Podcast: Does What Candidates Say Matter?
Skip to content
Politics & Elections Mar 28, 2016

Pod­cast: Does What Can­di­dates Say Matter?

Under­stand­ing polit­i­cal rhetoric in this heat­ed pres­i­den­tial race.

A candidate speaks into a microphone at a political event.

Yevgenia Nayberg

Based on the research and insights of

Nour Kteily

Julie Hennessy

Thomas N. Hubbard

Listening: Political Rhetoric

0:00 Skip back button Play Skip forward button 16:14

We are in the thick of the 2016 pres­i­den­tial pri­maries, and you are like­ly hear­ing from can­di­dates every time you turn on your TV or radio, or go online. The can­di­dates are eager to set them­selves apart in your mind and tell you what sort of pres­i­dent they would be. Essen­tial­ly, they are fight­ing to brand themselves.

Beside pos­si­ble elec­tion fatigue, what is the impact of all this brand­ing? What do we think of the can­di­dates, and what is the effect of their rhetoric, espe­cial­ly when it feels inflam­ma­to­ry and tar­get­ed against cer­tain communities?

Take a lis­ten to our lat­est pod­cast episode to hear what Kel­logg pro­fes­sors have to say on the topic.

Pod­cast transcript

[music pre­lude]

Emi­ly STONE: The 2016 pres­i­den­tial cam­paign is in full swing. Even if you’re not a polit­i­cal junkie, it’s pret­ty hard to tune out the can­di­dates right now. They’re all fight­ing to tell you who they are and what they stand for. Like any prod­uct, pres­i­den­tial can­di­dates are try­ing to brand themselves.

Hilary CLIN­TON: I am a real per­son, with all the plus­es and minuses.

Ted CRUZ: I’m a Chris­t­ian first. I’m an Amer­i­can sec­ond. I’m a con­ser­v­a­tive third. And I’m a Repub­li­can fourth.

Bernie SANDERS: I’m the only can­di­date up here, of the many can­di­dates, who has no super PAC.

[music inter­lude]

STONE: Hel­lo, and wel­come to Insight In Per­son, a month­ly pod­cast pro­duced by the Kel­logg School of Man­age­ment at North­west­ern Uni­ver­si­ty. I’m your host, Emi­ly Stone.

This month, we talk with Kel­logg pro­fes­sors about what we can learn from study­ing can­di­date brands. This includes the impact of the rhetoric they use to estab­lish those brands. So stay with us.

[music inter­lude]

Let’s start with arguably the most promi­nent voice in the 2016 campaign.

TRUMP: When Mex­i­co sends its peo­ple, they’re not send­ing their best. They’re bring­ing drugs. They’re bring­ing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

STONE: That was, of course, Don­ald Trump. Trump has cre­at­ed a very clear brand for him­self. To his sup­port­ers, he’s a straight-shoot­er” who says what he thinks.” This often trans­lates into state­ments about minori­ties that are offen­sive to many peo­ple. So what’s the impact of this rhetoric on lis­ten­ers, par­tic­u­lar­ly on the peo­ple he’s describ­ing in degrad­ing terms?

Nour Kteily is an assis­tant pro­fes­sor of man­age­ment and orga­ni­za­tions at Kel­logg. He’s been study­ing this question.

NOUR KTEILY: I think that the rhetoric that Don­ald Trump has been espous­ing has been con­tribut­ing to a cli­mate in which these types of dehu­man­iz­ing atti­tudes have become more nor­ma­tive, more accept­able, more preva­lent — and this can have, we think, impor­tant consequences.

STONE: This idea of dehu­man­iz­ing” is at the core of Kteily’s recent research. First, let’s take a step back and look at how his research began.

Kteily and his col­lab­o­ra­tors were inter­est­ed in whether peo­ple bla­tant­ly dehu­man­ize oth­er groups. By that he means, does one group of peo­ple, say an eth­nic group or nation­al­i­ty, think of anoth­er group as ani­mals,” or do they label them with ani­mal-like qual­i­ties, such as lack­ing basic human impulse control.

