Verified by 
President Donald Trump
Debate Winner Is in the Eye (Not the Ear) of the Beholder
Will Trump or Clinton win the first debate? Don't listen—just watch.
Posted September 19, 2016
Despite all of the recent news about the respective health of both candidates, a presidential debate is not a relay race (although 90 minutes without a break will certainly be an endurance test). Nonetheless, most viewers will come away with a clear sense of who won, and who lost. How? According to research, not by listening, but by looking.
Winning Without Words
As we have experienced through the vicious Twitter wars that have dominated our current presidential election cycle, words matter. Yet on the debate stage, actions speak louder than words. Candidate nonverbal communication speaks volumes about confidence, competence, credibility, and “presidential” presence. The significance of nonverbal communication is great news for Donald Trump, because Hillary Clinton has an enormous advantage in terms of political experience and relevant knowledge.
Some speculate that the debate format, which will ask each candidate to take a deep dive on important political issues, will preclude Donald Trump from defaulting to flash over substance. But will it?
Sure, he will not be able to go into hibernation during tough questions, like he did at times during the primary debates, allowing his rivals to slug it out over complex issues of policy and foreign relations. And of course he will be much better prepared than he was in the primary. Nonetheless, research indicates his mannerisms may be even more important than his message.
Reaction is More Important Than Action
It has been observed in past debates, that the way a candidate reacts to committing a verbal gaffe, for example, matters more than the gaffe itself.[1] This phenomenon is best captured on television, where viewers can observe a close up view of involuntary expressions and immediate reactions.
Yet both Trump and Clinton may be in good control over their reactive behavior, because they perform well under pressure--for different reasons. Trump spent much of his career in the spotlight and is comfortable with the entertainment element of the stage. Clinton has perfected the art of keeping her cool in the hot seat (remember the 11-hour Benghazi hearings) for extended periods of time. Nonetheless, both candidates are susceptible to letting their true feelings leak out through nonverbal behavior—particularly while their counterparts have the floor.
Stealing the Spotlight Without Saying a Word
Anyone who has followed the televised presidential debates through the years has no doubt noticed the distraction caused by some candidates through their expressions and nonverbal body language when their opponent is speaking. Some actually interrupt the speaker—as happened repeatedly during the Republican party primary debates this election cycle. Obviously, such aggressiveness and intentional violation of debate rules affects the audience. But how? Aside from temporarily shifting the focus from the speaker onto the disagreeable opponent / interrupter, what impact does such intemperate behavior have on voters?
Negative Nonverbals Decrease Electability
Split screen technology allows researchers to measure the impact of nonverbal behavior, because viewers are now able to listen to one candidate while simultaneously observing the reaction of another.[2] Research shows that candidate´s negative nonverbal behavior does not help them in the polls.
When candidates display negative nonverbal behavior as their opponents are speaking, it has a negative effect on their perceived credibility and performance. For example, Vice President Al Gore´s shaking his head, displaying pained facial expressions, and sighing heavily when his rival was speaking reduced the appraisals of his debate performance.[3] President Bush´s negative and contorted facial expressions when John Kerry was speaking decreased his likability in the eyes of undecided voters. [4] And the wide eyed facial expressions and mock amusement displayed by John McCain when his opponent was talking engendered disapproval and criticism from supporters and opponents alike .[5]
Earlier research demonstrated that candidates who exhibited nonverbal expressions of disagreement when one´s opponent was speaking were perceived as less appropriate than when they did not display such behavior.[6] Candidates who displayed constant nonverbal disagreement actually increased the perceived appropriateness of the speaker.[7]
A more recent study showed that adding nonverbal behaviors expressing agreement along with those expressing disagreement did not reduce this negative effect, and could actually backfire. [8]
The takeaway? Trump and Clinton are going to be judged both by what they say, and how they behave. Let the viewing public be the judge of who ends up sounding and looking more “Presidential.”
[1] http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/10/who-will-win/497561/
[2] John S. Seiter, Harry Weger, Jr., Andrea Jensen, and Harold J. Kinzer, “The Role of Background Behavior in Televised Debates: Does Displaying Nonverbal Agreement and/ or Disagremeent Benefit Either Debater?” The Journal of Social Psychology (2010): 278-300.
[3] Seiter et al., “The Role of Background Behavior in Televised Debates,” 279 (citing Schneider, 2000).
[4] Seiter et al., “The Role of Background Behavior in Televised Debates,” 279 (citing Luntz Research Companies, 2004).
[5] Seiter et al., “The Role of Background Behavior in Televised Debates,” 279 (citing, e.g., CBS News, 2008; Harris & Vandehei, 2008).
[6] John S. Seiter and Harry Weger, Jr., ”Auidence Perceptions of Candidates´Appropriateness as a Function of Nonverbal Behaviors Displayed During Televised Political Debates,” The Journal of Social Psychology Vol 145, No. 2 (2005): 225-235.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Seiter et al., “The Role of Background Behavior in Televised Debates,” 279.
