Mainstream Gay Politicians Online

Verbal and Visual Presentations on LGBT Candidate Websites

Gay Politicians WinningMore than 300% increase in openly LGBT U.S.

politicians holding public offices over past decade107 LGBT politicians elected to local, state, and

national offices in the 2010-midterm44 of the 54 LGBT candidates won races for state

or the U.S. Congress Emergence of LGBT politicians identifying as

members of a specific minority group and presenting themselves as representative of a broader ideological constituency (George, 2002; Victory Fund, 2012).

LGBT CandidatesAlthough LGBT politicians have enjoyed

increasing successes recently, 30% of U.S. population would not vote for a gay candidate (Gallup, 2012)

LGBT candidates are conscious of this bias when crafting their campaign communications

This investigation attempts to describe the verbal and visual content on openly LGBT candidates’ campaign websites and compare it to their opponents’ websites to account for endogenous effects

Theoretical UnderpinningsKaid and Davidson (1986) and Banwart (2002)

used social identity theory as the framework in their development of VideoStyle and Webstyle, respectively.

While prior studies explored gender differences between candidates’ VideoStyles and WebStyles (Bystrom, Banwart, Kaid, & Robertson, 2004), no previous research on the presentations of openly LGBT candidates on their campaign websites could be located

VideostyleKaid and Davidson (1986) used Goffman’s theory of self-

presentation as the theoretical basis for VideoStyle, the first systematic protocol for analyzing candidate presentations in televised political advertising.

The goal of the candidates’ VideoStyle is similar to that of the interpersonal communicator: impression management and control of others’ responses.

Based on the verbal, nonverbal, and production techniques used in the television advertisement, candidates’ VideoStyles are purposefully constructed to achieve specific cognitive, affective, and/or behavioral outcomes (Nesbitt, 1988).

Webstyle Banwart (2002) adapted VideoStyle constructs to develop

WebStyle in her analysis of gender differences in online campaign communications.

Websites offer “an unmediated, holistic, and representative portrait of campaigns” (Druckman, Kifer & Parkin, 2009, p. 343).

Unlike television advertising or news reports, websites give viewers a unique opportunity to access a campaign directly, enhancing unfiltered communication between politicians and the electorate (Smith, & Smith, 2009).

By 2010, nearly all major party candidates for the U.S. House or Senate have campaign websites, and virtual presence has become “a standard part of candidates’ tool kits” (Druckman, Kifer & Parkin, 2010, p. 88).

Presentation & RepresentationThe extent to which elected officials represent

the groups with which they identify, as well as their broadest constituencies, has been analyzed using Pitkin’s (1967) seminal explication of the theories of representation.

Descriptive representation refers to the extent to which a politician “looks like, has common interests with, or shares specific experiences” with those being represented (Dovi, 2011).

For LGBT politicians, descriptive representation may be analyzed by determining whether LGBT candidates present themselves as advocates of LGBT interests.

Presentation & RepresentationPitkin (1967) also developed the theory of

substantive representation, which focuses analyses on the extent to which the representative advances the policy preferences of those he or she represents, but does not necessarily share identity.

LGBT politicians, along with other constituency and candidate alternative variables, is a good predictor of pro-LGBT policies at the local and state level (Heider-Markel, 2010).

No prior research comparing the presentations and representative nature of LGBT politicians’ websites to their opponents, however, could be found in the literature.

Hypotheses and RQsH1: LGBT candidates will discuss LGBT issues more

than their opponents.H2: LGBT candidates will emphasize progressive

political ideology more than their opponents.H3: LGBT candidates will discuss religion less than their

opponents.

Hypotheses and RQsH4: LGBT candidates will discuss family less than their

opponents.RQ1: What are the differences between LGBT

candidates and their opponents’ emphasis of economic and social issues?

RQ2: What are the differences in dress, facial expressions, eye contact, and context between LGBT candidates and their opponents in the images presented on their campaign websites?

MethodThis investigation used SEO insights and trends

analyses to generate keyword search protocols for terms related to the dependent variables: LGBT issuesProgressive Political IdeologyReligious TermsFamily

ANOVA revealed the number of pages on the websites of LGBT and their opponents was not significantly different, F(1, 91) = 0.02, p > .05.

ReliabilitySite search tool returns uniform results, 100%

agreement on coding of verbal contentNo significant disagreements on any specific

categories in the analysis of website images and intercoder agreement on the visual content was 93.5%

Overall, intercoder reliability across all verbal and visual categories was determined using software that calculated a Krippendorff’s Alpha of 0.96.

Results1,786 pages of online content analyzed to

describe, compare, and provide an empirical basis for theoretical arguments about the verbal and visual presentation of LGBT candidates’ websites

54 LGBT Candidate Websites38 LGBT Opponents’ WebsitesNo significant differences in the distribution of

LGBT candidates and their opponents across office level, region, district partisanship, and candidate gender

ResultsH1: ANOVA revealed LGBT candidates use terms

associated with LGBT issues (M = 24.0, SD = 12.28) more frequently than do their opponents (M = 4.64, SD = 8.75), and this difference was significant, F(1, 90) = 12.48, p < 0.01. Supported

H2: The results of an analysis of variance revealed that LGBT candidates use terms associated with progressive politics (M = 1.75, SD = 3.42) more frequently than their opponents (M = -3.02, SD = 4.44), and this difference was significant, F(1,90) = 8.27, p < .01. Supported

ResultsH3: ANOVA revealed LGBT candidates use religious

terms (M = 6.98, SD = 5.41) marginally more frequently than their opponents (M = 5.93, SD = 4.02), but this difference was not significant, F (1, 90) = 0.70, p > .05. Not Supported

H4: ANOVA revealed LGBT candidates use terms associated with family members (M = 15.26, SD = 12.53) marginally less than their opponents (M = 20.93, SD = 14.39), but this difference was not significant, F(1, 90) = 0.35, p > .05. Not Supported

ResultsRQ 1: Differences between LGBT candidates and

their opponents in discussions of deficit, immigration, medical care,fiscal/economic, energy/transportation, housing, military/defense, taxes, safety/crime, jobs/employment, and education issues were not significant, p > .05

RQ 2: LGBT candidates were less likely to appear with family members than their opponents. LGBT candidates and their opponents were equally

likely to be presented in casual dress, smiling, alone, and making eye contact or looking directly into the camera.

DiscussionIntuitive results provide first empirical basis for

theoretical arguments about the presentations of LGBT candidates on their campaign websites

Close relationship between social identity politics and representation in regard to LGBT candidates

“Democratic representation requires representatives who share experiences, understand issues from the perspective of disadvantaged groups, and who are able to constitute a representative ‘voice’ within deliberations and decision-making” (Urbinati & Warren,2008, p. 16).