob Dole to unpopular House Speaker
Newt Gingrich and in 2008, Obama repeatedly tied John McCain to an out-of-favor
President George Bush with an unflattering photo of the two hugging.
Transportation Function
Using the previously discussed functions, visuals can transport the audience to a
different time or place in ways that words alone cannot. Researchers studying the
concept of presence in virtual worlds examine the role of visuals in transporting users
to a particular spatial, emotional, or virtual space (Lombard & Ditton, 1997; see also
Meyrowitz, 1985). Images can be used to bring the audience figuratively to a time in
132 D. Schill
the past or an idyllic future. Once transported, audiences are more likely to be
accepting of related visual arguments and emotional appeals. In 1984, advertisements
for Ronald Reagan depicted, through a series of visual arguments, that it was
Morning in America. These advertisements used pictures of Americans raising
flags, driving to work, and playing in their yards to transport the audience to an
idealized America. In the 2002 and 2004 campaigns, visuals were used to transport
viewers to the site of the September 11 terrorist attacks. Both Republicans and
Democrats used these images to take the audience back to that time and their
emotions associated with those events. Campaign films from President Bush, for
instance, juxtaposed images of the World Trade Center, firefighters, and grief-ridden
office workers with images of Bush touring and speaking amidst the rubble.
Ambiguity Function
A critical function of visuals is that they can add ambiguity to arguments*especially
to contentious or negative messages (Blair, 1996). Images can say things without
saying things. As discussed earlier, visual arguments are frequently made by
association and visual claims are typically held to less strict standards
of accountability than other symbols; they are often used to make controversial
arguments. Visual attacks are common in negative advertisements for precisely these
reasons. An image can imply an attack without the candidate making the attack
explicit in words. For example, in 1964, the Daisy ad juxtaposed a young girl
counting the petals on a flower with a nuclear countdown and explosion. The
conclusion suggested by the visuals*that voting for Barry Goldwater would mean a
vote for nuclear war*is uniquely made by the visuals in a powerful manner that is
difficult to challenge. This potential ambiguity of images is either a strength or
weakness, depending on the arguers intent. As stated by Blair (1996, p. 38), if
suggestiveness is the aim, this is a virtue; where clarity or precision are desiderata, it is
a disadvantage. Occasionally, a candidate or news agency will use visuals to
overpower a negative story. Stories are often complex combinations of visual and
verbal content*all too often the visual information is so powerful that it overwhelms
the verbal, argue Baran and Davis (1995, p. 271).
This is significant because a strong body of existing research finds that journalists
are frequently biased in their visual coverage of political candidates (e.g., Grabe,
1996). Candidates endorsed by a particular newspaper or whose political leaning
mirror the political viewpoint of the paper receive more favorable photographs than
their opponents (Barrett & Barrington, 2005a). A study of newsmagazine photographs of the 1984 presidential race, for example, found that early campaign photos
favored Republicans, but Ferraro photos outnumbered Bush images 2 to 1 (Moriarty
& Garramone, 1986; see also Hellweg & Phillips, 1981; Tiemans, 1978). Clinton
received slightly better pictorial treatment than Dole in the 1996 presidential election;
however, the photos of the two candidates rose and fell together in favorability
indicating a strategic bias benefiting the front-runner (Waldman & Devitt, 1998). An
analysis of Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News & World Report during the 1988
The Visual Image
133
presidential campaign observed that the newspapers balanced their photographic