To mea­sure lev­els of dehu­man­iza­tion, the researchers used the ubiq­ui­tous Ascent of Man” graph­ic. You’ve seen it.

KTEILY: Peo­ple think of it as a chim­panzee, but it’s more like a quadrupedal human ances­tor, slow­ly mor­ph­ing into what could be thought of as a mod­ern full-day human. And we sim­ply asked peo­ple how evolved they per­ceived the aver­age mem­ber of a num­ber of dif­fer­ent groups to be.

STONE: Research par­tic­i­pants in sev­er­al dif­fer­ent coun­tries were giv­en this image with a slid­er under­neath. They were asked to move the slid­er across the image to the point that they thought best rep­re­sent­ed how evolved a spe­cif­ic group is. The researchers then con­vert­ed the slid­er posi­tions into num­bers, from 0 — not at all evolved” — to 100 — ful­ly evolved.”

KTEILY: We were mind­ful of the fact that it is rea­son­ably offen­sive. It’s cer­tain­ly bla­tant, it’s out­right, it’s extreme, it’s clear. When we decid­ed to go ahead with its use, many of our col­leagues thought, There’s no way you’re going to get any vari­a­tion on this scale. Every­one is going to say 100 to each group.”

STONE: Their col­leagues were very wrong.

KTEILY: We found amongst Israeli and Pales­tini­ans, for exam­ple, that they rate one anoth­er at, on aver­age, 45 on the scale. So that’s sta­tis­ti­cal­ly clos­er to the quadrupedal human ances­tor than the full human.

STONE: And clos­er to home…

KTEILY: Every sin­gle sam­ple we’ve ever col­lect­ed data from, and we’ve now col­lect­ed a lot of sam­ples, we found, for exam­ple, Mus­lims in the U.S. to be dehu­man­ized by a range of 10 to 15 points. That’s been every sin­gle time. So that part of it has been a lit­tle bit sur­pris­ing and cer­tain­ly more than a lit­tle bit depressing.

STONE: Next, they sur­veyed par­tic­i­pants on how much they sup­port aggres­sive actions against oth­er groups, such as tor­ture or drone strikes. The researchers found that the more a per­son dehu­man­ized anoth­er group, the more like­ly they were to sup­port aggres­sive actions against that group.

KTEILY: When you come to see a group as ani­mals, it brings with it a cer­tain set of poten­tial strate­gies to deal with them that, unfor­tu­nate­ly, end up tend­ing to be more aggres­sive and less peaceful.

STONE: With this in mind, Kteily start­ed inves­ti­gat­ing what hap­pens to a group of peo­ple when they feel dehu­man­ized by oth­ers. Essen­tial­ly, what’s it like to be on the receiv­ing end of this dehumanization?

KTEILY: As we had pre­dict­ed, those indi­vid­u­als that felt dehu­man­ized by anoth­er group tend­ed to respond by dehu­man­iz­ing that group back.

STONE: Stop to think about this for a sec­ond: Group A dehu­man­izes Group B, which in their minds jus­ti­fies vio­lent actions against Group B, so Group B feels dehu­man­ized, which in their minds jus­ti­fies vio­lent actions against Group A, and, well, you get the picture.

KTEILY: It’s almost like a self-ful­fill­ing prophe­cy. You ful­fill some of those hos­tile per­cep­tions that you had in the first place, engag­ing and cre­at­ing a cycle of vicious con­flict between these groups. And so from a soci­etal per­spec­tive, I think that we need to rec­og­nize the dan­ger of allow­ing these types of dehu­man­iz­ing per­cep­tions to have the nation­al plat­form that they’ve been receiv­ing and the nor­ma­tive­ness that they’ve been allowed.

STONE: Which brings us to the pres­i­den­tial race. When the cam­paign start­ed heat­ing up last fall, Kteily decid­ed that, for bet­ter or worse, it pre­sent­ed a per­fect oppor­tu­ni­ty to exam­ine the effect of dehu­man­iz­ing cam­paign rhetoric.

