|
|
|
|
In Group and In Crisis: A Time Series Analysis of the In-Group Bias of Managed Presidential Rhetoric During International Crisis |
|
| Abstract | Word Stems | Keywords | Association | Citation | Get this Document | Similar Titles |
|
|
Abstract:
|
Though the threats vary in both immediacy and severity, war is a dangerous endeavor for leaders at home. During war, leaders operate under high levels of stress, in a time-constrained environment, with limited and sometimes inaccurate information, and under the weight of a burdensome responsibility for the welfare of others. In the case of the United States, this cumbersome responsibility whether accurately attributed or not, is most often placed squarely on the president’s shoulders. During a time of crisis, a rhetorical mis-step by the president can often mean death knells for the reigning administration and political party in public opinion polls. From another standpoint, a president who approaches a crisis situation strategically may vastly increase his presidential powers, solidify his position in history, and garner support from the citizenry. It is commonly argued within the fields of presidential studies and foreign policy analysis, that wars instigate conditions under which the personality and decision-making styles of leaders influence policy outcomes (Greenstein 1967; Barber 1972; Holsti 1976; Suedfeld and Tetlock 1977; Hermann 1980a, 1980b, 1983, 1984; Preston 1997). At-a-distance personality assessment techniques, such as Leadership Trait Analysis, utilize spontaneous speech (for example interviews, press conference question and answer sessions) to expose pertinent personality variables such as belief in ability to control events, conceptual complexity, need for power, distrust of others, in-group bias, self-confidence, and task orientation. Once uncovered, these variables can be constructed into a leader personality profile which may predict decision-making behaviors such as the degree to which a leader respects constraints in the international environment, his or her openness to information, his or her motivations, and advisory structure preferences (Hermann 2003; Preston 2001; Schafer 2000). For the purposes of this paper, however, I am not positing that the personality traits of leaders influence international crises or that these factors can be measured at-a-distance techniques; these arguments have already been well established by numerous scholars in the field (Hermann 1980a, 1980b, 1983, 1984; Preston 1997; Dyson 2006). Of primary concern for this research design is the consistency in and persistence of personality traits that is inherently assumed with assessment through at-a-distance methods. These assumptions are particularly concerning when evaluating the validity of the variable in-group bias. While it may be safe to assume consistency and stability in a leader’s conceptual complexity over-time, it is widely acknowledged that rhetorical strategy shifts to accommodate a dynamic political environment. For this reason, the in-group bias found in a leader’s rehearsed rhetoric will also shift. Tetlock (1991) posits, “Policy-makers may say things in public that they would privately acknowledge to be simplistic, naïve, and even demagogic. Shifts in public statements over-time more often reflect shifts in impression management goals and tactics than they do shifts in ways of thinking (p.50).” The argument set forth in this paper asserts that any planned rhetoric will be inconsistent in measures in-group bias over-time due to the changing demands of the war-time political environment and the related constituency (which for this paper is the American public). This argument is buttressed by the impression management literature (Schlenker 1980; Schlenker and Weingold, 1992; Tetlock 1981a; Tetlock 1981b; Wayne and Liden, 1995; Wallace, Suedfeld, & Thachuk 1993) which claims that when speaking to a heterogeneous audience (or an audience with varying viewpoints and levels of support), political rhetoric techniques shift. Specifically, I will use Leadership Trait Analysis to reveal changes in the in-group bias of managed presidential rhetoric (non-spontaneous rhetoric) made during the war-time presidencies of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Lyndon B. Johnson, and George Walker Bush. These measures will be analyzed, and thusly compared using time series analysis. |
|
 | Convention | | Need a solution for abstract management? All Academic can help! Contact us today to find out how our system can help your annual meeting. |  | Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. |  | Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! |  | Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! |  | Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. |  | Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! |  | Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! | | Click here for more information. |
|
|
Association:
Name: ISA's 49th ANNUAL CONVENTION, BRIDGING MULTIPLE DIVIDES
URL: http://www.isanet.org
|
Citation:
|
MLA Citation:
| Searles, Kathleen. "In Group and In Crisis: A Time Series Analysis of the In-Group Bias of Managed Presidential Rhetoric During International Crisis" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the ISA's 49th ANNUAL CONVENTION, BRIDGING MULTIPLE DIVIDES, Hilton San Francisco, SAN FRANCISCO, CA, USA, Mar 26, 2008 <Not Available>. 2008-10-08 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p253990_index.html> |
