What Does It Mean to Have a Presidential Image? A Multiple-Group Confirmatory Factor Analysis Measuring Trump and Biden in 2020

References

• Anderson, Karrin Vasby. 2017. “Every Woman Is the Wrong Woman: The Female Presidentiality Paradox.” Women’s Studies in Communication 40 (2):132–5. doi: 10.1080/07491409.2017.1302257.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson, Karrin Vasby, and Kristina Horn Sheeler. 2014. “Texts (and Tweets) from Hillary: Meta-Meming and Postfeminist Political Culture.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 44 (2):224–43. doi: 10.1111/psq.12111.
   Google Scholar
• Beatty, Michael J., Paola Pascual-Ferrá, and Timothy R. Levine. 2015. “Two Studies Examining the Error Theory Underlying the Measurement Model of the Verbal Aggressiveness Scale.” Human Communication Research 41 (1):55–81. doi: 10.1111/hcre.12039.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benoit, William L., Mitchell S. McKinney, and R. Lance Holbert. 2001. “Beyond Learning and Persona: Extending the Scope of Presidential Debate Effects.” Communication Monographs 68 (3):259–73. doi: 10.1080/03637750128060.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, Robert E. 2005. “Acting Presidential: The Dramaturgy of Bush versus Kerry.” American Behavioral Scientist 49 (1):78–91. doi: 10.1177/0002764205279397.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, Timothy A. 2006. Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. New York: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cisneros, J. David. 2017. “Marco Rubio’s Prospective Presidentiality: Latinx Politics, Race/Ethnicity, and the Presidency.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 103 (1-2):90–116. doi: 10.1080/00335630.2016.1234063.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clementson, David E., Paola Pascual-Ferrá, and Michael J. Beatty. 2016. “When Does a Presidential Candidate Seem Presidential and Trustworthy? Campaign Messages through the Lens of Language Expectancy Theory.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 46 (3):592–617. doi: 10.1111/psq.12299.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elovitz, Paul H. 2020. “A Psychobiographical and Psycho-Political Investigation of Biden and Trump in Troubled Times.” The Journal of Psychohistory 48 (2):82–99.
   Google Scholar
• Funt, Peter. 2020. “‘Undecided’ Voters Give Decision-Making a Bad Name.” USA Today, October 12. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/10/12/trump-biden-undecided-voters-town-hall-debate-column/5960486002/
   Google Scholar
• Gagne, Phill, and Gregory R. Hancock. 2006. “Measurement Model Quality, Sample Size, and Solution Propriety in Confirmatory Factor Models.” Multivariate Behavioral Research 41 (1):65–83. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr4101_5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graham, Jed. 2020. “Biden Lead over Trump Cut to 3 Points after Presidential Debate: IBD/TIPP Poll.” Investor’s Business Daily, October 2. https://www.investors.com/news/joe-biden-lead-over-donald-trump-narrows-after-presidential-debate-ibd-tipp-poll/#
   Google Scholar
• Gregorian, Dareh, and Shannon Pettypiece. 2020. “Trump, Biden Tout Polar-Opposite Coronavirus Messages in Midwest Barnstorm.” NBC News, October 30. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/trump-biden-tout-polar-opposite-coronavirus-messages-midwest-barnstorm-n1245523
   Google Scholar
• Hayes, Danny, Jennifer L. Lawless, and Gail Baitinger. 2014. “Who Cares What They Wear? Media, Gender, and the Influence of Candidate Appearance.” Social Science Quarterly 95 (5):1194–212. doi: 10.1111/ssqu.12113.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hinck, Edward A. 1993. Enacting the Presidency: Political Argument, Presidential Debates, and Presidential Character. Westport: Praeger.
