rude by nature · 1 rude by nature? the impact of political cartoons on the perceived image of...
TRANSCRIPT
1
RUDE BY NATURE?
The impact of political cartoons on the perceived image of politicians
ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops 2017, Nottingham, UK, 25-30 April 2017
Workshop: Political Incivility in Parliament, Party Competition and Political Communication
Joop van Holsteyn
Department of Political Science Leiden University
Wassenaarseweg 52 2333 AK Leiden The Netherlands
work in progress; not for citation without permission of the author
Introduction
Political satire predates modern democratic politics and political or editorial cartoons
constitute a widespread and well-established form of political satire (e.g. Dewey, 2007;
Hess & Kaplan, 1968; Hess & Northrop, 2011). According to some studies, the cartoon
even dates back to 15th century France (e.g., Veth, 1920: 4) and subsequently developed
as a distinct satirical genre from the caricature: “a division seems to have occurred at
some time in the seventeenth century, and thereafter two simultaneously developments
are apparent - caricature, or the distorted representation of an individual, and
cartooning, which is the more or less distorted representation of issues, situations, and
ideas” (Johnston, 1937: 21).
Political cartoons that truly and dramatically shock the world are an exception –
albeit not a rare exception: in the 21st century the Danish so-called Muhammed
cartoons1 resulted in worldwide protest, demonstrations and hundreds of casualties in
and after 2005 (e.g. Klausen, 2009; Hussain, 2007). It also is probably no coincidence
that the French magazine Charlie Hebdo, which has been (in)famous for its cartoons, was
1 In a very strict sense these drawings were not political cartoons in the sense of visual expressions of the meaning of message of the independent cartoonist, but basically solicited illustrations in response to an explicit call to draw the prophet (Cagle, 2007).
2
the aim of a major terrorist attack in January 2015. It is an essential and characteristic
feature of any political cartoon to be negative, radical and critical. “By definition, satire is
a destructive art. It is, after all, intended to shake us out of our sense of apathy or
indifference and bring about reform. (…) Cartoonists feel that positive cartoons are a
contradiction in terms” (Lamb, 2004: 41). Consequently, by its very nature the cartoon
can be considered to be an expression of incivility, i.e., it is deliberately “inflammatory
and superfluous” (Brooks & Geer, 2007: 5). Most cartoonists hope to “tear things down”
(Cagle, 2005: xi). But do they indeed?
The political cartoon has never developed into a core research topic in any field
of study. Cartoons are located at the periphery of various disciplines and these multiple
marginal positions too often seem to result in scholarly neglect. “Do cartoons belong to
art historians, political scientists, students of media, or interdisciplinary scholars of
satire? It’s not clear who ‘owns’ them, so there is no clear, preexisting intellectual
framework to shape debate” (Manning & Phiddian, 2008: 2; see also Diamond, 2002:
252; Edwards, 1997: xi; Streicher, 1967: 427). Moreover, since cartoons are not only
incivil but also humorous by nature and intention, the fear of mistreating them by
serious study and scientific research has added to scholarly reluctance: “Humor is a
fragile product that can easily be damaged by academic scrutiny” (Duus, 2001: 965). As
a result, there is not much more than speculation and, at best, some anecdotal evidence
on the impact of political cartoons (e.g., Heitzmann, 1988; Hogan, 2008). Sound findings
coming from empirical studies do exist, but are the proverbial exception to the rule. So
the question remains: if political cartoons are an intended manifestation of incivility and
are essentially meant to hurt, do they cause any pain and damage? “Do uncivil attacks
have pernicious effects on the public? (…) The truth is that we just do not know”(Brooks
& Geer, 2007: 2). Indeed, since the topic is so understudied, we simply do not know
whether or not political cartoonists in practice make effective use of their ‘licence to
mock’ (Hogan, 2004).
This paper concerns the impact of political cartoons on the image of three well
known Dutch politicians (prime minister Mark Rutte, Labor leader Diederik Samsom
and the radical right populist Geert Wilders). The research question is addressed on the
basis of a unique survey experiment that was conducted in Spring 2016; a total of over
3,000 respondents were randomly assigned to 12 control and experimental groups. “The
ability to isolate important causal forces is important and experiments offer the
3
opportunity” (Brooks & Geer, 2007: 3). In this study the causal force or stimulus was a
visual message included in the questionnaire and the key relation to be examined is how
exposure to the visual message, i.e., a political cartoon (or better: two cartoons from two
different Dutch cartoonists), influence the respondents’ evaluation of the politicians on
several personality traits, overall affect and more specific aspects of the being a good
politician (for an earlier research report, see Romeijn, 2016). Do the essentially incivil
cartoons have a negative impact? According to this study, there are strong indications
that cartoons do impact on the evaluations of politicians. As should have been expected
in the least likely scenario that has been employed in this study, the effects are marginal
and not statistically significant, but political cartoons do seem to have an effect. The
politicians involved are not deeply cut by any single cartoon, but more often than not a
political cartoon results in noticeable scratches on their image.
The political cartoon: character, perception, impact
The cartoon as a satirical subgenre is probably not fully familiar to social scientists in
general and political scientists in particular, so some introductory remarks on this form
of opinion expression may be in order. A political cartoon “(…) while an imprecise term,
is basically an interpretive picture that makes use of symbolism and, most often, bold
and humorous exaggeration to present a message or point of view concerning people,
events or situations” (Heitzmann, 1988: 205; italics added). This intended message or
point of view is a core feature of any cartoon. The political cartoonist intends and
sincerely hopes to contribute to public debate and, as said, almost always does so in a
negative and critical, probably even incivil manner, and he2 does so “unrestricted by
journalistic standards of objectivity and fairness” (Lamb, 2004:42). According to the
American cartoonist Michael Ramirez a cartoon “challenges hypocrisy. It reveals the
best and the worst of humanity. It calls the reader to arms against the complacent, the
lethargic, the evildoers, the indolent body politic, and the champions of the status quo”
(Ramirez, 2008: xix). Consequently, the political cartoon should not be confused with
the so-called gag cartoon “with about as much bite as a goldfish” (Wallis, 2007: 11). The
political cartoon deliberately contains negative comments on societal and political
2 It is not unfair to refer to cartoonists as males, since in practice most of them are; female cartoonists form only a small part of all cartoonists (Edwards, 1997: xv; Kautaskas, 2008; Seymour-Ure, 2003: 230).
4
affairs and “[c]artoonists feel that positive cartoons are a contradiction in terms” (Lamb,
2004: 41). This probably at times will be disturbing and upsetting, particularly in case of
explicit destructive cartoons that are “meant to be cruel and to hurt” (Press, 1981: 76;
see also Coupe, 1969). Moreover, even cartoons that do not have the explicit intention to
be incivil and to really hurt their target, this nevertheless can be a consequence of its
strong critical message and should be considered, according to cartoonist Patrick
Chapatte, “collateral damage” (cited in Cagle & Fairrington, 2007: 16).
The deliberate critical message of the cartoon is, again almost by definition,
presented in an indirect, coded and consequently complicated and ambiguous way that
allows for divergent and contrasting interpretations. As a result, misinterpretation is
always lurking, partly due to the fact that visual communication is heavily dependent on
context: “Although visual images may be clear, the meanings attributed to them depend
on the social, cultural, and political context in which they are perceived” (Müller et al.,
2009: 32; Hussain, 2007). More generally, political “satire is often ambiguous” (LaMarre
et al. 2013; Balcetis & Dunning 2006), constituting a source for varying interpretations,
including interpretations that do not concur with or contradict the intended message of
the cartoonist. Any political cartoon constitutes “a pictorial puzzle” (Carl, 1970: 32) or
“mental puzzle” (El Rafaie, 2009: 186) that is “open, in most instances, to quite varied
interpretations” (Manning, 2008: 147; Bounegru & Forceville, 2011: 213; El Refaie,
2003: 77). If miscommunication is a ‘failure to communicate ideas or intentions
successfully’, as the Cambridge Dictionary states, then political cartoons easily run the
risk of generating miscommunication.
