Understanding the Stories of Presidential Candidates
A Comparison Between the Stories of 2012 and 2016
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 3756539 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Kenneth J Levine (0000-0001-9924-6091, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2017 |
| Volume | 61 |
| Issue | 9 |
| Pages | 1024-1039 |
| Publication date | 2017-08-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | American Behavioral Scientist (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0002-7642 • E-ISSN: 1552-3381 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1177/0002764217709041 |
| OpenAlex | W2613620855 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
| References cited | 4 |
To be elected President of the United States, a candidate must create a story that both resonates with and persuades the electorate. Gardner suggested that "leaders achieve their effectiveness chiefly through the stories they relate" and that there are three types of leadership stories: Ordinary, Innovative and Visionary. The differences between the 2012 and 2016 U.S. Presidential elections are extreme. As the 2016 election was one of unusual and unexpected moments as compared with the more tame and typical election in 2012, this study compared the stories of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump with those of the 2012 election between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. Results from the 2012 election found that Romney's story fit into the category of Ordinary leader, while Obama's story was one attributed to an Innovative leader. T tests found large and significant differences between candidate preference and story credibility and whether the stories motivated the respondents to vote. However, for the 2016 election, both candidates had innovative stories, and this may explain how one candidate won the popular vote, while the other received the majority of electoral votes
Credibility · Economics · General election · Media studies · Political science · Politics · Preference · Presidential election · Presidential system · Sociology · Law · Media Studies and Communication · Psychology · Rhetoric and Communication Studies · Social Psychology · Sport and Mega-Event Impacts
| Unique citing works | 3 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,38 |
| Citation span | 2018 - 2023 (6) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 3 |