treatment of the candidates based on number of images, camera angle, and position
and dress of the candidate (Moriarty & Popovich, 1991). Other research suggests
that visuals are held to a less strict standard of objectivity than print stories. In the
1976 campaign for German chancellor, the visual depictions of the candidates were
biased*Helmet Kohl was portrayed negatively visually while Helmut Schmidt was
portrayed positively*even though the verbal statements of the journalists was
balanced (Kepplinger, 1982). Biases in the pictorial coverage of political issues have
similarly been found in media coverage of political issues. When depicted in
photographs on the front-page of the New York Times, non-U.S. agents are
represented as more explicitly violent and more negatively than U.S. agents (Fishman
& Marvin, 2003). And a content analysis of photographic coverage of the McCarthy
censure hearings in four newspapers found that only one papers photographs were
generally neutral, while the other three visually portrayed McCarthy in a positive way
(Leslie, 1986).
Discussion and Areas of Future Research
Images clearly play a foundational role in the political communication process.
Newsmakers not only consider their words, they also consider the messages they are
communicating visually*they are constructing image bites. Visual images role in
political affairs will likely grow as television continues to increase in importance, and
will play an equally central role on newer audio-visual channels such as the Internet
and video streaming. Political campaigns and governing now take place in a mass
mediated democracy dominated by images. Not only are we now campaigning largely
by pictures*we are also governing by pictures and these televised images create the
political culture from which we debate candidates and policies. In the words of
Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, and Signorielli (1986, pp. 1718), Television is the source
of the most broadly shared images and messages in history. . . . Television cultivates
from infancy the very predispositions and preferences that used to be acquired from
other primary sources. . . . The repetitive pattern of televisions mass-produced
messages and images forms the mainstream of a common symbolic environment.
As this review of the literature has shown, scholars from a variety of research
traditions are examining specifically how these images are functioning in the public
sphere. One myth that must be challenged is that visuals have limited importance in
politics, operate superficially, or are of trivial consequence. Not only is this myth
incorrect, it has exerted a chilling effect on research in this area. When scholars only
examine written or verbal texts, they are only seeing a small part of the political
communication process. As pioneering scholar Doris Graber (1987, pp. 136137) has
observed, One cannot adequately judge the messages conveyed by television news
without including audiovisual and visual aspects of these messages. Examination of
only the verbal aspects seriously distorts the meanings conveyed. While research in
each of the functions is necessary, scholars should expand our understanding of
visuals by focusing on four areas (1) how visual symbols are constructed, (2) how
134 D. Schill
visual symbols operate rhetorically, (3) how visual symbols are received by audiences,
and (4) the normative implications of visual symbols in politics.
There is a strong body of research in political communication examining how
speechwriters and communication consultants shape politicians speeches, and
similar research is needed to better grasp how visual symbols are constructed. In
effect, advance men and women are visual speechwriters, and it is imperative that we
develop knowledge of their practices and the impact of those practices. Along these
same lines, continued study is required of the media gatekeepers who shoot and
manage the images that accompany news stories and the visual news values that guide
those gatekeepers decisions.
Future avenues of research should also develop the discussion in this essay of how
images operate as argumentative symbols, and the specifics of those functions. This
should include descriptive studies using content analysis, rhetorical criticism, and
thematic analysis (e.g., Griffin & Lee, 1995; Kenney, 1993; Lucaites, 1997; Medhurst &
Desousa, 1981; Woo, 1994), in addition to prescriptive and theoretical reports
examining the microlevel, causeeffect operations of visual symbols employing
experimental designs (e.g., Peterson, 2005). This topic is so broad that a wide variety
of methodological and theoretical approaches are appropriate.
The central question*how do audiences process and respond to images?*
remains largely unanswered and a great deal of future research is needed in this
area. Just like other spoken or written forms of communication, visual persuasion
depends on the audiences pre-existing attitudes, values, and beliefs as to how
messages are attended to, processed, interpreted, and acted-upon (Domke, Perlmutter, & Spratt, 2002; Spratt et al., 2005). Audiences process messages differently, and
further research is needed addressing how various audiences respond to diverse visual
messages. For example, preliminary research in psychology indicates that men and
women process images differently (Greene & Fraser, 2002; Kirouac & Dore, 1985;
Popovich et al., 1996) and that women are more influenced by positive images, while
men are more affected by negative visuals (Barrett & Barrington, 2005b). The
interaction between pictures and words also requires future study; for example, how
do viewers process messages differently when the words and pictures are consonant
versus dissonant?
Lastly, the normative implications of a public sphere dominated by visual
argumentation require additional exploration. We need to have a discussion about
the proper role of visual messages in public deliberation. Are visual symbols better or
worse for the public sphere than other forms of communication? Should our
increasing reliance on visuals to make political decisions be discouraged or
encouraged? The larger implications for a democratic society dominated by all
things visual demand further scrutiny.
