McCain vs. Obama: The Great Nonverbal Debate

People say much more than words when they appear before an audience. Here's how our Presidential candidates fared in their first debate

By William A. Gentry, PhD

Millions of people watching the first Presidential debate on Sept. 26 heard words about the economic crisis, spending, the Iraq war, and foreign policy. But I was watching how those words were said, scanning the nonverbal communications delivered by senators Barack Obama and John McCain.

People communicate nonverbally through rhythm and their use of time, the way they dress, their gestures and posture, distance and touch, tone, and facial expression. Research in the communications field shows that nonverbal cues can convey as much as 93% of a conversation's meaning. Successful leaders communicate effectively—not only with their words, but just as important, through nonverbal actions. So viewers of this year's Presidential debates won't just hear words. They'll see and read the candidates' nonverbal behavior, and they'll use it to determine which is likely to prove the better leader.

Nonverbal communication has been a critical component of Presidential debates from the very first televised forum. In 1960, Richard M. Nixon's five o'clock shadow helped make him look pale, sickly, and thin. Michael Dukakis was criticized in 1988 for his lack of emotion and stiff posture. George H.W. Bush looked at his watch during a 1992 debate, suggesting impatience, boredom, or lack of interest. In 2000, Al Gore's sighing and eye-rolling made him less likable.

Obama looked right at us

The most effective leaders are those who convey charisma and confidence. They are inspirational. They connect with others and stimulate interest. They show emotion. They are labeled "visionaries." Nixon's sickly appearance, Dukakis's lack of emotion, and the nonverbal blunders of Bush and Gore in their respective debates aren't what people associate with charismatic, inspirational, visionary leaders. Voters saw and heard these mistakes on TV, and they played a role in each candidates' eventual loss.

Given the history of debates and what we know about nonverbal behavior, I was looking for a misstep on either McCain's or Obama's part Friday night. While neither man really did anything "wrong" there were undeniable nonverbal missteps, abnormalities, and differences. The first thing that struck me was how Senator Obama talked straight into the camera during his opening statement. Via eye contact, he was clearly attempting to communicate his message not just to the audience in a Mississippi hall, but also to the millions watching on TV. Obama also looked straight into the camera near the end of the debate, when he talked about his father, how he got his name, and how Americans can make it if they try.

McCain addressed the moderator and the audience in the hall. From his opening statement, he might have missed a golden opportunity to try to connect with the millions watching on TV. The next President, like any leader, must connect with his followers. Obama did a better job of connecting with the TV audience.

Contrasting tones of voice

Playing nicely in the sandbox isn't just for children. Turn-taking (or lack thereof) is also part of nonverbal communication. On Friday each candidate interrupted the other. Interruption conveys a lack of respect, and both candidates should be advised not to interrupt so much in the remaining debates.

The tones of voice McCain and Obama used were strikingly different. Several times during the debate, McCain's tone of voice was softer, lower, and calmer than Obama's. Leaders often use such a tone to lessen the worries and fears of those listening. Given the anxiety, tension, and uncertainties many Americans face, I believe McCain did this to ease voters' fears and to show them that he is not the hot-tempered, impulsive person some have made him out to be.

By contrast, Obama had a more urgent, harsh, sharp, and serious tone. Leaders take this tone when an important point must be made. I believe Obama used it to emphasize that this is a critical time for America, and he was trying to show the steadfast confidence that leaders must have during such uneasy times.

I also watched how each candidate communicated when the other was speaking.