He and his col­lab­o­ra­tors have been con­duct­ing their dehu­man­iza­tion sur­veys after a can­di­date says some­thing fla­grant­ly inflam­ma­to­ry, such as Trump’s call to bar Mus­lims from enter­ing the country.

KTEILY: Feel­ing dehu­man­ized can have real­ly dra­mat­ic con­se­quences. So we’re find­ing, for exam­ple, that Mus­lim Amer­i­cans who feel dehu­man­ized by Don­ald Trump, they’re report­ing feel­ing less inte­grat­ed into U.S. soci­ety, feel­ing more on the fringes of U.S. soci­ety, and per­haps most trou­bling­ly of all, they’re report­ing less will­ing­ness to share any sus­pi­cious infor­ma­tion in their neigh­bor­hoods with police. So this has dra­mat­ic soci­etal implications.

STONE: As dis­heart­en­ing as this may be, there are also encour­ag­ing results to share: the researchers see a way to stop this cycle of dehumanization.

They pre­sent­ed peo­ple with infor­ma­tion about how anoth­er group human­izes them. So, for exam­ple, they had a group of Amer­i­can par­tic­i­pants read real state­ments about how Arabs respect Amer­i­can aca­d­e­m­ic insti­tu­tions and con­sid­er Amer­i­cans tech­no­log­i­cal­ly and cul­tur­al­ly advanced.

KTEILY: Our pre­dic­tion was that if we pro­vid­ed Amer­i­cans with this type of infor­ma­tion rel­a­tive to a con­trol con­di­tion, that they would actu­al­ly be less like­ly to respond by dehu­man­iz­ing Mus­lims or, in oth­er words, more like­ly to respond by rel­a­tive­ly human­iz­ing Mus­lims and Arabs. And that’s, in fact, what we found.

STONE: Mean­ing, the more human­ized a group felt, the more like­ly they were to human­ize the oth­er group in return. That’s an impor­tant find­ing giv­en the rhetoric of the pres­i­den­tial campaign.

KTEILY: I think that com­mu­ni­cat­ing that mes­sage to Mus­lims, that per­haps in fact non-Mus­lim Amer­i­cans don’t see you in the same way that Don­ald Trump sees you, or those that hap­pen to sup­port Don­ald Trump see you, is an impor­tant mes­sage to com­mu­ni­cate, because, again, I think there’s great dan­ger in com­mu­ni­cat­ing to anoth­er group, or set of groups for that mat­ter, that the rest of us see you like animals.

[music inter­lude]

STONE: What are the first words you think of when you hear this?

CLIN­TON: I think Amer­i­ca can only live up to its poten­tial when we make sure that every Amer­i­can has a chance to live up to his or her potential.

STONE: Or this?

SANDERS: I think we are touch­ing a nerve with the Amer­i­can peo­ple who under­stand that estab­lish­ment pol­i­tics is just not good enough. We need bold changes. We need a polit­i­cal revolution.

STONE: Those were, as you prob­a­bly know, Hillary Clin­ton and Bernie Sanders.

So what words come to mind when you hear these pres­i­den­tial candidates?

That’s what Julie Hen­nessy, a clin­i­cal pro­fes­sor of mar­ket­ing at the Kel­logg School, is study­ing. For the past sev­er­al years, Hen­nessy and her col­lab­o­ra­tors have been con­duct­ing sur­veys of the asso­ci­a­tions con­sumers have with dif­fer­ent brands. Recent­ly, they start­ed con­duct­ing these sur­veys on pres­i­den­tial can­di­dates’ brands.

Tra­di­tion­al brand aware­ness stud­ies give con­sumers a list of words to chose from.

Julie HEN­NESSY: Do you think of McDonald’s as healthy, or do you think of McDonald’s as unhealthy, or fun, or good for kids, or inex­pen­sive, or con­ve­nient, or those sorts of things.

STONE: But this type of study has its limitations.

HEN­NESSY: We noticed that while, if you ask con­sumers if McDonald’s is fun, they will say McDonald’s is mod­er­ate­ly fun, if you don’t give them any prompts and you just ask con­sumers what do you think of when you think of the brand McDonald’s, that nev­er comes up.