The subject of visual symbols in political communication is often frustratingly
complex and multidimensional. This essay attempted to resolve some of this
complexity and provide the theoretical and literature space to conduct future
research. The difficulty in comprehending the role of visual symbols in public affairs
also suggests the promising nature of this research area*there is a lot we do not
The Visual Image
135
know here. Not only is continued research vital and necessary in this area; it also
provides fertile ground for understanding political communication.
References
Abraham, L., & Appiah, O. (2006). Framing news stories: The role of visual imagery in priming
racial stereotypes. Howard Journal of Communications, 17(3), 183203.
Adams, W., & Schreibman, F. (Eds.). (1978). Television network news: Issues in content research.
Washington, DC: George Washington University.
Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R. (1993). Half a minute: predicting teacher evaluations from thin slices
of nonverbal behavior and physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
64, 431441.
Anderson, V.F., & Van Winkle, R. (1976). In the arena: The care and feeding of American politics.
New York: Harper & Row.
Argyle, M., Alkema, F., & Gilmour, R. (1972). The communication of friendly and hostile attitudes
by verbal and non-verbal signals. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 385400.
Argyle, M., Salter, V., Nicholson, H., Williams, M., & Burgess, P. (1970). The communication of
inferior and superior attitudes by verbal and nonverbal signals. British Journal of Social and
Clinical Psychology, 9, 222231.
Arpan, L.M., Baker, K., Youngwon, L., Taejin, J., Lorusso, L., & Smith, J. (2006). News coverage of
social protests and the effects of photographs on prior attitudes. Mass Communication &
Society, 9(1), 120.
Bailenson, J.N., Garland, P., Iyengar, S., & Yee, N. (2006). Transformed facial similarity as a political
cue: A preliminary investigation. Political Psychology, 27(3), 373385.
Bailenson, J.N., Iyengar, S., Yee, N., & Collins, N. (2008). Facial similarity between voters and
candidates causes social influence. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72, 935961.
Banducci, S.A., Karp, J.A., Thrasher, M., & Rallings, C. (2008). Ballot photographs as cues in lowinformation elections. Political Psychology, 29, 903917.
Baran, S.J., & Davis, D.K. (1995). Mass communication theory: Foundations, ferment, and future.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Barnhurst, K.G., & Steele, C.A. (1997). Image-bite news: The visual coverage of elections on U.S.
television, 19681992. Press/Politics, 2(1), 4058.
Barrett, A.W., & Barrington, L.W. (2005a). Bias in newspaper photograph selection. Political
Research Quarterly, 58(4), 609618.
Barrett, A.W., & Barrington, L.W. (2005b). Is a picture worth a thousand words?: Newspaper
photographs and voter evaluations of political candidates. The Harvard International Journal
of Press/Politics, 10(4), 98113.
Barry, A.M. (1997). Visual intelligence: Perception, image, and manipulation in visual communication.
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Barry, A.M. (2005). Perception theory. In K. Smith, S. Moriarty, G. Barbatsis, & K. Kenney (Eds.),
Handbook of visual communication (pp. 4562). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bartels, L.M. (1993). Messages received: The political impact of media exposure. American Political
Science Review, 87, 267285.
Benjamin, D.J., & Shapiro, J.M. (2009). Thin-slice forecasts of gubernatorial elections. The Review of
Economics and Statistics, 91, 523536.
Bennett, W.L. (2011). News: The politics of illusion (9th ed.). New York: Longman.
Berkman, R., & Kitch, L.W. (1986). Politics in the media age. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Berry, C., & Brosius, H.B. (1991). Multiple effects of visual format on TV news learning. Applied
Cognitive Psychology, 5, 519528.
Birdsell, D.S., & Groarke, L. (1996). Toward a theory of visual argument. Argumentation and
Advocacy, 33, 110.
136 D. Schill
Birdsell, D.S., & Groarke, L. (2007). Outlines of a theory of visual argument. Argumentation and
Advocacy, 43, 103113.
Birdwhistell, R.L. (1970). Kinesics and context. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press.
Blair, J.A. (1996). The possibility and actuality of visual arguments. Argumentation and Advocacy,
33, 2339.
Blair, J.A. (2004). The rhetoric of visual arguments. In C.A. Hill & M. Helmers (Eds.), Defining
visual rhetorics (pp. 4191). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brosius, H.B. (1991). Format effects on comprehension of television news. Journalism Quarterly,
68(3), 396401.
Brosius, H.B. (1993). The effects of emotional pictures in television news. Communication Research,
20(1), 105124.
Brosius, H.B., Donsback, W., & Birk, M. (1996). How do text-picture relations affect the
informational effectiveness of television newscasts. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic
Media, 40, 180195.
Bucy, E.P. (2000). Emotional and evaluative consequences of inappropriate leader displays.
Communication Research, 27, 194226.
Bucy, E.P. (2003). Emotion, presidential communication, and traumatic news: Processing the World
Trade Center attacks. Press/Politics, 8(4), 7696.
Bucy, E.P., & Bradley, S.D. (2004). Presidential expressions and viewer emotion: Counterempathic
responses to televised leader displays. Social Science Information/Information sur les Sciences
Sociales, 43, 5994.
Bucy, E.P., & Grabe, M.E. (2007). Taking television seriously: A sound and image bite analysis of
presidential campaign coverage, 19922004. Journal of Communication, 57, 652675.
Bucy, E.P., & Newhagen, J.E. (1999). The emotional appropriateness heuristic: Processing televised
presidential reactions to the news. Journal of Communication, 49(4), 5979.
Bumiller, E. (2003, May 16). Keepers of Bush image lift stagecraft to new heights. The New York
Times.
Burke, K. (1950). A rhetoric of motives (1st ed.). New York: Prentice-Hall.
Cialdini, R.B. (1993). Influence: The psychology of persuasion (Rev. ed.). New York: Morrow.
Coleman, R. (2006). The effects of visuals on ethical reasoning: Whats a photograph worth to
journalists making moral decisions? Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 83(4),