In his deliberate attempt to contribute to the public debate and opinion climate,
the political cartoonist, however, almost desperately wants to be understood correctly.
This requires that the symbols and metaphors that are the building blocks of cartoons
should not be “too complex, elaborate, or obscure” (Press, 1981: 20). Too much
complexity may result in overall miscommunication and hinders the successful
connection between the cartoonist and his public: “If the cartoonist and the reader are
not connected, conceptually or contextually, the reader may not understand the
cartoon’s meaning or receive a message different from the one intended” (Lamb, 2004:
49). If the political cartoon is to be “understood as a form of political commentary”
(Hansen, 2008: 285), the meaning of this comment - incivil or otherwise - should be
perceived and interpreted correctly to have the intended impact.
5
In most observations and studies of cartoons this complicated and in terms of
successful communication problematic connection or relationship between the
cartoonist and his public is not elaborated upon. By default, the assumption is that the
cartoon message clearly gets through and it is taken for granted that the message of the
cartoon is correctly understood. This assumption of a simple and straightforward
understanding of the intended meaning of cartoons is present in much scholarly work,
albeit often in a rather implicit way. In her study on the American presidential campaign
of 1988, for instance, Edwards (1997) reconstructed the narrative of this campaign on
the basis of 2,752 cartoons, but all these cartoons are interpreted and ‘explained’ by the
author on the assumption that her own interpretation is valid. This approach, resting on
the idea that the author’s decoding and interpretation of the visualized message is
correct, i.e, concurs with the cartoonists’ intended (critical, incivil) meaning and opinion,
is widespread. Cartoons are dealt with in this way with the researcher-author as the
authoritative interpreter in studies on, for example, election campaigns (e.g., Connors,
2005; Edwards, 2001; Hill, 1978; Koetzle & Brunell, 1996; Van Holsteyn, 2007), the
American electorate (Edwards & Ware 2005), the 1991 Gulf War (Connors, 1998), post-
war British prime ministers (Seymour-Ure, 2003), the Dutch ‘pink populist’ Pim Fortuyn
(Walter & Van Holsteyn, 2006; 2007) and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (Bourdon &
Boudana 2016), as well as in studies that deal with historic events as the revolution year
1848 in Germany (Coupe, 1967), the French-German War of 1870 (Stuart, 1964a;
1964b) and the Mexican Revolution (Alba, 1967). Overall, most “analysts (…) tend to
regard the meaning of cartoons as self-evident and to take the validity of their own
interpretations more or less for granted” (El Refaie 2009: 182).
Whether political cartoons are interpreted correctly, i.e., that the message of the
cartoonist is understood as intended, remains an open question that is addressed by
very few scholars. This should be kept in mind reading studies on negative political
messages or incivility in general (e.g., Brooks & Geer, 2007) and the impact of political
cartoons in particular, since if negative expressions are not perceived as such, this of
course impacts on the overall evaluation of negativity and incivility in politics. This
potential problem should not be underestimated. El Refaie presents an analysis of
reports from 8 respondents who were interviewed after viewing 3 cartoons and the
findings “of this small pilot study appear to challenge the widespread view that cartoons
are simple and easy to read” (El Refaie 2009: 199). This conclusion echoes previous
6
observations by Langeveld (1970; 1989) as well as one more comprehensive study on
the topic by Leroy M. Carl. Carl’s study (1970) was sobering with respect to the correct
perception and interpretation of cartoons. In his small-scale study he included an open-
ended question on the meaning of the cartoons that he showed his respondents and
“none was in agreement with the cartoonist’s intended meaning” (Carl, 1970: 42; italics
in original). This finding was only slightly ‘worse’ compared to other findings Carl refers
to as regards frequent incorrect interpretations: “(…) only about 15 per cent were in
agreement, 15 per cent in slight or partial accord, and an overwhelming 70 per cent in
complete disagreement” (Carl, 1970: 43).
A recent large N comprehensive study (Van Holsteyn, 2015) on the interpretation
of cartoons resulted in concurring sobering findings. In November 2012 a total of 11
cartoons on domestic and international topics by two Dutch cartoonists was presented
to a sample of 24,912 respondents of the internet Opinion Panel of the current affairs
program EenVandaag. Each cartoon was followed by a multiple choice question with
four response alternatives, plus an item non-response option. One of the response
alternatives contained the correct meaning of the cartoon, i.e., the intended meaning of
the cartoonist as authorized by the cartoonist involved; the other three alternatives
were made up by the researcher and were more or less plausible, but did not contain the
message the cartoonist had in mind when making his cartoon. Out of a total of almost
25,000 respondents, only 3 picked all the correct answers, i.e., were able to choose the
answer that contained and presented the message of the cartoon as intended by the
cartoonist; the average score of correct answers was 4.4 out of 11 cartoons (Van
Holsteyn, 2015: 329).
Still, however complicated and potentially confusing the political cartoon as an
expression of public opinion and manifestation of political incivility may be, the Danish
Muhammad cartoon affair, the terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo, and numerous smaller
recent and older incidents3 as regards cartoons and cartoonists show that they may and
frequently do have societal and political impact. Moreover, even in case cartoons are not
interpreted correctly in terms of the ‘objective’ meaning of the cartoonist, these mental
or pictorial puzzles are one way or another solved in the mind of the general public or
electorate and subsequently have ‘subjective’ political effect and significance (e.g.,
3 For a ‘neither definitive nor exhaustive’ overview of some major incidents with cartoonists involved, see Navasky, 2013: 201-209).
7
Bourdon & Boudana, 2016). “If a reader doesn’t understand a cartoon, he still gets some
sort of message from it”(Carl, 1970: 41). The remainder of this paper contains an
attempt to assess empirically whether or not political cartoons do have an impact, in
particular on the perception of political leaders, since “[t]he cartoonist is part of that
linking process which connects the general public and its political leaders – a give-and-
take rough and tumble out of which comes what the pollsters call public opinion”(Press,
1981: 11).
More specifically, the research question is empirically addressed from two
related but different angles. Firstly, the impact of cartoons on a number of politically
relevant character traits is explored. According to scholars, journalists and politicians
alike, there is an continuing process of personalization of politics going on, not
exclusively but also in the electoral sphere where political candidates and their voters
meet (e.g., Aarts et al. 2013; Garzia, 2011; Karvonen, 2010; King, 2002; McAllister,
2009). More than ever before, the individual political candidate is assumed to be able to
win or lose elections for his or her party and in this contemporary fight for volatile
voters the perceptions of his or her personality, which arguably consists of the two
underlying dimensions of competence and integrity (Bittner, 2011: 30-52; Kinder et al.,
1980), are supposed to play a substantial role. Next to personality traits, there is
attention to the interpersonal trust relationship between voters and candidates that is
captured by the ABI-model, with Ability, Benevolence and Integrity as its building blocks
(Mayer et al., 1995; see also Romeijn, 2016). According to this ABI-model, the level of
interpersonal trust is high when the trustor, i.e., the citizen or voter, considers the
trustee, i.e., the political candidate, to have particular abilities, to be benevolent and to
demonstrate integrity. An able leader is assumed to be qualified in some specific
domain, in this case politics (Mayer et al., 1995: 717); a benevolent leader is assumed to
act in the best and general interest and not for his own benefit (Mayer et al., 1995: 719);
and a trustworthy leader will act in accordance with acceptable principles and overall
justice (Mayer et al., 1995: 719-720). This ABI-model arguably contains some important
concepts to measure interpersonal trust in leaders in general (e.g., Colquitt et al , 2007;
Mayer & Davis, 1999). In this study the model is explored to more specifically examine
trust in politicians or political candidates.
Although, due to the fact that political cartoons are an understudied topic and
that fully established theories on cartoons to draw hypotheses from are not available,
8
following from the sketch above it is possible to state a general expectation to be tested
in the study: Political cartoons impact negatively on the image of political candidates in
terms of their general personality traits and as regards their ability, benevolence and
integrity as politicians.
