dr. a.w.m. (willem) koetsenruijter leiden university, the netherlands dept. journalism & new...

Dr. A.W.M. (Willem) KoetsenruijterLeiden University, the Netherlands

Dept. Journalism & New Media

koets@wxs.nl

THE RHETORIC OF POWERIN IMAGES

OF WORLD LEADERS

1

/ 41

Image management

… carefully composed and chosen to communicate specific ideas about leadership and power

2

/ 41

Hofstede’s theory on cultural values

Four dimensions

- individualism – collectivism

- uncertainty avoidance

- power distance

- masculinity – femininity

3

/ 41

GENERAL Outline

RESEARCH QUESTION

By what Rhetorical Means is Power established in Media Portraits of Political Leaders?

THEORY

Power Distance (Hofstede), Social Distance Theory (Hall, Bogardus), Semiotics (Kress & Van Leeuwen), Rhetoric.

4

/ 41

Social Distance

“the lack of availability and relational openness – of variable intensity – of a subject

in regard to others, perceived and acknowledged as different on the basis

of their inclusion in a social category.

It is the result of the dynamic interaction of factors situated on three different

dimensions of space: physical, symbolic and geometrical.

(Cesareo, 2007, p11)

5

/ 41

SIX Variables

NoC: Nature of Candidate

PoV: Point of View

FEx: Facial Expression

ImA: Image Act

INt: Interaction

PDi: Physical Distance

6

/ 41

Nature of candidate

1. Family type

2. Outdoor type

3. Father- mother type

4. Glad to see you

5. Relaxed leader

6. Dynamic Speaker

7. Media star

8. Stressed leader

9. Promised leader

PSD small

PSD big

7

/ 41

NATURE OF CANDIDate

Family type: social distance = low

8

/ 41

NATURE OF CANDIDate

Outdoor type

9

/ 41

NATURE OF CANDIDate

Father / mother type

10

/ 41

NATURE OF CANDIDate

Glad to C you

11

/ 41

NATURE OF CANDIDate

Relaxed leader

12

/ 41

NATURE OF CANDIDate

Dynamical Speaker: social distance = higher

13

/ 41

NATURE OF CANDIDate

Media Star

14

/ 41

NATURE OF CANDIDate

Stressed leader

15

/ 41

NATURE OF CANDIDate

Promised leader: social distance = high

16

/ 41

POINT OF VIEW

1. Camera equals point of view

2. Camera higher than point of view

3. Camera lower than point of view

PSD small

PSD big

17

/ 41

POINT OF VIEW: Equal, social distance = low

18

/ 41

POINT OF VIEW: High: social distance high

19

/ 41

POINT OF VIEW: Low: social distance high

20

/ 41

PHYSICAL DISTANCE

1. Intimate

2. Close personal

3. Far personal

4. Close social

5. Far social

6. Public

PSD small

PSD big21

/ 41

DISTANCE: intimate, social distance = low

22

/ 41

DISTANCE: close personal, social distance = low

23

/ 41

DISTANCE: far personal

24

/ 41

DISTANCE: close social

25

/ 41

DISTANCE: far social

26

/ 41

DISTANCE: public, social distance = high

27

/ 41

POINT OF VIEW

1. Camera equals point of view

2. Camera higher than point of view

3. Camera lower than point of view

Value perceived social distance (PSD) = 1 / (n of possible values) = 0,33

1 = 0,33

2 = 0,66

3 = 0,99

PSD small

PSD big

29

/ 41

PHYSICAL DISTANCE

1. Intimate

2. Close personal

3. Far personal

4. Close social

5. Far social

6. Public

Value perceived physical distance (PPD) = 1 / (n of possible values) = 0,167

1 = 0,167 4 = 0,67

2 = 0,33 5 = 0,85

3 = 0,83 6 = 0,99

PSD small

PSD big

30

/ 41

SIX Variables

The six variables form a compound scale to measure Perceived Social Distance (PSD):

(NOC + POV + INT + DIST + FAC + IMA) = PSD

Scale’s homogenity Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.65.

Inter coder reliability on the separate variables Krippendorff’s alpha >0.8

31

/ 41

Hypotheses

H1: The use of rhetorical means can be explained from a model based on

increasing or decreasing Social Distance.

H2: Social Distance is closely connected to Power Distance.

H3: Photographs show a difference in Social Distance in photographs from

leaders from a High Power Distance Country and a Low Power Distance Country. 32

/ 41

Google Images as a Collection stereotypes

33

/ 41

Google Images as a Collection stereotypes

34

/ 41

600 photographs

Content analysis on a random sample from 600 Google Images

300 x Obama and

300 x Khadaffi

United States = Low Power Distance country, Hofstede’s index .40

Libya = High Power Distance Country, Hofstede’s index .80

35

/ 41

RESULTS

Mean difference Obama vs Khadaffi

Nature of Candidate 2,9*

Point of View 0,3*

Facial Expression 1,4*

Image Act 1,6*

Interaction 0,7*

Psysical distance 0,6*

*Sig t = < .01

36

/ 41

RESULTS

The compound scale:

Obama = PSD = 2,5

Khadaffi = PSD = 3,7**(t = 24,7 / p <.001; r = .86)

37

/ 41

results

38

H1: The use of rhetorical means can be explained from a model based on

increasing or decreasing Social Distance. -> Confirmed! All differences on the scale were significant and pointed in the same direction.

H2: Social Distance is closely connected to Power Distance.

-> Confirmed! High power distance is connected with high social distance. H3: Photographs show a difference in Social Distance in photographs from

leaders from a High Power Distance Country and a Low Power Distance Country. -> Confirmed! Pictures from US President Obama scored significantly lower in social distance than pictures from the Libyan leader Khadaffi.

/ 41

Discussion

- How good a sample is Google Images? Can the research be replicated with other photo data banks? (Getty, Press Photo agencies, etc.)

- Can we replicate this research with photographs from photographers from specific low and high power distance countries? (search أوباما, Обаму, or オバマ )

- Can we replicate this research with other leaders. (Obama and Khadaffi were extremes.)

- Can the scale be used as a predictive tool? Can we produce photographs with a predicted social distance?

39

/ 41

QUESTIONS?

40