835850.
Coleman, R., & Banning, S. (2006). Network TV news affective framing of the presidential
candidates: Evidence for a second-level agenda-setting effect through visual framing.
Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 83(2), 313328.
Cook, T.E. (1998). Governing with the news: The news media as a political institution (2nd ed.).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Damasio, A. (1999). The feeling of what happens: Body and emotion in the making of consciousness.
New York: Harcourt.
Deaver, M.K., & Herskowitz, M. (1987). Behind the scenes: in which the author talks about Ronald
and Nancy Reagan. and himself (1st ed.). New York: Morrow.
Denton, R.E., & Hahn, D.F. (1986). Presidential communication: Description and analysis. New York:
Praeger.
Denton, R.E., & Kuypers, J.A. (2008). Politics and communication in America: Campaigns, media,
and governing in the 21st Century. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
Detenber, B.H., & Simons, R.F. (1998). Roll em: The effects of picture motion on emotional
responses. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 42(1), 113128.
Dion, K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 24, 285290.
Domke, D., Perlmutter, D., & Spratt, M. (2002). The primes of our times? An examination of the
power of visual images. Journalism, 3(2), 131159.
The Visual Image
137
Doremus, M.E. (1992). The use of visuals to clarify ambiguous verbal information in a television
news story. Journal of Visual Literacy, 12(1), 2334.
Drew, D., & Grimes, T. (1987). Audio-visual redundancy and TV news recall. Communication
Research, 14, 452461.
Edwards, J.L. (2004). Echoes of Camelot: How images construct cultural memory through
rhetorical framing. In C.A. Hill & M. Helmers (Eds.), Defining visual rhetorics (pp. 179194).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Edwardson, M., Grooms, D., & Proudlove, S. (1981). Television news information gain from
interesting video vs. talking heads. Journal of Broadcasting, 25(1), 1224.
Efran, M., & Patterson, E. (1974). Voters vote beautiful: The effect of physical appearance on a
national debate. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 6, 352356.
Ekman, P. (1982). Emotion in the human face. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Endelman, M. (1976). Political settings as symbolism. In G.N. Gordon (Ed.), Drama in life: The uses
of communication in society (pp. 348359). New York: Hastings House.
Engell, A.D., Haxby, J.V., & Todorov, A. (2007). Implicit trustworthiness decisions: Automatic
coding of face properties in the human amygdala. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(9),
15081519.
Englis, B.G. (1994). The role of affect in political advertising: Voter emotional responses to the
nonverbal behavior of politicians. In E.M. Clark, T.C. Brock, & D.W. Stewart (Eds.),
Attention, attitude, and affect in response to advertising (pp. 223247). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Erickson, K.V. (2000). Presidential rhetorics visual turn: Performance fragments and the politics of
illusionism. Communication Monographs, 67, 138157.
Fahmy, S. (2007). They took it down: Exploring determinants of visual reporting in the toppling
of the Saddam statue in national and international newspapers. Mass Communication &
Society, 10(2), 143170.
Fahmy, S. (2010). Contrasting visual frames of our times: A framing-analysis of English- and
Arabic-language press coverage of war and terrorism. International Communication Gazette,
72(8), 695717.
Farnsworth, S.J., & Lichter, S.R. (2011). The nightly news nightmare: Media coverage of U.S.
Presidential Elections, 19882008. Lanham, MA: Rowman & Littlefield.
Findahl, O. (1981). The effect of visual illustrations upon perception and retention of news
programmes. Communications, 7, 151167.
Fisher, W.R. (1984). Narration as a human communication paradigm: The case of public moral
argument. Communication Monographs, 51, 122.
Fishman, J.M., & Marvin, C. (2003). Portrayals of violence and group difference in newspaper
photographs: Nationalism and media. Journal of Communication, 53(1), 3244.
Fleming, D. (1996). Can pictures be arguments? Argumentation and Advocacy, 33, 1122.
Foss, S.K. (2005). Theory of visual rhetoric. In K. Smith, S. Moriarty, G. Barbatsis, & K. Kenney
(Eds.), Handbook of visual communication: Theory, methods and media (pp. 141152).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gallagher, V., & Zagacki, K.S. (2005). Visibility and rhetoric: The power of visual images in Norman
Rockwells depictions of civil rights. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 91(2), 175200.
Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1986). Living with television: The dynamics
of the cultivation process. In J. Bryant & D. Zillman (Eds.), Perspectives on media effects
(pp. 1740). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
German, K. (2008). Visual images and presidential leadership: A case study of LBJ and his beagles.
Journal of the Communication, Speech & Theatre Association of North Dakota, 21, 2132.
Gibson, R., & Zillmann, D. (2000). Reading between the photographs: The influence of incidental
pictorial information on issue perception. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly,
77(2), 355366.
Gilliam, F.D., & Iyengar, S. (2000). Prime suspects: The influence of local television news on the
viewing public. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 560573.
138 D. Schill
Glassman, C., & Kenney, K. (1994). Myths & presidential campaign photographs. Visual
Communication Quarterly, 1(4), 47.
Grabe, M.E. (1996). The SABCs coverage of the 1987 and 1989 elections: The matter of visual bias.
Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 40, 127.
Grabe, M.E., & Bucy, E.P. (2009). Image bite politics: News and the visual framing of elections. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Graber, D.A. (1981). Political languages. In D. Nimmo & K.R. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of political
communication (pp. 195223). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Graber, D.A. (1987). Kind words and harsh pictures: How television presents the candidates. In
