Psychology
The Republican’s height and tendency to interrupt are fodder for a political psychology junkie.
Donald Trump’s height and tendency to interrupt are fodder for a political psychology junkie.
Ihave become unhealthily fixated on the US presidential election soap opera. Since political psychology is “my jam”, as a young person might say, it’s reasonable to look at the madefor-research opportunities of the candidates’ debates.
The town hall-style second debate had Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in a venue in which voters could pose questions to the candidates in turn. At least in theory.
Observers have commented that Trump has made this a race like no other. But it’s also different for the simple reason that a woman is running for the first time, which means some of the usual staples are out the window.
Usually, for example, we can look forward to two older white men playing games to see who can appear more statesmanlike: exchanging handshakes and gritted-teeth smiles; each trying to look the taller because tall candidates are statistically more likely to win. They would battle it out on the hustings until one bared his belly in surrender.
Women are automatically at a disadvantage in these displays of plumage. In New Zealand, the average male height is about 1.78m, versus the female average of 1.65m. With Trump and Clinton, the gulf is wider: he is 1.88m and she about 1.66m.
If she were his height, people wouldn’t be talking about how presidential she looks, but rather how unusual – less than 5% of women worldwide are that tall. Which is why Clinton reportedly asked for some help for the first debate: a stool was disallowed, but the podium was lowered proportionately.
The second debate produced at least two other dominan-cerelated behaviours. First,
Trump loomed zeppelin-like over Clinton’s shoulder as she spoke, or prowled around the stage. Commentators have speculated that his motivation may have been to distract Clinton. But who knows – it is Trump, after all.
The other noticeable thing was the frequency of interruption. Trump interrupts a lot. Not as often as Clinton’s vice-presidential running-mate, Tim Kaine, interrupted his counterpart, Mike Pence, in their debate, but frequently nonetheless.
Interestingly, Kaine’s interruption was portrayed as rude, yet talking over other people is a standard feature of language. New Zealand researcher Mike Dunne has shown that interruption is not only common, but also a fairly natural way for speakers to cycle the “floor”, or take the opportunity to speak.
As I’ve found through my own research, people who interrupt are generally not perceived as rude but as influential. That is so in Western speech, at any rate – other cultures have different norms concerning interruption.
Part of the reason for this is that not all interruptions are equal. The practice can involve seizing the floor, but also providing support, through agreement or clarification.
Which takes us to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, another political trailblazer. Thatcher routinely complained about being interrupted during interviews, and there is reason to think that this is at least partially true. Indeed, she was certainly interrupted more than she herself interrupted.
That’s not surprising, as women tend to interrupt less than men. In the 1980s, British researcher Geoffrey Beattie found that Thatcher often claimed interruption at times when observers thought she had finished speaking – because she had given the kind of cues we associate with the end of a turn.
She also, humorously I think, would protest, “Please don’t interrupt”, before anyone else spoke, thus creating the impression that she was the victim of interruption more than was actually the case.
For now, thank goodness, opportunities for such analysis are coming to an end.
Talking over other people is a standard feature of language.