Case selection, data and method
“I don’t know how one could demonstrate, satisfactorily, whether cartoons have an
impact on our opinion or not. I suspect that it would be very difficult, if not impossible,
but then I might be wrong” (Hogan, 2008: 98). It may be a form of personal arrogance or
hubris, but I hope to prove Hogan wrong, and this section explains how I try to do so.4
The survey experiment that was conducted for this research project5 focused on
the evaluation of three well-known Dutch politicians. The Netherlands is a multi-party
representative democracy in which voting behaviour during the time of so-called
‘pillarization’ was highly predictable as a result of the structuring and stabilizing effect
of religion and social class, but since the continuous decline of pillarization from the
mid-1960s onwards elections have become much less predictable (e.g., Andeweg &
Irwin, 2014). The contemporary Dutch electorate is highly volatile (Mair, 2008) and
Dutch voters in their 21st century electoral calculus respond more and more to short-
term factors, including the perceived performance and personality of individual
politicians and party leaders in particular (Irwin & Van Holsteyn, 2008).
The political leaders selected for the experiment represent three ideologically
different major political parties. The then prime-minister Mark Rutte of the liberal
conservative Liberal Party (VVD) was included, as well as Diederik Samsom, who at the
time was the political leader of the left-wing social democratic Labour Party (PvdA), and
Geert Wilders of the populist right-wing or radical right Party for Freedom (PVV). Data
from the Dutch Parliamentary Election Study 2012 show that these politicians were
extremely well-known: Rutte by 99 percent of the respondents, Samsom by 97 percent,
and Geert Wilders by even 99.5 percent. Opting for such well-known politicians arguably
adds to the external and ecological validity and ‘mundane realism’ (Iyengar, 2011: 81)
4 With the assistance of Charlotte Romeijn and Galen A. Irwin. 5 The project was financially supported by a grant from the LUF-Gratama Foundation.
9
of the study and findings, at least compared to many studies focussing on unknown or
fake politicians (see also e.g., Keating et al., 1999). Using real, well-known and outspoken
politicians such as the controversial Geert Wilders consequently constitutes a least-
likely case study. If voters change their evaluation of such well-known politicians with
an established political record and clear profile in response to a single political cartoon,
such voters are extremely likely to change their evaluation of and opinion on other, less
known politicians as well - “if it works here, it will work anywhere” (Patton, 2015: 276;
Odell, 2001: 165).
Specifically, the study was a survey experiment - “The modern survey experiment
is the biggest change in survey research in a half century” (Sniderman, 2011: 102) - with
a post-test only design. The stimulus was a visual message in which a negative political
cartoon was crucial, and the examined relationships focus on how exposure to this
single cartoon impacts on the evaluation of political leaders in terms of personality traits
and their ability, benevolence and integrity, as well as so-called overall affect scores.6 In
practice there were three different stimuli. The stimulus for group 1 to 3 was an official
press photograph of the politician; this was assumed to be a positive picture or image
that the politician himself, or his personal staff, tries to convey to the general public. The
stimulus for groups 4 to 6 was a less flattering portrait of the politician,7 i.e., a cartoon of
him by cartoonist Joep Bertrams and the stimulus for groups 7 to 9 was a cartoon by
cartoonist Bas van der Schot (see Appendix 1 for the full questionnaire, in Dutch,
including the pictures and cartoons).8 Bertrams and Van der Schot are both multiple
winners of the yearly Inktspotprijs for the best political cartoon in the Netherlands. Note
also that both Bertrams and Van der Schot fit the profile of political cartoonists with a
substantive message who want to be understood. Bertrams, for instance, stated: ‘You
can make a nice drawing, but if nobody understands, you are missing your aim’ (Het
6 In Dutch the responses to the particular feeling thermometer question are referred to as sympathiescores. However, the Dutch word sympathie does not have the slightly negative connotation of the word sympathy in English. For this reason the scores on the feeling thermometer are referred to as affect scores. 7 In order to present a predominantly visual portrait of the politicians with as less verbal information as possible, some captions of the cartoons of Bertrams were deleted from the cartoons included in the experiment. 8 A pilot of the questionnaire was pre-tested on the basis of a convenience sample (n= ±20) for Mark Rutte, resulting in some minor changes in the final version of the questionnaire.
10
Parool, 5 March 2011); Van der Schot: ‘Of course I have an opinion, and this shows in my
work (…). A good cartoon should not be too complicated. In the end it is true: the easier
the cartoon, the more rapid the joke will be understood’ (de Volkskrant, 1 February 2014;
italics added; both quotes translated from Dutch by the author). Group 10 to 12 were the
control groups in the experiment and did not receive any visual stimulus.
The stimulus itself was shown on a page (screen) with a short text to explain that
some questions were to follow about a single particular politician. A non-visible timer
was set on this screen to guarantee that the respondents were fixed to it for at least 5
seconds, i.e. ample time to read the accompanying text, and to avoid that they would too
quickly skip this screen. The respondents were not explicitly asked to examine the
accompanying image, if there was any. This explicit focus on the image is arguably less
necessary since participants will observe it en passant and probably unconsciously;
people only need to glance at an image for a milliseconds to have noticed it and
potentially to be influenced by it (Willis & Todorov, 2006, 596; Todorov et al. 2005,
1624). Not explicitly referring to the image also makes it less likely that respondents
know what they are being surveyed for; the questionnaire simply had the heading
‘Evaluation Politicians’ (Beoordeling Politici). At the end of the questionnaire there was a
post-manipulation check to examine if respondents had seen the image, and if they
believe this image gave a positive or negative image of the politician involved.9 If the
respondents had seen a political cartoon, they were also asked if they thought the
cartoon was funny or not (1= not funny, 7= very funny) and if it contained a serious
message or was just a little joke, as in the gag cartoon (1= not serious, 7= very serious).
The experiment in practice was an online questionnaire constructed via the
online data collection program Qualtrics. Data collection was done by the market
research organisation Survey Sampling International (SSI), with the major advantage of
having a group of respondents that is a more or less random sample of a much wider
and diverse population instead of university students like so many other experimental
work on the impact of visual messages (e.g., Barrett & Barrington, 2005a; b; Keating et
al., 1999; Rosenberg et al., 1991). A total of 3,060 respondents participated in the survey
experiment. The participants were between 18 and 90 years old, with a mean of 43
years (sd=15.03); 52.4 percent of the respondents were female, and the respondents are
9 All questionnaires only focused on a single politician; see alos Figure 1.
11
normally distributed as regards their level of education, political knowledge and interest
in politics. The respondents were randomly assigned to the 12 groups that were
included in the survey experiment; for an overview of these groups and their
experimental characteristics, see Figure 1.
Figure 1. Overview of groups and stimuli in experiment (based on Romeijn, 2016:12) randomly selected politician
+ randomly selected stimulus
= group
- Mark Rutte (VVD) - Geert Wilders (PVV) - Diederik Samsom (PvdA)
- official photograph - cartoon Bertrams - cartoon Van der Schot - no image (control)
1. Rutte - photograph 2. Wilders - photograph 3. Samsom - photograph
4. Rutte + cartoon Bertrams 5. Wilders + cartoon Bertrams 6. Samsom + cartoon Bertrams
7. Rutte + cartoon Van der Schot 8. Wilders + cartoon Van der Schot 9. Samsom + cartoon Van der Schot
10. Rutte – control group 11.Wilders – control group 12. Samsom – control group
Results
The glass with findings from the survey experiment is half full as well as half empty. The
latter, more pessimistic interpretation of the results is based on the ANOVA-analysis
with respect to both the six personality traits and overall affect score (see Table 1a) and
the three components of the ABI-model (see Table 1b). There are no statistically
significant differences (at the conventional level of .05) in the evaluations of Mark Rutte,
Diederik Samsom and Geert Wilders for the four groups of respondents. The cartoons do
not negatively influence the politicians’ image and profile in terms of being a weak,
consistent, decisive, nice, friendly or arrogant political candidate. Their overall affect
score does not show any statistically significant impact from the cartoons either. And the
same goes for the evaluation in terms of ability, benevolence and integrity. Overall,
neither of the cartoons has any statistically significant impact on the evaluation of
politicians in relevant personality traits and dispositions. Negativity and incivility simply
do not seem to harm.