   Google Scholar
• Hunter, John E. 1980. “Factor Analysis.” In Multivariate Techniques in Human Communication Research, edited by Peter R. Monge and Joseph N. Cappella, 229–57. New York: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jamieson, Kathleen Hall. 1988. Eloquence in an Electronic Age: The Transformation of Political Speechmaking. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kaid, Lynda Lee. 2004. “Measuring Candidate Images with Semantic Differentials.” In Presidential Candidate Images, edited by Kenneth L. Hacker, 231–6. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
   Google Scholar
• Kinder, Donald R., Mark D. Peters, Robert P. Abelson, and Susan T. Fiske. 1980. “Presidential Prototypes.” Political Behavior 2 (4):315–37. doi: 10.1007/BF00990172.
   Google Scholar
• Kjeldahl, Bill O., Carl W. Carmichael, and Robert J. Mertz. 1971. “Factors in a Presidential Candidate’s Image.” Speech Monographs 38 (2):129–31. doi: 10.1080/03637757109375699.
   Google Scholar
• Kline, Rex B. 2005. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford.
   Google Scholar
• Knuckey, Jonathan. 2019. “‘I Just Don’t Think She Has a Presidential Look’: Sexism and Vote Choice in the 2016 Election.” Social Science Quarterly 100 (1):342–58. doi: 10.1111/ssqu.12547.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lenz, Gabriel S., and Chappell Lawson. 2011. “Looking the Part: Television Leads Less Informed Citizens to Vote Based on Candidates’ Appearance.” American Journal of Political Science 55 (3):574–89. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00511.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lubell, Samuel. 1962. “Personalities vs. Issues.” In The Great Debates: Background, Perspective, Effects, edited by Sidney Kraus, 151–62. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
   Google Scholar
• MacCallum, Robert C., Mary Roznowski, and Lawrence B. Necowitz. 1992. “Model Modifications in Covariance Structure Analysis: The Problem of Capitalization on Chance.” Psychological Bulletin 111 (3):490–504. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.111.3.490.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maurice, Emma P. 2020. “The Major Difference between Joe Biden and Donald Trump Summed up in Two Simple Tweets.” Yahoo! News (UK), November 3. https://uk.news.yahoo.com/major-difference-between-joe-biden-105627668.html
   Google Scholar
• McAllister, Ian. 2007. “The Personalization of Politics.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior, edited by Russell J. Dalton and Hans-Dieter Klingemann, 571–88. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Medvic, Stephen K. 2013. In Defense of Politicians: The Expectations Trap and its Threat to Democracy. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Morris, Eric, and Jessica M. Johnson. 2011. “Strategic Maneuvering in the 2008 Presidential Debates.” American Behavioral Scientist 55 (3):284–306. doi: 10.1177/0002764210392165.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muñoz, Caroline Lego, and Terri L. Towner. 2017. “The Image is the Message: Instagram Marketing and the 2016 Presidential Primary Season.” Journal of Political Marketing 16 (3-4):290–318. doi: 10.1080/15377857.2017.1334254.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neustadt, Richard E. 1960. Presidential Power: The Politics of Leadership. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Newman, Bruce I. 1994. The Marketing of the President: Political Marketing as Campaign Strategy. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Newman, Bruce I. 1999. The Mass Marketing of Politics: Democracy in an Age of Manufactured Images. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Newman, Bruce I. 2001. “Image-Manufacturing in the USA: Recent US Presidential Elections and Beyond.” European Journal of Marketing 35 (9/10):966–70. doi: 10.1108/EUM0000000005954.
   Google Scholar
• Newman, Bruce I., and Richard M. Perloff. 2004. “Political Marketing: Theory, Research, and Applications.” In Handbook of Political Communication Research, edited by Lynda Lee Kaid, 17–43. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Parry-Giles, Shawn J., and Trevor Parry-Giles. 1999. “Meta-Imaging, the War Room, and the Hyperreality of U. S. Politics.” Journal of Communication 49 (1):28–45. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1999.tb02780.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parry-Giles, Trevor, and Shawn J. Parry-Giles. 1996. “Political Scopophilia, Presidential Campaigning, and the Intimacy of American Politics.” Communication Studies 47 (3):191–205. doi: 10.1080/10510979609368475.