STONE: Hennessy’s sur­veys are unscripted.

HEN­NESSY: We would say, When you think of the brand Apple, what comes to mind?” We’d give them two or three sec­onds to answer that ques­tion, and then we would say, What else?” And, What else?”

STONE: When apply­ing this method to pres­i­den­tial can­di­dates, some dis­tinct trends emerge.

Clin­ton, for exam­ple, gets words like smart,” as well as liar.” Sanders wins for hon­est” but also gets … old.” Among Repub­li­cans, Trump gets rich,” as well as racist.” Cruz gets con­ser­v­a­tive,” Rubio gets young,” and Kasich gets Ohio.” Per­haps prophet­i­cal­ly, in sur­veys last fall, Jeb Bush didn’t get much of any­thing — respon­dents had to be pushed for an answer, at which point polit­i­cal fam­i­ly” was the most com­mon response.

So, what’s a can­di­date to do if they want to change their brand’s image? Hen­nessy points to a les­son from her sur­veys about Volk­swag­on right after its recent emis­sions scan­dal, when the press was declar­ing the brand dead.

HEN­NESSY: When we went out to con­sumers and looked at what are the dom­i­nant asso­ci­a­tions with Volk­swa­gen, it was still Ger­man,” and com­pact car,” and effi­cient.” Down on the list, about 15th, was emis­sions scan­dal.” The inter­est­ing thing to us, and real­ly shock­ing thing to us, was that it wasn’t any­where near as dom­i­nant in the asso­ci­a­tions as we thought it would be.

STONE: Some of this, she believes, is because Amer­i­cans tend to have a pret­ty low opin­ion of car man­u­fac­tur­ers to begin with.

HEN­NESSY: You’ve had Toyota’s unin­tend­ed accel­er­a­tion, fol­lowed by Chevy’s prob­lem with igni­tion switch­es, and this is Volkswagen’s prob­lem. I think con­sumers were like, yeah, we can’t trust these peo­ple. It didn’t real­ly change what they thought.

STONE: Then there’s the fact that the more peo­ple know about a spe­cif­ic brand, the hard­er it is to change those perceptions.

HEN­NESSY: On brands that have very high aware­ness, con­sumers know so much that events that seem some­what cat­a­clysmic often don’t real­ly change what they believe.

What struck me was actu­al­ly less what events make asso­ci­a­tions change, but the fact that asso­ci­a­tions don’t real­ly change much.

STONE: This, she’s found, is what’s hap­pen­ing with Trump’s brand. Of all the can­di­dates, he’s the only one who had an actu­al cor­po­rate brand before the cam­paign began. And there’s very high aware­ness of his brand as a can­di­date, too, which he’s using to his advantage.

HEN­NESSY: He’s lever­aged his brand as a busi­ness per­son who gets things done and is not afraid to grab the bull by the horns and try to make things hap­pen. He’s not tried to re-brand him­self as not a busi­nessper­son” or as a sen­si­tive soul.”

If any­thing, he’s chang­ing the set of char­ac­ter­is­tics that vot­ers think of as nec­es­sary to be a pres­i­dent to more match the asso­ci­a­tions he has as being super action ori­ent­ed and not afraid to say what he believes, rather than try­ing to con­vince peo­ple that he has the grav­i­tas or the dig­ni­ty to be the leader of the Unit­ed States.

STONE: He’s con­trol­ling his own brand well, but he’s also man­aged to con­trol the brands of his oppo­nents. Think of his label­ing of Jeb Bush as low ener­gy.” Trump said it, and Hen­nessy soon saw that phrase pop up as answers in her sur­veys about Bush.

HEN­NESSY: Posi­tion­ing loves a vac­u­um. If some­body is not doing a good job of brand­ing them­self, I think one of the things that Trump has done, I don’t know if we would say vil­lain­ous­ly or bril­liant­ly, is to not only brand him­self, but also to brand oth­ers in ways that were pret­ty darn sticky.

STONE: So how will all this play out for Trump?