12
Then there is the optimist, who is willing and able to present a different but
equally plausible interpretation of the same empirical results. Firstly, the optimist
knows that, in general, statistical significance can easily be misunderstood and its
importance is often overrated: the simple fact that results may show conventional
statistical significance does not necessarily and inevitably mean that these results do
have any substantive meaning, and vice versa – ‘the absence of evidence is not evidence
of absence’ (Altman & Bland, 1995).
Table 1a. Evaluation of personality traits and overall sympathy score Rutte, Wilders and Samsom Weak
(zwakke leider)
Consistent (consistent)
Decisive (besluit-vaardig)
Nice (aardig)
Friendly (vriendelijk)
Arrogant (arrogant)
Overall affect score
Rutte - photo - no visual - JB - BvdS
4.40 4.49 4.72 4.53
3.94 3.97 3.72 3.69
3.99 3.96 3.72 3.75
4.81 4.86 4.66 4.80
5.01 5.09 5.03 5.09
3.73 3.64 4.01 3.92
47 50 44 47
Samsom - photo - no visual - JB - BvdS
4.73 4.73 4.81 4.62
3.89 3.80 3.57 3.92
3.93 3.86 3.73 3.85
4.62 4.36 4.27 4.72
4.74 4.54 4.48 4.93
3.97 4.23 4.16 3.96
44 44 41 46
Wilders - photo - no visual - JB - BvdS
3.55 3.78 3.69 3.72
4.60 4.61 4.64 4.59
4.66 4.61 4.53 4.79
3.88 3.84 3.67 3.58
3.98 3.89 3.83 3.65
4.76 5.08 4.97 4.99
44 41 39 41
Notes: - N in all groups is ± 250. - JB = cartoon Joep Bertrams (see Appendix 1, column c; BvdS = cartoon by Bas van der Schot (Appendix 1, column d). - The question with respect to the personality traits was: ‘Can you state to what extent these traits apply to [name politician]?’ The response was given via a 7-point scale (1=not at all; 7= completely). The traits were presented to respondents in a random order. - The overall affect score was given via a feeling thermometer, with 0 as ‘extremely negative feelings’, 100 as ‘extremely positive feelings’ and 50 as ‘no negative and no positive feelings or affect’; see also footnote 5. - For all traits the most negative evaluation (highest score for negative trait and lowest score for positive trait) is underlined; note that differences between scores are not statistically significant (ANOVA).
Secondly and more importantly, although the results are not statistically
significant, they are not random either and show patterns that seem to confirm the
general expectation of a negative impact of cartoons on the image of political candidates.
For instance, with respect to the trait evaluations, in 14 out of the 18 series of scores (3
politicians x 6 traits) the most negative evaluation is found after a cartoon was
presented. This obviously is a much higher number than would have been expected of
there was no effect at all. Also, Diederik Samsom is evaluated most negatively on five out
of six traits in the group of respondents that had the cartoon by Joep Bertrams included
13
in the questionnaire.10 Finally, all three politicians receive the lowest overall affect score
in the groups of respondents that had the Bertrams’ cartoon as a stimulus included in
their questionnaire (see Table 1a, final column). Admittedly, the differences between
scores are very small, resulting in the absence of statistical significance, but this should
not be interpreted as the complete absence of evidence of any impact of political
cartoons on the trait evaluations of politicians.
Table 1b. Evaluation of ABI-model for Rutte, Wilders and Samsom … knows the
world of politics very
well. [A]
… is well able to monitor
political developments.
[A]
… is involved
in society.
[B]
… has attention for the concerns and interests of
his voters [B]
… is fair in negotiations with other politicians.
[I]
… is persistent
in his behavior.
[I] Rutte - photo - no visual - JB - BvdS
4.94 4.85 4.69 4.90
4.63 4.69 4.38 4.58
4.09 4.28 3.95 4.08
3.82 3.82 3.68 3.75
4.00 3.95 3.78 3.86
3.78 4.02 3.92 3.82
Samsom - photo - no visual - JB - BvdS
4.62 4.53 4.52 4.51
4.41 4.27 4.21 4.27
4.08 3.99 3.98 4.33
3.68 3.85 3.61 3.89
3.77 3.81 3.60 3.96
3.75 3.86 3.58 3.85
Wilders - photo - no visual - JB - BvdS
5.14 4.98 4.99 4.91
4.95 4.85 4.65 4.68
4.61 4.56 4.41 4.36
4.77 4.68 4.46 4.54
4.22 4.12 3.96 3.92
5.33 5.26 5.29 5.31
Notes: - N in all groups is ± 250. - JB = cartoon Joep Bertrams (see Appendix 1, column c; BvdS = cartoon by Bas van der Schot (Appendix 1, column d). - Statements A indicate Ability, B Benevolent, and I Integrity. The question with respect to the statements was: ‘Can you state to what extent you agree or disagree with the following statements?’ The response was given via a 7-point scale (1= completely disagree; 7= completely agree). The statements were presented to respondents in a random order. - For all statements the most negative evaluation is underlined; note that differences between evaluations are not statistically significant (ANOVA).
The findings for the ABI-model (Table 1b) are similar to those for the trait
evaluations – as are the two rivalling but possible interpretations. Statistically
significant results are absent, but the results nevertheless show a more or less
consistent pattern, suggesting or indicating at least some impact of the political cartoons
on the evaluation of politicians in terms of their ability, benevolence and integrity. If we
focus on this optimist interpretation, we again observe that almost always, i.e., in 16 out
of a total of 18 cases, the most negative evaluation is found in the experimental group
that has been confronted with a political cartoon, albeit only for some seconds, during
10 More generally, compared to Van der Schot Bertrams seems to be more harmful with his cartoon: in 10 cases the most negative trait evaluation is given after having been exposed to the Bertrams’ cartoon.
14
the data collection stage. Specifically, the Bertrams’ cartoon is apparently the more
effective in doing harm to the image of the politician involved. Both Rutte and Samsom
get their worst evaluation scores for 5 out of 6 political qualities that are assumed to
constitute a good interpersonal political trust relationship after a Bertrams’ cartoon is
presented to the respondents. In particular in case of then Prime Minister Mark Rutte
his scores decrease substantially, with scores in the Bertrams’ group about .15 lower (on
a 7-point scale) compared other scores. Such results may be statistically insignificant,
but they are arguably not meaningless or inconsequential.
In a further attempt to explore the impact of the cartoons, a regression analysis
has been performed for all six politicians’ personality traits (see Table 2a), their overall
affect score and their politically relevant capacities according to the ABI-model (see
Table 2b), with the four groups of the survey experiment as dummy variables and the
group without any visual stimulus as the control or reference group.
Table 2a. The impact of visual information of trait evaluation for Rutte, Wilders and Samsom: Weak
(zwakke leider)
Consistent (consistent)
Decisive (besluit-vaardig)
Nice (aardig)
Friendly (vriendelijk)
Arrogant (arrogant)
Overall sympathy
score Rutte - photo - JB - BvdS
-.02 .05 .01
-.01 -.07 -.07*
.01 -.06 -.05
-.01 -.05 -.01
-.02 -.07* -.01
.02 .09** .06
-.04 -.09** -.05
Samsom - photo - JB - BvdS
.00
.02 -.03
.03 -.06 .03
.02 -.03 -.00
.07* -.02
.10**
.06 -.01
.11**
-.06 -.02 -.06
-.00 -.05 .03
Wilders - photo - JB - BvdS
-.05 -.02 -.01
-.00 .01 -.00
.01 -.02 .04
-.01 -.04 -.06
.02 -.01 -.06
-.07* -.02 -.02
-.05 -.03 -.01
Notes: - N in all groups is ± 250. - JB = cartoon Joep Bertrams (see Appendix 1, column c; BvdS = cartoon by Bas van der Schot (Appendix 1, column d). - The table contains the standardized Beta coefficients of a regression analysis with the various groups as dummy variables; the group without any visual stimulus is treated as the control group; ** means the coefficient of statistical significant at .05, * at .10.