K.L. Schlozman (Ed.), Elections in America (pp. 115141). Winchester, MA: Allen &
Unwin.
Graber, D.A. (1990). Seeing is remembering: How visuals contribute to learning from television
news. Journal of Communication, 40(3), 134155.
Graber, D.A. (1996a). Dissecting the audio-visual language of political television. Research in
Micropolitics, 5, 331.
Graber, D.A. (1996b). Say it with pictures. The Annals of the American Academy, 546, 8596.
Graber, D.A. (2001). Processing politics: Learning from television in the Internet age. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.
Greene, E., & Fraser, S.C. (2002). Observation distance and recognition of photographs of
celebrities faces. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 95, 637651.
Griffin, M. (1992). Looking at TV news: Strategies for research. Communication, 13(2), 121141.
Griffin, M. (2001). Camera as witness, image as sign: The study of visual communication
in communication research. In W.B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Communication yearbook, 24
(pp. 433463). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Griffin, M., & Lee, J. (1995). Picturing the Gulf War: Constructing an image of war in Time,
Newsweek, and U.S. News and World Report. Journalism and Mass Communication
Quarterly, 72(4), 813825.
Grimes, T. (1991). Mild auditory-visual dissonance in television news may exceed viewer
attentional capacity. Human Communication Research, 18, 268298.
Grimes, T., & Drechsel, R. (1996). Word-picture juxtaposition, schemata, and defamation in
television news. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 73(1), 169180.
Hacker, K.L. (1995). Candidate images in presidential elections. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Halley, P.S. (2002). On the road with Hillary: A behind-the scenes look at the journey from Arkansas to
the U.S. Senate. New York: Viking.
Hallin, D.C. (1992). Sound bite news: Television coverage of elections, 19681988. Journal of
Communication, 42(2), 524.
Hariman, R., & Lucaites, J.L. (2007). No caption needed: Iconic photographs, public culture, and
liberal democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hart, R.P. (1999). Seducing America: How television charms the modern voter. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications.
Hellweg, S.A., & Phillips, S.L. (1981). A verbal and visual analysis of the 1980 Houston Republican
presidential primary debate. The Southern Speech Communication Journal, 47, 2338.
Hendrix, S. (2001, September). Planning your TV ads: The pre-production process. Campaigns &
Elections, 4446.
Hill, C.A. (2004). The psychology of rhetorical images. In C.A. Hill & M. Helmers (Eds.), Defining
Hoffman, K.S. (2011). Visual persuasion in George W. Bushs presidency: Cowboy imagery in
public discourse. Congress & the Presidency, 38, 322343.
Hollihan, T.A. (2001). Uncivil wars: Political campaigns in a media age. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins.
Irby, K. (2004). When seeing is no longer believing: Photographers and photo editors have the
obligation of accuracy. Nieman Reports, 58(1), 42.
The Visual Image
139
Jamieson, K.H. (1988). Eloquence in an electronic age: The transformation of political speechmaking.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Jamieson, K.H. (1996). Packaging the presidency. New York: Oxford University Press.
Johns, R., & Shephard, M. (2011). Facing the voters: The potential impact of ballot paper
photographs in British Elections. Political Studies, 34, 83110.
Johnson, A. (1990). Trends in political communication: A selective review of research in the
1980s. In D.L. Swanson & D. Nimmo (Eds.), New directions in political communication
(pp. 329362). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Johnson, D. (2007). Martin Luther King Jr.s 1963 Birmingham campaign as image event. Rhetoric &
Public Affairs, 10(1), 126.
Kaid, L.L. (2004). Political advertising. In L.L. Kaid (Ed.), Handbook of political communication
research (pp. 155202). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kenner, R. (Producer/Director), & Pearlstein, E. (Producer). (2009). Food, Inc. [Motion picture].
United States: Magnolia Pictures.
Kenney, K. (1993). Influences of politics and economics upon photographic content in Chinese
newspapers. Asian Journal of Communication, 3(2), 5474.
Kenney, K., & Scott, L.M. (2003). A review of the visual rhetoric literature. In L.M. Scott & R. Batra
(Eds.), Persuasive imagery: A consumer response perspective (pp. 1756). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kepplinger, H.M. (1982). Visual biases in television campaign coverage. Communication Research, 9,
432446.
Kipper, A. (1986). Television camera movement as a source of perceptual information. Journal of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 30(3), 295307.
Kirouac, G., & Dore, F.Y. (1985). Accuracy of the judgment of facial expression of emotions as a
function of sex and level of education. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 9, 37.
Klijn, M.E. (2003). Attention-getting and comprehension-raising attributes in visual in Dutch and
American, public and private television news about violence. Journal of Broadcasting &
Electronic Media, 47(1), 124144.
Krauss, R.M., Apple, W., Morency, N., Wenzel, C., & Winton, W. (1981). Verbal, vocal, and visible
factors in judgments of anothers affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(2),
312320.
Lang, A. (1995). Defining audio/video redundancy from a limited capacity information processing
perspective. Communication Research, 22, 86115.
Lanzetta, J.T., Sullivan, D.G., Masters, R.D., & McHugo, G.J. (1985). Emotional and cognitive
responses to televised images of political leaders. In S. Kraus & R.M. Perloff (Eds.), Mass
media and political thought: An information-processing approach (pp. 85116). Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
Lederman, J. (1992). Battle lines: The American media and the intifada. New York: Henry Holt.
Lee, T., Ryan, W.E., Wanta, W., & Chang, K. (2004). Looking presidential: A comparison of
newspaper photographs of candidates in the United States and Taiwan. Asian Journal of
Communication, 14(2), 121139.
Leslie, L.Z. (1986). Newspaper photo coverage of censure of McCarthy. Journalism Quarterly, 63(4),
