1. Dr. A.W.M. (Willem) Koetsenruijter Leiden University, the Netherlands Dept. Journalism & New Media koets@wxs.nl THE RHETORIC OF POWER IN IMAGES OF WORLD LEADERS 1

2. / 41 Image management … carefully composed and chosen to communicate specific ideas about leadership and power 2

3. / 41 Hofstede’s theory on cultural values Four dimensions -individualism – collectivism -uncertainty avoidance -power distance -masculinity – femininity 3

4. / 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

5. / 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

6. / 41 SIX VARIABLES NoC:Nature of Candidate PoV:Point of View FEx:Facial Expression ImA:Image Act INt:Interaction PDi: Physical Distance 6

7. / 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

8. / 41 NATURE OF CANDIDATE Family type: social distance = low 8

9. / 41 NATURE OF CANDIDATE Outdoor type 9

10. / 41 NATURE OF CANDIDATE Father / mother type 10

11. / 41 NATURE OF CANDIDATE Glad to C you 11

12. / 41 NATURE OF CANDIDATE Relaxed leader 12

13. / 41 NATURE OF CANDIDATE Dynamical Speaker: social distance = higher 13

14. / 41 NATURE OF CANDIDATE Media Star 14

15. / 41 NATURE OF CANDIDATE Stressed leader 15

16. / 41 NATURE OF CANDIDATE Promised leader: social distance = high 16

17. / 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

18. / 41 POINT OF VIEW: Equal, social distance = low 18

19. / 41 POINT OF VIEW: High: social distance high 19

20. / 41 POINT OF VIEW: Low: social distance high 20

21. / 41 PHYSICAL DISTANCE 1.Intimate 2.Close personal 3.Far personal 4.Close social 5.Far social 6.Public PSD small PSD big 21

22. / 41 DISTANCE: intimate, social distance = low 22

23. / 41 DISTANCE: close personal, social distance = low 23

24. / 41 DISTANCE: far personal 24

25. / 41 DISTANCE: close social 25

26. / 41 DISTANCE: far social 26

27. / 41 DISTANCE: public, social distance = high 27

28. / 41 SIX VARIABLES NoC:Nature of Candidate PoV:Point of View FEx:Facial Expression ImA:Image Act INt:Interaction PDi: Physical Distance 28

29. / 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

30. / 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 = 0,1674 = 0,67 2 = 0,335 = 0,85 3 = 0,836 = 0,99 PSD small PSD big 30

31. / 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

32. / 41 HYPOTHESES H 1 :The use of rhetorical means can be explained from a model based on increasing or decreasing Social Distance. H 2 :Social Distance is closely connected to Power Distance. H 3 :Photographs show a difference in Social Distance in photographs from leaders from a High Power Distance Country and a Low Power Distance Country. 32

33. / 41 Google Images as a Collection stereotypes 33

34. / 41 Google Images as a Collection stereotypes 34

35. / 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

36. / 41 RESULTS Mean difference Obama vs Khadaffi Nature of Candidate2,9* Point of View0,3* Facial Expression1,4* Image Act1,6* Interaction0,7* Psysical distance0,6* *Sig t = <.01 36

37. / 41 RESULTS The compound scale: Obama = PSD = 2,5 Khadaffi = PSD = 3,7* *(t = 24,7 / p <.001; r =.86) 37

38. / 41 RESULTS 38 H 1 :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. H 2 :Social Distance is closely connected to Power Distance. -> Confirmed! High power distance is connected with high social distance. H 3 :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.

39. / 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

40. / 41 QUESTIONS? 40