The findings of this analysis of course point to the same direction as the ANOVA
comparison of groups: no statistically significant results - with a few exceptions. In some
cases the direction is opposite to the general expectation; see, for instance, the impact of
the Van der Schot cartoon on the evaluation of Labour leader Diederik Samsom – but at
the same time there emerges an overall pattern that basically fits the general
expectation that cartoons have a negative impact on the evaluation of even very well-
known politicians. In most cases the sign of the Beta coefficient for the political cartoon
15
is negative,11 suggesting at least a potential impact in the expected direction. In
particular Samson and even more so Mark Rutte again appear to be the victims of the
cartoon drawn by Joep Bertrams; Rutte’s overall affect score is even statistically
significantly lowered by his cartoon.
Table 2b. Evaluation of ABI-model for Rutte, Wilders and Samsom … knows the
world of politics very
well. [A]
… is well able to monitor
political developments.
[A]
… is involved
in society.
[B]
… has attention for the concerns and interests of
his voters [B]
… is fair in negotiations with other politicians.
[I]
… is persistent
in his behavior.
[I] Rutte - photo - JB - BvdS
.02 -.04 .01
.01 -.08* -.03
-.04 -.08* -.05
.00 -.04 -.02
.01 -.04 -.02
-.06 -.02 -.05
Samsom - photo - JB - BvdS
.03 -.00 -.00
.04 -.02 .04
.02 -.00
.09**
-.04 -.06 .01
-.01 -.06 .04
-.03 -.08* -.00
Wilders - photo - JB - BvdS
.04
.00 -.02
.02 -.05 -.04
.01 -.03 -.04
.02 -.05 -.03
.02 -.04 -.04
.02
.01
.01 Notes: - N in all groups is ± 250. - JB = cartoon Joep Bertrams (see Appendix 1, column c; BvdS = cartoon by Bas van der Schot (Appendix 1, column d). - The table contains the standardized Beta coefficients of a regression analysis with the various groups as dummy variables; the group without any visual stimulus is treated as the control group; ** means the coefficient of statistical significant at .05, * at .10.
Both the ANOVA and regression analysis are more suggestive than conclusive as
regrards the impact of political cartoons on the evaluation of some well-known Dutch
politicians. This sobering but above all nuanced overall finding should, however, not
mean that political cartoons do not have any impact at all and can simply be ignored in
the study of political incivility. Every little bit of incfluence may and eventually does help
to build the image of a politician, be it positiev or, in the case of cartoons, negavtive way,
as the Dutch political cartoonist Jos Collignon argues: “Of course there is a moral duty to
resistance, also for a cartoonist. However, you cannot chop down a hollow oak tree with
a single hack. Not even with ten. But a thousand crafty hacks and it is down” (de
Volkskrant, 11 January 2013; quote translated from Dutch by the author).
11 Note, however, that in a number of cases even the official and arguably positive picture of the politician involved impacts negatively on his evaluation, compared to no visual information at all.
16
Conclusion and discussion
Political cartoons impact negatively on the image of political candidates in terms of their
general personality traits and as regards their ability, benevolence and integrity as
politicians. If this general expectation is treated as a straightforward hypothesis, the
empirical tests can only lead to one conclusion: rejection. The survey experiment did not
show statistically significant results. However, the absence of this conventional evidence
does not necessarily lead to the substantive conclusion that any effect of political
cartoons is absent. The findings do show a clear pattern that very well fits and supports
the underlying reasoning, i.e., that cartoons due to their negative, incivil character may
impact on the image of political leaders in terms of personality traits, general affect, and
some specific capacities that are assumed to be relevant to constitute an interpersonal
trust relationship between political leaders and citizens or voters. Moreover, this study
contained a least likely case, with a single (!) political cartoon that was only presented in
passing (!) as part of a more general questionnaire on political leaders and focused on
very well-known, high profile (!) politicians. Even in this extremely unlikely case, we see
that as a general rule the cartoon impacts negatively on the politicians’ evaluation.
Framed in this way, the effects present in this study could and arguably should be seen
as impressive.
However, if the impact of political cartoons is considered as only marginal at best
and we simply forget the Danish cartoon affair and treat the terrorist attack on Charlie
Hebdo as an incident, why would this be the case? Why so little impact, if that were to be
the correct conclusion? Some arguments come to mind, that may be relevant for political
cartoons but likely for political satire in general and possibly even for various other
forms of political incivility.
Cartoonists are moralists who intend to comment on societal and political affairs.
They want to contribute to public opinion and political debate and to be taken seriously
as commentators. This self-image is not necessarily shared by others, however, as some
cartoonists seem to realize. These cartoonists are modest as regards their potential or
real impact and are well aware of the possibility that they perform a special function in a
democratic political system12 that counteracts and neutralizes their intended critical
12 Note that the role and impact of cartoonists may vary according to the political system in which they work: “The best evidence that politicians fear cartoonists comes from their actions. In totalitarian regimes
17
comments. “(…) I should never think that I am ever going to exert an influence on the
political players. Cartoonists, like buffoons or court jesters, have a sort of legitimacy
conferred upon them by the system”, according to the Australian political cartoonist
Geoff Pryor (2008: 21).
Another characteristic of the cartoon adds to its potential ineffectiveness and
turns the political cartoon into yet another version of the gag cartoon “with about as
much bite as a goldfish” (Wallis, 2007: 11). As a visual message the cartoon contains
various symbols and implicit references that are highly context specific and assume
substantial knowledge to be interpreted correctly and subsequently to be effective as
intended by the cartoonist. Cartoons as “satirical allusions are implicit arguments that
must be ‘decoded’’’ (Grofman, 1989: 166: Edwards, 1997; El Rafaie, 2003; 2009) and
decoding the ambiguous visual message may easily lead to mistakes in its interpretation
and to miscommunication. Cartoons are due to their inherent ambiguousness “open, in
most instances, to quite varied interpretations” (Manning, 2008: 147) and “different
viewers may infer (slightly or fundamentally) different interpretations” (Bounegru &
Forceville, 2011, 213). Previous studies strongly suggest that cartoons are probably
more often than not understood in a way not intended by the cartoonist (Carl, 1970; El
Rafaie, 2009;Van Holsteyn, 2015). As a result, the intended message of the cartoon may
get lost and its effect limited: “A picture is worth 10 thousand words, the old saying goes.
But it’s not worth many words if it isn’t understood” (Carl, 1970: 39).
The misunderstanding of cartoons is even more problematic, at least from the
perspective of the communicating cartoonist who wants to contribute to political
debate, since there is a particular bias in this misinterpretation, e.g., structured by
political dispositions (Van Holsteyn, 2015). The finding of a misinterpretation of
cartoons as a result of such predispositions supports the more general idea that
cartoons may only “reinforce attitudes more than they change them” (Seymour-Ure,
2003: 263). General psychological defense mechanisms become active in decoding
cartoons or in attributing intensions to political cartoonists. “Like other news media
stimuli, cartoons probably are rejected or transformed into favorable images by the
candidate’s stalwart supporters, received and recalled with delight by his opponents”
they dictate them, in less than liberal democracies they silence them or force them from the country, and in democracies with well-developed traditions of press freedom they flatter them”(Manning & Phiddian, 2004: 24).