850853.
Little, A.C., Burriss, R.P., Jones, B.C., & Roberts, S.C. (2007). Facial appearance affects voting
decisions. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 1827.
Lombard, M., & Ditton, T. (1997). At the heart of it all: The concept of presence. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(2), http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol3/issue2/lombard.html
Lowry, D.T., & Shidler, J.A. (1995). The biters and the bitten: An analysis of network TV news bias
in campaign 92. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 69, 341361.
Lowry, D.T., & Shidler, J.A. (1998). The sound bites, the biters, and the bitten: A two-campaign test
of the anti-incumbent bias hypothesis in network TV news. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 75, 719729.
140 D. Schill
Lucaites, J.L. (1997). Visualizing The People: Individualism vs. collective action in Let Us Now
Praise Famous Men. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 83, 269288.
Luntz, F. (2007). Words that work: Its not what you say, its what people hear. New York: Hyperion.
Mandell, L.M., & Shaw, D.L. (1973). Judging people in the news*unconsciously: Effects of camera
angle and bodily activity. Journal of Broadcasting, 17(3), 353362.
Masters, R.D. (1981). Linking ethology and political science: Photographs, political attention,
and presidential elections. New Directions for Methodology of Social and Behavioral Science, 7,
6180.
Masters, R.D., Frey, S., & Bente, G. (1991). Dominance and attention: Images of leaders in German,
French, and American TV news. Polity, 25, 373394.
Masters, R.D., & Sullivan, D.G. (1993). Nonverbal behavior and leadership: Emotion and cognition
in political information processing. In S. Iyengar & W.J. McGuire (Eds.), Explorations in
political psychology (pp. 150182). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
McCombs, M. (2004). Setting the agenda: The mass media and public opinion. Cambridge, UK:
Polity Press.
McGurk, H., & MacDonald, J. (1976). Hearing lips and seeing voices. Nature, 264, 746748.
Medhurst, M.J., & Desousa, M.A. (1981). Political cartoons as rhetorical form: A taxonomy of
graphic discourse. Communication Monographs, 48, 197236.
Mehrabian, A. (1972). Nonverbal communication. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.
Messaris, P. (1994). Visual literacy: Image, mind, reality. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Messaris, P. (1997). Visual persuasion: The role of images in advertising. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Messaris, P., & Abraham, L. (2001). The role of images in framing news stories. In S.D. Reese,
O.H. Gandy, & A.E. Grant (Eds.), Framing public life (pp. 215226). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Meyrowitz, J. (1985). No sense of place: The impact of electronic media on social behavior. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Moffit, M.A. (1999). Campaign strategies and message design: A practitioners guide from start to
finish. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Moriarty, S.E. (1987). A content analysis of visuals used in print media advertising. Journalism
Quarterly, 64(2), 550554.
Moriarty, S.E., & Garramone, G.M. (1986). A study of newsmagazine photographs of the 1984
presidential campaign. Journalism Quarterly, 63(4), 728734.
Moriarty, S.E., & Popovich, M.N. (1991). Newsmagazine visuals and the 1988 presidential election.
Journalism Quarterly, 68(3), 371380.
Moriarty, S., & Shaw, D. (1995). An antiseptic war: Were newsmagazine images of the Gulf War too
soft? Visual Communication Quarterly, 2(2), 48.
Morello, J.T. (1988). Argument and visual structuring in the 1984 MondaleReagan Debates: The
mediums influence on the perception of clash. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 52,
277290.
Morello, J.T. (1992). The look and language of clash: Visual structuring of argument in the 1988
BushDukakis Debates. The Southern Communication Journal, 57, 205218.
Mullen, B., Futrell, D., Stairs, D., Tice, D., Baumeister, R., Dawson, K., Riordan, C., Radloff, C.,
Goethals, G., Kennedy, J., & Rosenfeld, P. (1986). Newscasters facial expressions and voting
behavior of viewers: Can a smile elect a president? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
51(2), 291295.
Mullen, L.J. (1997). The presidents visual image from 1945 to 1974: An analysis of spatial
configuration in news magazine photographs. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 27, 819834.
Nelson, J.S., & Boyton, G.R. (1997). Video rhetorics: Televised advertising in American politics.
Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Newhagen, J.E. (1998). TV news images that induce anger, fear, and disgust: Effects on approachavoidance and memory. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 42, 265276.
The Visual Image
141
Newhagen, J.E. (2002). The role of meaning construction in the process of persuasion for viewers of
television images. In J.P. Dillard & P.M. Dillard (Eds.), The persuasion handbook:
Developments in theory and practice (pp. 729748). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Newhagen, J.E., & Reeves, B. (1992). This evenings bad news: Effects of compelling negative
television news images on memory. Journal of Communication, 42(2), 2541.
Noller, P. (1985). Video primacy*A further look. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 9(1), 2847.
Olivola, C.Y., & Todorov, A. (2010). Elected in 100 milliseconds: Appearance-based trait inferences
and voting. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 34, 83110.
Paivio, A. (1979). Imagery and verbal processes. Hillsdale, NK: Erlbaum.
Parmelee, K.H. (2003). Meet the candidate videos: Analyzing presidential primary campaign
videocassettes. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Patterson, T.E., & McClure, R.D. (1976). The unseeing eye: The myth of television power in national
politics. New York: Putnam.
Perlmutter, D.D. (1998). Photojournalism and foreign policy. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Perlmutter, D.D. (1999). Visions of war: Picturing warfare from the Stone Age to the cyberage. New
York: St. Martins.
Perlmutter, D.D. (2007). Picturing China in the American press: The visual portrayal of SinoAmerican relations in Time magazine, 19491973. Lanham, MD: Lexington.