   Google Scholar
• Parry-Giles, Trevor, and Shawn J. Parry-Giles. 2002. “The West Wing’s Prime‐Time Presidentiality: Mimesis and Catharsis in a Postmodern Romance.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 88 (2):209–27. doi: 10.1080/00335630209384371.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parry-Giles, Trevor, and Shawn Parry-Giles. 2006. The Prime-Time Presidency: The West Wing and U.S. Nationalism. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pfau, Michael, and William P. Eveland, Jr. 1994. “Debates versus Other Communication Sources: The Pattern of Information and Influence.” In The 1992 Presidential Debates in Focus, edited by Diana B. Carlin and Mitchell S. McKinney, 155–73. Westport: Praeger.
   Google Scholar
• Raykov, Tenko. 2001. “Bias of Coefficient α for Fixed Congeneric Measures with Correlated Errors.” Applied Psychological Measurement 25 (1):69–76. doi: 10.1177/01466216010251005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saad, Lydia. 2016. “Clinton Wins Third Debate, Gains Ground as ‘Presidential.’” Gallup, October 24. https://news.gallup.com/poll/196643/clinton-wins-third-debate-gains-ground-presidential.aspx
   Google Scholar
• Scacco, Joshua M., and Kevin Coe. 2017a. “‘Acting ‘Presidential:’ The Modern Campaign Meets the Ubiquitous Presidency.” In Political Campaign Communication: Theory, Method, and Practice, edited by Robert E. Denton, Jr., 303–26. Lanham: Lexington Books.
   Google Scholar
• Scacco, Joshua M., and Kevin Coe. 2017b. “Talk This Way: The Ubiquitous Presidency and Expectations of Presidential Communication.” American Behavioral Scientist 61 (3):298–314. doi: 10.1177/0002764217704321.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scacco, Joshua M., and Kevin Coe. 2021. The Ubiquitous Presidency: Presidential Communication and Digital Democracy in Tumultuous Times. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schenker, Alan Evan. 1985. “Former Prime Ministers and Presidents: Suggestions for Study and Comparison.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 15 (3):498–511. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27550239.
   Google Scholar
• Simon, Dennis M. 2007. “Public Expectations of the President.” In The Oxford Handbook of the American Presidency, edited by George C. Edwards III and William G. Howell, 135–59. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Slatcher, Richard B., Cindy K. Chung, James W. Pennebaker, and Lori D. Stone. 2007. “Winning Words: Individual Differences in Linguistic Style among U.S. Presidential and Vice Presidential Candidates.” Journal of Research in Personality 41 (1):63–75. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2006.01.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stuckey, Mary E. 2015. Voting Deliberatively: FDR and the 1936 Presidential Campaign. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Thomson, Sarah Margaret Grace. 2020. “Presidential Travel and the Rose Garden Strategy: A Case Study of Ronald Reagan’s 1984 Tour of Europe.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 50 (4):864–88. doi: 10.1111/psq.12684.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trent, Judith S., Cady Short-Thompson, Paul Mongeau, and Maribeth Metzler. 2013. “Diversity in 2008, Homogeneity in 2012: The Ideal Candidate Revisited.” American Behavioral Scientist 57 (11):1539–57. doi: 10.1177/0002764213489017.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waterman, Richard, Carol L. Silva, and Hank Jenkins-Smith. 2014. The Presidential Expectations Gap: Public Attitudes concerning the Presidency. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Welch, C., and S. Gibbens. 2020. “Trump vs. Biden on the Environment—Here’s Where They Stand.” National Geographic, October 19. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/10/trump-vs-biden-environment-heres-where-they-stand/#close
   Google Scholar
• Wolf, Erika J., Kelly M. Harrington, Shaunna L. Clark, and Mark W. Miller. 2013. “Sample Size Requirements for Structural Equation Models: An Evaluation of Power, Bias, and Solution Propriety.” Educational and Psychological Measurement 76 (6):913–34. doi: 10.1177/0013164413495237.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yuan, Ke-Hai, Peter M. Bentler, and Yutaka Kano. 1997. “On Averaging Variables in a CFA Model.” Behaviormetrika 24 (1):71–83. doi: 10.2333/bhmk.24.71.
   Google Scholar