18
(Buell Jr. & Maus, 1988: 857). If the intention of cartoonists is to critically or even
incivilly comment on public and political affairs or a particular political leader and to
contribute to public debate, it is likely often the case “that cartoons are political
commentary that confirms citizens’ pre-existing views” (Manning & Phiddian, 2004: 40;
see also Boukes, 2014: 15; Dewey, 2007: 71). This finding concurs with other studies on
political satire that show that no matter how inherently critical and negative the
substantive messages of this genre may be, this is no guarantee that the intended
message comes across (e.g., Boukes, 2014; Boukes et al., 2015; Feldman, 2013; LaMarre
et al., 2009). The reception of the famous satirical television program ‘All in the family’
already showed, that viewers simply did ascribe “different meanings to the intent and
outcomes” of this highly popular show (Vidmar & Rokeach, 1974: 37; italics added).
More recent studies replicated this rather contra-intuitive finding that political satire
does not have the expected negative impact as regards its target (e.g., Boukes et al.,
2015; Nabi et al., 2007; Slater & Rouner, 2002). Is political satire in general and the
political cartoon in particular too hard to decode and correctly understand or are
psychological self-defense mechanisms strong enough to filter out all negativity and
incivility of satire (e.g., Cramer, 2000; Balcetis & Dunning, 2006; Metzger, 2014)?
Or are political cartoons, contrary to what scholars and cartoonists alike likely
believe, simply ‘ a laughing matter’ (cf. Diamond, 2002)? In this study 40 percent of the
respondents in the cartoon groups considered the cartoon – explicitly defined in the
questionnaire as a funny drawing with a serious message - they had noticed not very
funny (positions 1-3 on a 7-point scale), 19 percent took a mid-position, and 41 percent
thought the cartoon was more or less funny (positions 5-7). More importantly, 37
percent did not consider the message of the cartoon to be very serious (positions 1-3 on
a 7-point scale), 23 percent was neutral and a minority of 40 percent indicated that they
took the message of the cartoon seriously (positions 5-7). About a quarter (27 percent)
considered themselves to be exposed to a true, successful cartoon, i.e., both funny and
serious – Winston Churchill was right: ‘A joke is a very serious thing’. But a good cartoon
may simply be hard to draw – cartoons may theoretically be funny and incivil, and rude
by nature, but in practice consensus on such a good and consequently potential effective
cartoon is much more difficult to realize. This all said, it is even more remarkable that
this study showed the patterns of influence that were expected - a thousand crafty hacks
and the old oak tree, as well as the established politician, is down…
19
References
Aarts, K., Blais A., H. Schmitt H. (eds.). 2011. Political Leaders and Democratic Elections. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Alba, V. 1967. The Mexican Revolution and the cartoon, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 9/2, 121-136.
Altman, D.G., J.M. Bland. 1995. Statistics notes: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, BMJ, 311, 485.
Andeweg, R.B., G.A. Irwin. 2014. Governance and Politics of the Netherlands. 4th fully revised and updated ed. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Balcetis, E., D. Dunning. 2006. See what you want to see: Motivational influences on visual perception, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91/4, 612-625.
Barrett, A.W., L.W. Barrington. 2005a. Is a picture worth a thousand words? Newspaper photographs and voter evaluations of political candidates, The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 10/4, 98-113.
Barrett, A.W., L.W. Barrington. 2005b. Bias in newspaper photograph selection, Political Research Quarterly, 58/4, 609-618.
Bittner, A. 2011. Platform or Personality? The Role of Party Leaders in Elections. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Boukes, M. 2014. Spicing up Politics: How Soft News and Infotainment Form Political Attitudes. Amsterdam: ASCOR.
Boukes, M., H.G. Boomgaarden, M. Moorman, C.H. de Vreese. 2015. At odds: Laughing and thinking? The appreciation, processing, and persuasiveness of political satire, Journal of Communication, 65/5, 721-744.
Bounegru, L., C. Forceville. 2011. Metaphors in editorial cartoons representing the global financial crisis, Visual Communication, 10/2, 209-229.
Bourdon, J., S. Boudana. 2016. Controversial cartoons in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: Cries of outrage and dialogue of the deaf, The International Journal of Press/Politics, 21/2, 188-208.
Brooks, D.J., J.G. Geer. 2007. Beyond negativity: The effects of incivility on the elctorate, American Journal of Political Science, 51/1, 1-16.
Buell, E.H., Jr., M. Maus. 1988. Is the pen mightier than the word? Editorial cartoons and 1988 presidential nominating politics, Political Science and Politics, 21/4, 847-858.
Cagle, D. 2005. Liberal vs. Conservative Humor, in: D. Cagle & B. Fairrington (eds.), The Best Political Cartoons of the Year 2006 Edition. Indianapolis: Que Publishing, x-xi.
Cagle, D. 2007. Political cartoonists vs. illustrators, in: D. Cagle & B. Fairrington (eds.), The Best Political Cartoons of the Year 2007 Edition. Indianapolis: Que Publishing, 20-21.
Cagle, D., B. Fairrington (eds.). 2007. The Best Political Cartoons of the Year 2007 Edition. Indianapolis: Que Publishing.
Carl, L.M. 1970. Political cartoons: Ink blots on the editorial page, Journal of Popular Culture, 4/1, 39-45.
Colquitt, J.A., B.A. Scott, J.A. LePine. 2007. Trust, Trustworthiness, and Trust Propensity: A Meta-Analytic Test of Their Unique Relationships With Risk Taking and Job Performance, Journal of Applied Psychology, 92/4, 909-927.
Conners, J.L. 1998. Hussein as Enemy: The Persian Gulf War in Political Cartoons, The International Journal of Press/Politics, 3/1, 96-114.
Conners, J.L 2005. Visual representations of the 2004 presidential campaign: Political cartoons and popular cultural references, American Behavioral Scientist, 49/3, 479-487.
20
Coupe, W.A. 1967. The German cartoon and the Revolution of 1848, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 9/2, 137-167.
Coupe, W.A. 1969. Observations on a theory of political caricature, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 11/1, 79-95.
Cramer, P. 2000. Defense mechanisms in psychology today: Further processes for adaptation, American Psychologist, 56/6), 637-646.
Dewey, D. 2007. The Art of Ill Will: The Story of American Political Cartoons. New York: New York University Press.
Diamond, M. 2002. No laughing matter: Post-September 11 political cartoons in Arab/Muslim news-papers, Political Communication, 19/2, 251-272.
Duus, P. 2001. Presidential address: Weapons of the weak, weapons of the strong - The development of the Japanese political cartoon, The Journal of Asian Studies, 60/4, 965-997.
Edwards, J.L. 1997. Political Cartoons in the 1988 Presidential Campaign: Image, Metaphor, and Narrative. New York: Garland.
Edwards, J.L. 2001. Running in the shadows in Campaign 2000: Candidate metaphors in editorial cartoons, American Behavioral Scientist, 44/12, 2140-2151.
Edwards, J.L., L. Ware. 2005. Representing the public in campaign media: A political cartoon perspective, American Behavioral Scientist, 49/3, 466-478.
El Rafaie, E. 2003. Understanding visual metaphor: The example of newspaper cartoons, Visual Communication, 2/1, 75-95.
El Refaie, E. 2009. Multiliteracies: how readers interpret political cartoons, Visual Communication, 8/2, 181-205.
Feldman, L. 2013. Learning about politics from The Daily Show: The role of viewer orientation and processing motivations, Mass Communication and Society, 16/4, 586-607.
Garzia, D. 2011. The Personalization of Politics in Western Democracies: Causes and Consequences on Leader-Follower Relationships, The Leadership Quarterly, 22/4, 697-709.
Grofman, B. 1989. Richard Nixon as Pinocchio, Richard II, and Santa Claus: The Use of Allusion in Political Satire, The Journal of Politics, 51/1, 165-173.
Hansen, G. 2008. Hung, drawn and quartered: Exhibiting political cartoons, in: R. Phiddian, H. Manning (eds.), Comic Commentators. Contemporary Political Cartooning in Australia. Perth Network Books, 179-186.
Heitzmann, W.R. 1988. America’s political cartoon heritage, Social Studies, 79/5, 205-211.