Perlmutter, D.D., & Wagner, G.L. (2004). The anatomy of a photojournalistic icon: Marginalization
of dissent in the selection and framing of a death in Genoa. Visual Communication, 3(1),
91108.
Peterson, T. (2005). Testing visual signals in representative studies. International Journal of Public
Opinion Research, 17(4), 456472.
Pew Research Center for the People & the Press (2010, September 12). Americans spending more time
following the news. Retrieved from http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/652.pdf
Pfau, M., Haigh, M., Fifrick, A., Holl, D., Tedesco, A., Cope, J., Nunnally, D., Schiess, A.,
Preston, D., Roszkowski, P., & Martin, M. (2006). The effects of print news photographs on
the casualties of war. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 83, 150168.
Plutchik, R. (1980). Emotion: A psychoevolutionary synthesis. New York: Harper & Row.
Popovich, P.M., Gehlauf, D.N., Jolton, J.A., Everton, W.J., Godinho, R.M., Mastrangelo, P. M., &
Somers, J.M. (1996). Physical attractiveness and sexual harassment: Does every picture tell a
story or every story draw a picture? Journal of Applied Psychology, 26, 520542.
Posner, M.I., Nissen, M.J., & Klein, R.M. (1976). Visual dominance: An information- processing
account of its origins and significance. Psychological Review, 83, 157171.
Poutvaara, P., Jordahl, H., & Berggren, N. (2009). Faces of politicians: Babyfacedness predicts
inferred competence but not electoral success. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45,
11321135.
Riggle, E.D., Ottati, V.C., Wyer, R.S., Kuklinski, J., & Schwarz, N. (1992). Bases of political
judgments: The role of stereotypic and nonstereotypic information. Political Behavior, 14(1),
6787.
Rosenberg, S.W., Bohan, L.B., McCafferty, P., & Harris, K. (1986). The image and the vote: The
effect of candidate presentation on voter preference. American Journal of Political Science,
30(2), 108127.
Rosenberg, S., & McCafferty, P. (1987). The image and the vote: Manipulating voters preferences.
Public Opinion Quarterly, 51, 3147.
Scheufele, D.A., Kim, E., & Brossard, D. (2007). My friends enemy: How split-screen debate
coverage influences evaluation of presidential debates. Communication Research, 34(1), 324.
Schill, D. (2009). Stagecraft and statecraft: Advance and media events in political communication.
Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Schmuhl, R. (1990). Statecraft and stagecraft: American political life in the age of personality. Notre
Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
142 D. Schill
Schweiger, G., & Adami, M. (1999). The nonverbal image of politicians and political parties. In
B.I. Newman (Ed.), Handbook of political marketing (pp. 347364). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications, Inc.
Shaw, D. (1992, October 26). News often has to be seen before it is heard. Los Angeles Times, p. A16.
Shea, D.M., & Burton, M.J. (2001). Campaign craft: The strategies, tactics, and art of political
campaign management. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Shella, J. (2003, May 15). Some audience members told not to wear ties for Bush speech. WISH-TV 8.
Retrieved from http://www.wishtv.com/global/story.asp?S1278487&nav0Ra6Fp41
Sigelman, L., Sigelman, C.K., & Fowler, C. (1987). A bird of a different feather? An experimental
investigation of physical attractiveness and the electability of female candidates. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 50(1), 3243.
Spratt, M., Peterson, A., & Lagos, T. (2005). Of photographs and flags: Uses and perceptions of an
iconic image before and after September 11, 2001. Popular Communication, 3(2), 117136.
Stevens, F. (Producer), DuPre Pesmen, P. (Producer), & Psihoyos, L. (Director). (2009). The cove
[Motion picture]. United States: Lionsgate.
Strachan, J.C., & Kendall, K.E. (2004). Political candidates convention films: Finding the perfect
image*An overview of political image making. In C.A. Hill & M. Helmers (Eds.), Defining
Strother, R.D. (1999). Preparing candidates for television. In D.D. Perlmutter (Ed.), The Manship
School guide to political communication (pp. 176185). Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State
University Press.
Sullivan, D.G., & Masters, R.D. (1988). Happy warriors: Leaders facial displays, viewers emotions,
and political support. American Journal of Political Science, 32, 345368.
Surawski, M.K., & Ossoff, E.P. (2006). The effects of physical and vocal attractiveness on impression
formation of politicians. Current Psychology, 25(1), 1527.
Tiemans, R.K. (1978). Televisions portrayal of the 1976 presidential debates: An analysis of visual
content. Communication Monographs, 45, 362370.
Todorov, A., Mandisodza, A., Goren, A., & Hall, C. (2005). Inferences of competence from faces
predict election outcomes. Science, 308, 16231626.
Valentino, N.A., Hutchings, V.L., & White, I.K. (2002). Cues that matter: How political ads prime
racial attitudes during campaigns. American Political Science Review, 96(1), 7590.
Valentino, N.A., Traugott, M.W., & Hutchings, V.L. (2002). Group cues and ideological constraint:
A replication of political advertising effects studies in the lab and in the field. Political
Communication, 19, 2948.
Waldman, P., & Devitt, J. (1998). Newspaper photographs and the 1996 presidential election: The
question of bias. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 75, 302311.
Wanta, W. (1988). The effects of dominant photographs: An agenda-setting experiment. Journalism
Quarterly, 65(1), 107111.
Westen, D. (2007). The political brain: The role of emotion in deciding the fate of the nation.
New York: Public Affairs.
White, T.H. (1961). The making of the president 1960. New York: Atheneum Publishers.
Willis, J., & Todorov, A. (2006). First impressions: Making up your mind after 100 ms exposure to a
face. Psychological Science, 17, 592598.
Woo, J. (1994). Journalism objectivity in news magazine photography. Visual Communication
Quarterly, 1(3), 916.
Wray, J.H. (1999). Through a glass darkly: Television and American electoral politics. In B. I. Newman
(Ed.), Handbook of political marketing (pp. 439454). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