APA Citation:
| Searles, K. E. , 2008-03-26 "In Group and In Crisis: A Time Series Analysis of the In-Group Bias of Managed Presidential Rhetoric During International Crisis" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the ISA's 49th ANNUAL CONVENTION, BRIDGING MULTIPLE DIVIDES, Hilton San Francisco, SAN FRANCISCO, CA, USA <Not Available>. 2008-10-08 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p253990_index.html |
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Though the threats vary in both immediacy and severity, war is a dangerous endeavor for leaders at home. During war, leaders operate under high levels of stress, in a time-constrained environment, with limited and sometimes inaccurate information, and under the weight of a burdensome responsibility for the welfare of others. In the case of the United States, this cumbersome responsibility whether accurately attributed or not, is most often placed squarely on the president’s shoulders. During a time of crisis, a rhetorical mis-step by the president can often mean death knells for the reigning administration and political party in public opinion polls. From another standpoint, a president who approaches a crisis situation strategically may vastly increase his presidential powers, solidify his position in history, and garner support from the citizenry. It is commonly argued within the fields of presidential studies and foreign policy analysis, that wars instigate conditions under which the personality and decision-making styles of leaders influence policy outcomes (Greenstein 1967; Barber 1972; Holsti 1976; Suedfeld and Tetlock 1977; Hermann 1980a, 1980b, 1983, 1984; Preston 1997). At-a-distance personality assessment techniques, such as Leadership Trait Analysis, utilize spontaneous speech (for example interviews, press conference question and answer sessions) to expose pertinent personality variables such as belief in ability to control events, conceptual complexity, need for power, distrust of others, in-group bias, self-confidence, and task orientation. Once uncovered, these variables can be constructed into a leader personality profile which may predict decision-making behaviors such as the degree to which a leader respects constraints in the international environment, his or her openness to information, his or her motivations, and advisory structure preferences (Hermann 2003; Preston 2001; Schafer 2000). For the purposes of this paper, however, I am not positing that the personality traits of leaders influence international crises or that these factors can be measured at-a-distance techniques; these arguments have already been well established by numerous scholars in the field (Hermann 1980a, 1980b, 1983, 1984; Preston 1997; Dyson 2006). Of primary concern for this research design is the consistency in and persistence of personality traits that is inherently assumed with assessment through at-a-distance methods. These assumptions are particularly concerning when evaluating the validity of the variable in-group bias. While it may be safe to assume consistency and stability in a leader’s conceptual complexity over-time, it is widely acknowledged that rhetorical strategy shifts to accommodate a dynamic political environment. For this reason, the in-group bias found in a leader’s rehearsed rhetoric will also shift. Tetlock (1991) posits, “Policy-makers may say things in public that they would privately acknowledge to be simplistic, naïve, and even demagogic. Shifts in public statements over-time more often reflect shifts in impression management goals and tactics than they do shifts in ways of thinking (p.50).” The argument set forth in this paper asserts that any planned rhetoric will be inconsistent in measures in-group bias over-time due to the changing demands of the war-time political environment and the related constituency (which for this paper is the American public). This argument is buttressed by the impression management literature (Schlenker 1980; Schlenker and Weingold, 1992; Tetlock 1981a; Tetlock 1981b; Wayne and Liden, 1995; Wallace, Suedfeld, & Thachuk 1993) which claims that when speaking to a heterogeneous audience (or an audience with varying viewpoints and levels of support), political rhetoric techniques shift. Specifically, I will use Leadership Trait Analysis to reveal changes in the in-group bias of managed presidential rhetoric (non-spontaneous rhetoric) made during the war-time presidencies of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Lyndon B. Johnson, and George Walker Bush. These measures will be analyzed, and thusly compared using time series analysis. |
Get this Document:
Find this citation or document at one or all of these locations below. The links below may have the citation or the entire document for free or you may purchase access to the document. Clicking on these links will change the site you're on and empty your shopping cart.
Similar Titles:
Social Group Polarization in a Divided Polity: A Time-Series Analysis of Group Affiliation in the U.S.
Does Power Equality Decrease International Tension? (Two Assessments Based on an Entropic Mathematical Model of International System, and on Time Series Analysis, Respectively)
Can You Hear Me Now? A Time Series Analysis of the Effects of Communication Technology on the Complexity of Presidential Rhetoric
|
|