Hess, S., M. Kaplan. 1968. The Ungentlemanly Art. A History of American Political Cartoons. New York: The Macmillan Company.
Hess, S., S. Northrop. 2011. American Political Cartoons: The Evolution of National Identity, 1754-2010. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Hill, A. 1978. The Carter campaign in retrospect: Decoding the cartoons, Semiotica, 23/3-4, 307-332.
Hogan, M. 2004. A licence to mock: A response, Australian Review of Public Affairs, 5/1, 43-45.
Hogan, M. 2008. The power of cartoons, in: R. Phiddian & H. Manning (eds.), Comic Commentators. Contemporary Political Cartooning in Australia. Perth: Network Books, 93-100.
Hussain, A.J. 2007. The media’s role in a clash of misconceptions: The case of the Danish Muhammad cartoons, The International Journal of Press/Politics, 12/4, 112-130.
21
Irwin, G.A., J.J.M. Van Holsteyn. 2008. Scientific progress, educated guesses or speculation? On some old predictions with respect to electoral behaviour in the Netherlands, Acta Politica, 43/2-3, 180-202.
Iyengar, S. 2011. Laboratory Experiments in Political Science, in: J.N. Druckman, D.P. Green, J.H. Kuklinski, A. Lupia (eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 73-88.
Johnson, I.S. 1937. Cartoons, Public Opinion Quarterly, 1/1, 21-24. Karvonen, L. 2010. The Personalisation of Politics: A Study of Parliamentary Democracies.
Colchester: ECPR Press. Katauskas, F. 2008. So you want to be a cartoonist?, in: R. Phiddian & H. Manning (eds.),
Comic Commentators. Contemporary Political Cartooning in Australia. Perth: Network Books, 33-46.
Keating, C.F., D. Randall, T. Kendrick. 1999. Presidential physiognomies: Altered images, altered perceptions, Political Psychology, 20/3, 593-610.
Kinder, D.R. et al. 1980. Presidential prototypes. Political Behavior, 2/4, 315-337. King, A. (ed.). 2002. Leaders’ Personalities and the Outcomes of Democratic Elections.
Oxford: Oxford University Press. Klausen, J. 2009. The Cartoons That Shook the World. New Haven & London: Yale
University Press. Koetzle, W., T.L. Brunell. 1996. Lip-reading, draft-dodging and Perot-noia: Presidential
campaigns in editorial cartoons, The International Journal of Press/Politics, 1/1, 94-115.
LaMarre, H.L., KD. Landreville, M.A. Beam. 2009. The irony of satire. Political ideology and the motivation to see what you want to see in The Colbert Report, The International Journal of Press/Politics, 14/2. 212-231.
Lamb, C. 2004. Drawn to Extremes. The Use and Abuse of Editorial Cartoons. New York: Columbia University Press.
Langeveld, W. 1970. Een sociologische prent van de politieke prent, in: W. Langeveld (ed.), Methodiek van de Burgerschapskunde. Vol.II, Appendix 4. Utrecht: z.u., 55-61.
Langeveld, W. 1981. Political cartoons as medium of political communication, International Journal of Political Education, 4/4, 343-371.
Langeveld, W. 1989. Politiek per prent. Een inleiding tot de politieke beeldcommunicatie. Baarn: Ambo.
Mair, P. 2008. Electoral volatility and the Dutch party system: A comparative perspective, Acta Politica, 43/2-3, 235-253.
Manning, H. 2008. Australian cartoonists’ caricatures of women politicians - from Kirner to Stott-Despoje, in: R. Phiddian & H. Manning (eds.), Comic Commentators. Contemporary Political Cartooning in Australia. Perth: Network Books, 125-147.
Manning, H., Phiddian, R. 2004. ‘Censorship and the Political Cartoonist.’ Paper presented to the Australasian Political Studies Association Conference, University of Adelaide.
Manning, H., R. Phiddian. 2008. Introduction: Controversial images, in: R. Phiddian & H. Manning (eds.), Comic Commentators. Contemporary Political Cartooning in Australia. Perth: Network Books, 1-9.
Mayer, R.C., J.H. Davis, F.D. Schoorman. 1995. An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust, The Academy of Management Review, 20/3, 709-734.
Mayer, R.C., J.H. Davis. 1999. The Effect of the Performance Appraisal System on Trust for Management: A Field Quasi-Experiment, The American Psychological Association, 84/1, 123-136.
22
McAllister, I. 2009. The personalization of politics, in: R.J. Dalton, & H.-D. Klingemann (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 571-588.
Metzger, J.A. 2014. Adaptive defense mechanisms: Function and transcendence, Journal of Clinical Psychology, 70/5, 478-488.
Müller, M.G., E. Özcan, O. Seizov. 2009. Dangerous depictions: A visual case study of contemporary cartoon controversies, Popular Communication, 7/1, 28-39.
Nabi, R.L., E. Moyer-Gusé, S. Byrne. 2007. All Joking Aside: A Serious Investigation into the Persuasive Effect of Funny Social Issue Messages, Communication Monographs, 74/1, 29-54.
Navasky, V.S. 2013. The Art of Controversy: Political Cartoons and Their Enduring Power. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Odell, J.S. 2001. Case study methods in international political economy, International Studies Perspective, 2/2, 161-176.
Patton, M.Q. 2015. Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. 4th ed. London: Sage. Press, C. 1981. The Political Cartoon. Rutherford, etc.: Fairleigh Dickinson University
Press. Pryor, G. 2008. The working cartoonist, in: R. Phiddian, H. Manning (eds.), Comic
Commentators. Contemporary Political Cartooning in Australia. Perth Network Books, 13-21.
Ramirez, M.. 2008. Everyone has the right to my opinion. John Wiley & Sons. Romeijn, C. 2016. License to mock: The influence of cartoons on the evaluation of well-
known politicians. Leiden: Leiden University. MA Thesis. Rosenberg, S.W., S. Kahn, T. Tran. 1991. Creating a Political Image: Shaping Appearance
and Manipulating the Vote, Political Behaviour, 13/4, 345-367. Seymour-Ure, C. 2003. Prime Ministers and the Media: Issues of Power and Control.
Oxford: Blackwell. Slater, M.D., D. Routner. 2002. Entertainment-Education and Elaboration Likelihood:
Understanding the Processing of Narrative Persuasion, Communication Theory, 12/2, 173-191.
Sniderman, P. 2011. The logic and design of the survey experiment: An autobiography of a methodological innovation, in: J.N. Druckman, D.P. Green, J.H. Kuklinski, A. Lupia (eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 102-114.
Streicher, L.H. 1967. On a theory of political caricature, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 9/4, 427-445.
Stuart, I.R. 1964a. Iconography of group personality dynamics: caricatures and cartoons, Journal of Social Psychology, 64/1, 147-156.
Stuart, I.R. 1964b. Primary and secondary process as reflections of catastrophe: The political cartoon as an instrument of group emotional dynamics, Journal of Social Psychology, 64/2, 231-239.
Todorov, A., A.N. Mandisodza, A. Goren, C.C. Hall. 2005. Inferences of competence from faces predict outcome elections, Science, 308, 1623-1626.
Van Holsteyn, Joop. 2007. Every picture tells a story? Political cartoons and the Dutch general elections of November 2006. Paper prepared for the ISPP 30th Annual Scientific Meeting, Portland, Oregon, USA, 4-7 July.
Van Holsteyn, J. 2015. Angels gedoopt in honing: politieke tekeningen en hun betekenis, Res Publica, 57/3, 319-349.
23
Veth, C. 1920. De politieke prent in Nederland. Met vijf-en-twintig afbeeldingen. Leiden: A.W. Sijthoffs Uitgeversmaatschappij.
Vidmar, N., M. Rokeach. 1974. Archie Bunker’s bigotry: A study in selective perception and exposure, Journal of Communication, 24/1, 36-47.