HEN­NESSY: Try­ing to pre­dict Trump has been a los­ing bat­tle for so many oth­er folks, I would not join in and try.

[music inter­lude]

STONE: Obvi­ous­ly, a lot is at stake in a pres­i­den­tial elec­tion. This cre­ates end­less research top­ics for busi­ness school pro­fes­sors. Beyond rhetoric and brand­ing, there are ques­tions of eco­nom­ic pol­i­cy, the use of big data, even lead­er­ship style. Step into the mind, for a sec­ond, of strat­e­gy pro­fes­sor Tom Hub­bard to hear how he would for­mu­late a research study, this one about polit­i­cal advertising.

TOM HUB­BARD: Because broad­cast­ers are com­pelled to car­ry such adver­tis­ing at the low­est rate that they offer, it crowds out oth­er advertising.

STONE: Pre­vi­ous research has shown that phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal sales decline when their ads get bumped dur­ing an elec­tion cycle. Hub­bard won­ders if the same holds true for big­ger tick­et items, like cars.

HUB­BARD: After all, a lot of what gets crowd­ed out in local adver­tis­ing is adver­tis­ing for local car dealers.

STONE: Because pri­maries are stag­gered through­out the win­ter and spring, a researcher could gath­er data on when ads aired and what hap­pened to auto sales dur­ing those peak weeks.

HUB­BARD: If you see that it dimin­ish­es sales in the long run, or it shifts sales from now into the future, then you can say that polit­i­cal adver­tis­ing has a real effect on the economy.

It would be even more inter­est­ing if auto man­u­fac­tur­ers real­ized this and timed their pro­duc­tion accord­ing­ly, know­ing, antic­i­pat­ing that the elec­tion cycle is going to either lead to low­er sales, or it’s going to shift sales from the pri­ma­ry sea­son to the future.

STONE: And you thought pres­i­den­tial elec­tions were only about choos­ing the next leader of the free world.

[music inter­lude]

This pro­gram was pro­duced by Jes­si­ca Love, Fred Schmalz, Emi­ly Stone, and Michael Spikes.

Spe­cial thanks to Kel­logg School pro­fes­sors Nour Kteily, Julie Hen­nessy, and Tom Hubbard.

You can stream or down­load our month­ly pod­cast from iTunes, or from our web­site, where you can read more about brands, elec­tions, and lead­er­ship. Vis­it us at insight​.kel​logg​.north​west​ern​.edu. We’ll be back next month with anoth­er episode of the Insight In Per­son podcast.

Featured Faculty

Nour Kteily

Associate Professor of Management & Organizations

Julie Hennessy

Clinical Professor of Marketing

Thomas N. Hubbard

Elinor and H. Wendell Hobbs Professor of Management and Faculty Director of Strategic Initiatives

Suggested For You

Most Popular


How Are Black – White Bira­cial Peo­ple Per­ceived in Terms of Race?

Under­stand­ing the answer — and why black and white Amer­i­cans’ respons­es may dif­fer — is increas­ing­ly impor­tant in a mul­tira­cial society.


Pod­cast: Our Most Pop­u­lar Advice on Advanc­ing Your Career

Here’s how to con­nect with head­hunters, deliv­er with data, and ensure you don’t plateau professionally.

Most Popular Podcasts


Pod­cast: Our Most Pop­u­lar Advice on Improv­ing Rela­tion­ships with Colleagues

Cowork­ers can make us crazy. Here’s how to han­dle tough situations.

Social Impact

Pod­cast: How You and Your Com­pa­ny Can Lend Exper­tise to a Non­prof­it in Need

Plus: Four ques­tions to con­sid­er before becom­ing a social-impact entrepreneur.


Pod­cast: Attract Rock­star Employ­ees — or Devel­op Your Own

Find­ing and nur­tur­ing high per­form­ers isn’t easy, but it pays off.


Pod­cast: How Music Can Change Our Mood

A Broad­way song­writer and a mar­ket­ing pro­fes­sor dis­cuss the con­nec­tion between our favorite tunes and how they make us feel.