Dr. A.W.M. (Willem) KoetsenruijterLeiden University, the Netherlands
Dept. Journalism & New Media
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