Wallis, D. 2007. Introduction, in: D. Wallis (ed.), Killed Cartoons. Casualties from the war on free expression. New York/London: W.W. Norton & Company, 9-22.
Walter, A., J. Van Holsteyn. 2006. Pim in prenten. De weergave van Pim Fortuyn in politieke tekeningen, in: G. Voerman (ed.), Jaarboek Documentatiecentrum Nederlandse Politieke Partijen 2005. Groningen: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen/DNPP, 176-205.
Walter, A., J. Van Holsteyn. 2007. Fortuyn in beeld. De weergave van Pim Fortuyn in politieke spotprenten. Amsterdam: Aksant.
Willis, J., A. Todorov. 2006. First impressions: Making up your mind after a 100-ms exposure to a face,. Psychological Science, 17/7, 592-598.
24
Appendix 1: Questionnaire [paper version] on the impact of political cartoons Beoordeling Politici Prof. dr. Joop van Holsteyn Instituut voor Politieke Wetenschap (Universiteit Leiden) Mei 2016 Welkom bij dit korte onderzoek over politiek en verkiezingen. De vragenlijst bevat enkele algemene vragen en vragen over een politicus. We beginnen met de algemene vragen. 1a) Als er in de krant binnenlands nieuws staat, bijvoorbeeld nieuws over regeringsproblemen, leest u dat dan altijd, vaak, zo nu en dan, of zelden of nooit? 0 (bijna) altijd 0 vaak 0 zo nu en dan 0 zelden of nooit/ik lees geen krant 0 weet niet/wil ik niet zeggen 1b) Hoe geïnteresseerd bent u in de landelijke politiek van Nederland? Bent u daarin zeer geïnteresseerd, tamelijk geïnteresseerd of niet geïnteresseerd? 0 zeer geïnteresseerd 0 tamelijk geïnteresseerd 0 niet geïnteresseerd 0 weet niet/wil ik niet zeggen 2) Als u moet aangeven hoeveel kennis u hebt van de landelijke politiek, waar zou u uzelf dan plaatsen op de onderstaande schaal? weinig politieke kennis
veel politieke kennis
weet niet/ wil niet zeggen
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 3) Bij de Tweede Kamerverkiezingen van 2012 heb ik gestemd op: 0 VVD 0 GroenLinks 0 andere partij 0 PvdA 0 D66 0 blanco 0 PVV 0 ChristenUnie 0 dat weet ik niet meer 0 CDA 0 SGP 0 wil niet zeggen 0 SP 0 Partij voor de Dieren 0 in 2012 niet gestemd/ mocht nog niet stemmen 4) In de politiek wordt soms gesproken over links en rechts. Als u denkt aan uw eigen politieke opvattingen, waar zou u zichzelf dan plaatsen op deze schaal van links (1) naar rechts (10)? links
rechts
weet niet/ wil niet zeggen
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99 5a) Vindt u over het algemeen dat de meeste mensen wel te vertrouwen zijn of vindt u dat men niet voorzichtig genoeg kan zijn in de omgang met mensen? 0 meeste mensen wel te vertrouwen 0 je kunt niet voorzichtig genoeg zijn 0 weet niet/geen mening 5b) Vindt u over het algemeen dat de meeste politici wel te vertrouwen zijn of vindt u dat men niet voorzichtig genoeg kan zijn in de omgang met politici? 0 meeste politici wel te vertrouwen 0 je kunt niet voorzichtig genoeg zijn 0 weet niet/geen mening
25
In maart 2017 worden verkiezingen voor de Tweede Kamer gehouden. Politieke partijen en hun lijsttrekkers gaan dan weer de onderlinge strijd aan. Zij vechten om uw stem. Bij de volgende vragen gaat het over één van die politici, namelijk XXX. 4 varianten`(zie onderstaand): hier a) geen afbeelding; b) officiële foto van XXX; c) cartoon JB van XXX; d) cartoon BvdS van XXX dit voorblad blijft ten minste 5 seconden (vast) in beeld, bij foto of cartoon b c d ---
---
---
26
6) Kunt u op de onderstaande schaal aangeven hoe bekend of onbekend u bent met XXX? niet bekend met XXX
goed bekend met XXX
weet niet/ wil niet zeggen
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 7) En hoe sympathiek of onsympathiek vindt u XXX?. U kunt hem een cijfer geven van 0 tot en met 100. Een 0 betekent dat u hem zeer onsympathiek vindt en 100 zeer sympathiek. De score 50 betekent dat u hem niet sympathiek maar ook niet onsympathiek vindt. Ik geef XXX de score ….. 0 weet niet/wil niet zeggen 8) Kunt u aangeven in hoeverre volgens u de volgende eigenschappen van toepassing zijn op XXX? [eigenschappen gerandomiseerd aanbieden] XXX is...
helemaal niet
helemaal wel weet niet/ wil niet zeggen
- een zwakke leider 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 - consistent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 - besluitvaardig 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 - aardig 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 - vriendelijk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 - arrogant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 9) En kunt u aangeven in hoeverre u het eens of oneens bent met de volgende stellingen over XXX? [stellingen gerandomiseerd aanbieden]
helemaal mee oneens
helemaal mee eens
weet niet/ wil niet zeggen
- XXX kent de politieke wereld heel goed. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 - XXX is betrokken bij de samenleving. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 - XXX is in staat om politieke ontwikkelingen goed te volgen.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9
- XXX heeft aandacht voor de zorgen en belangen van zijn kiezers.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9
- XXX is eerlijk in onderhandelingen met andere politici.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9
- XXX is standvastig in zijn gedrag. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10) Nu zou ik willen weten hoe waarschijnlijk het is dat u in 2017 op de [partij] van XXX stemt. Kunt u op een lijn van 0 tot en met 100 aangeven hoe waarschijnlijk dat is? Daarbij betekent 0 dat u zeker niet op de [partij] van XXX zal stemmen en 100 dat u zeker wel op de partij van XXX stemt. de kans dat ik op de [partij] van XXX stem is ….. O weet niet/wil niet zeggen 11) [bij foto of cartoon bij introductie politicus] Bij de aankondiging van de vragen over XXX stond een [foto/politieke tekening] van XXX. Wat vond u van deze afbeelding? O ik heb die afbeelding niet gezien O ik heb de afbeelding wel gezien, maar kan me die niet goed herinneren O ik heb de afbeelding wel gezien, en die gaf een positief beeld van XXX O ik heb de afbeelding wel gezien, en die gaf een neutraal beeld van XXX O ik heb de afbeelding wel gezien, en die gaf een negatief beeld van XXX O weet niet/wil niet zeggen
27
12a) [alleen bij cartoon bij introductie politicus & alleen bij het zich voldoende herinneren van de cartoon] Een cartoon is een grappige tekening met een serieuze boodschap. Kunt u aangeven hoe grappig u de cartoon vond die u zojuist hebt gezien? helemaal niet grappig
heel erg grappig
weet niet/ wil niet zeggen
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 12b) [alleen bij cartoon bij introductie politicus & alleen bij het zich voldoende herinneren van de cartoon] En hoe serieus vond u de boodschap van de cartoon die u zojuist hebt gezien? helemaal niet serieus
heel erg serieus
weet niet/ wil niet zeggen
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 Tot slot wil ik nog enkele gegevens van u weten. 11) Ik ben een 0 man 0 vrouw 0 wil niet zeggen 12) Mijn geboortejaar is …. 0 wil niet zeggen 13) De hoogst genoten opleiding die ik heb gevolgd of nu nog volg is: 0 lager onderwijs, basisonderwijs 0 lager beroepsonderwijs (LBO, VMBO, e.d.) 0 middelbaar beroepsonderwijs (MBO), MULO, MAVO 0 voortgezet middelbaar onderwijs (HAVO, VWO) 0 hoger beroepsonderwijs (HBO) 0 wetenschappelijk onderwijs (WO), universiteit 0 iets ander, namelijk … 0 weet niet/wil niet zeggen Dit is het einde van de vragenlijst. Hartelijk dank voor het invullen!