The Visual Image and The Political Image: A Review of Visual Communication Research in The Field of Political Communication

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Visual Image and The Political Image: A Review of Visual Communication Research in The Field of Political Communication

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [HINARI]

On: 21 March 2015, At: 10:35

The Visual Image and the Political

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

The Review of Communication

The Visual Image and the Political

Downloaded by [HINARI] at 10:35 21 March 2015

The Visual Image

Downloaded by [HINARI] at 10:35 21 March 2015

Downloaded by [HINARI] at 10:35 21 March 2015

Downloaded by [HINARI] at 10:35 21 March 2015

The Visual Image

Downloaded by [HINARI] at 10:35 21 March 2015

Downloaded by [HINARI] at 10:35 21 March 2015

The Visual Image

Downloaded by [HINARI] at 10:35 21 March 2015

Downloaded by [HINARI] at 10:35 21 March 2015

The Visual Image

when they select photographs to accompany news stories. Information provided

Downloaded by [HINARI] at 10:35 21 March 2015

Downloaded by [HINARI] at 10:35 21 March 2015

The Visual Image

Downloaded by [HINARI] at 10:35 21 March 2015

The Visual Image

Downloaded by [HINARI] at 10:35 21 March 2015

Downloaded by [HINARI] at 10:35 21 March 2015

Downloaded by [HINARI] at 10:35 21 March 2015

The Visual Image

Downloaded by [HINARI] at 10:35 21 March 2015

Downloaded by [HINARI] at 10:35 21 March 2015

The Visual Image

presidential campaign observed that the newspapers balanced their photographic

Downloaded by [HINARI] at 10:35 21 March 2015

The Visual Image

Downloaded by [HINARI] at 10:35 21 March 2015

Downloaded by [HINARI] at 10:35 21 March 2015

Downloaded by [HINARI] at 10:35 21 March 2015

The Visual Image

Downloaded by [HINARI] at 10:35 21 March 2015

Downloaded by [HINARI] at 10:35 21 March 2015

The Visual Image

Downloaded by [HINARI] at 10:35 21 March 2015

Downloaded by [HINARI] at 10:35 21 March 2015

The Visual Image

Downloaded by [HINARI] at 10:35 21 March 2015

You might also like