Calibration of variables and outcomes

In order to conduct the analysis, the first step is deciding which causal conditions will be tested in relation to which outcome. The second step includes calibration of both the outcome and causal conditions using fuzzy sets (Ragin, 2009). Which causal conditions are included in the analysis and why will be discussed in the following sections, while the details of their calibration can be found in the Appendix 5. The fsQCA will be used in order to examine which combinations of causal conditions are explicitly connected to six different outcomes, specifically the person-centred media reporting (in the tables that report results this variable is marked as “m_person”) and leaders’ communication (“l_person”), persona-centred media reporting (“m_persona”) and leaders’ communication (“l_persona”), and private persona-centred media reporting (“m_private”) and leaders communication (“l_private”). All outcomes are calibrated based on the data collected by content analyses of media coverage and leaders’ mediated statements as presented in Chapters 5 and 6. Hence, the outcomes are not calibrated based on theoretical knowledge or secondary data, but based on empirical evidence gathered in this project.

Each outcome is tested in relation to seven to nine variables. In Chapters 3 and 4 the politically- and media-related factors that according to the existing literature have the potential to influence different dimensions of personalisation were discussed. In addition, the close examination of cases presented in the analyses in Chapters 5 and 6 revealed that there are several important causal conditions which can be derived from the close knowledge of cases. Given that Ragin and Rihoux (2004a) advise that the choice of causal conditions needs not only to be theory-informed, but also case-theory-informed, the causal conditions tested in this project will be a combination of those which can be identified by existing knowledge and those derived from the examined cases. In addition, as was argued in Chapters 3 and 4, not all factors are relevant for all dimensions of personalisation. In other words, variables that are considered causally relevant for person-centred media reporting might not be considered important for private persona-centred media reporting or leaders’ communication. Hence, a set of causal conditions which is tested in relation

are included in more than one analysis. In addition, sometimes one outcome is examined as a causal condition in relation to another outcome. Specifically, the degree of the person-centred media reporting is included as a causal condition in the examination of factors connected to person-centred leaders’ communication, and vice versa; the degree of the persona-centred media reporting is tested as a causal condition for persona-centred leaders’ communication, and vice versa; and the degree of the private persona-centred media reporting is examined as a variable potentially connected to the private persona-centred leaders’ communication, and vice versa.

In total there are 12 politically-related causal conditions and five media-related causal conditions, but two of the media-media-related conditions are

“macrovariables” (Ragin, 2009) which were formed by joining two lower order variables in order to reduce the complexity of the analysis. It should be noted that gathering comparable data from the 1970s to 2010s to calibrate these variables was very demanding. Some variables that were initially considered were not included in the analysis because there was little or no available data that could have been used for their calibration (e.g. audience media preferences, the degree to which the audience is fragmented, the degree to which the selectorate participates in the candidate selection process, strength of public service broadcasting, degree of media products’ diversification etc.). In addition, given that there are no longitudinal and/or reliable data about media ownership, consumption, newspaper circulation, and advertising revenues, some of the variables that were considered crucial for fsQCA analyses were calibrated using primary data gathered during the analysis of media content, which is explained in greater detail in the Appendix 5. Although this data represents more an illustration of media trends than a fact, it was used for calibration of some media-related variables given that there was no alternative source of information for calibration.

Politically-related causal conditions

First of all, three politically-related variables were case-informed. It was observed that those political leaders who were also party leaders were reported in a less centred way and they were also reported as pursuing less person-centred communication. Hence, the membership of the set with politicians who are party leaders (“party_leader”) was based on whether the politician was a party leader (full member) or not (non-member), and this causal condition was tested for person-centred media reporting and leaders’ mediated communication outcomes.

Furthermore, it was observed that on some occasions Presidents, their personae and private personae were more media visible than that of the Prime Ministers, and also that some Presidents were reported as pursuing more persona- and private persona-centred communication than Prime Ministers. Therefore, the membership of the set with politicians who are Presidents (“president”) was based on whether the politician was a President (full member) or not (non-member), and this causal condition was tested for person, persona- and private persona-centred media reporting and leaders’ persona- and private persona-centred mediated communication outcomes.

Finally, it was also observed that the strongest negative trends in the person-centred media reporting were related to heads of the executive, and that the media reported those leaders who were not heads of the executive in a more persona-centred way than others. Consequently, the membership of the set with politicians who are Heads of the Executive (“hoe”) was based on whether the politician was a head of the executive (full member) or not (non-member), and this causal condition was tested for person and persona-centred media reporting.

Another nine politically-related variables were theory-informed. The type of political system is the most common variable considered to be a causal condition of higher degrees of personalisation (Dalton & Wattenberg, 1993; Downey & Stanyer, 2010; Hanspeter Kriesi, 2010; Maier & Adam, 2010; Mayerhöffer & Esmark, 2011;

Stanyer, 2013). In essence, it is argued that in a presidential political system where executive power is vested in an individual, the President, the media tend to focus more on him/her as an individual political actor than on collectives, such as parties or governments. As was argued in earlier chapters, political leaders in presidential systems may also tend to emphasize themselves more than their parties since they are the ones who are given the mandate to govern and they are the ones making decisions. Hence, the type of political system is tested as a variable in relation to person-centred media reporting and leaders’ mediated communication (“pol_sys”).

Another politically-related variable often considered in personalisation research is the type of electoral system (Hanspeter Kriesi, 2010; Mayerhöffer &

Esmark, 2011; Swanson & Mancini, 1996). In short, it is argued that majoritarian electoral systems in which voters cast votes for individuals rather than parties increase person-centred media reporting and also leaders’ communication, and perhaps even make leaders focus more on their personae in order to differentiate themselves from other candidates. On the other hand, proportional electoral systems, especially those with closed lists, are thought of as having the opposite

Consequently, the type of electoral system was tested as a condition that may be connected with person-centred media reporting and leaders’ mediated communication, as well as their persona-centred communication (“elect_syst”).

The third causal condition which is theory-informed is “low party identification” (“party_id”) which was tested for person-, persona- and private persona-centred leaders’ mediated communication. It is argued in the literature that low degrees of party identification make leaders focus more on themselves to attract voters and act as brand differentiators (Garzia, 2011; Kuhn, 2004; Langer, 2011). In addition, these leaders might be more willing to share private information since they need alternative ways of bonding with voters, and communicating private information is considered to be a good way of doing this

Four more politically-related variables deemed relevant as causal conditions were also used in Stanyer's (2013) study so they were calibrated in the same way because external standards for calibration should be used whenever possible. One of these causal conditions is “centrist political leaders” (“centrist”). The literature suggests that those political actors who are not ideologically extreme might be more willing to put the focus on themselves, their personae, even their private personae, in order to act as brand differentiators. In other words, since their parties’ policies might not be enough to differentiate them on the political scene, leaders try to differentiate based on information about themselves. Hence, this condition was tested in relation to person-, persona-, and private persona-centred leaders’

mediated communication.

Furthermore, it is argued that those leaders who are relatively new to politics might be more willing to volunteer information about their political and private personae in order to try to bond personally with voters and make voters more familiar with them. Also, those who have spent a few years in politics before running for high office have more private information to share than political information so it can be expected that those leaders focus more on their private personae, but also that the media report more about their private life and qualities since there is not much to report about their political personae. Hence, the causal condition “short time spent in politics before election/appointment” (“years”) was examined in relation to persona-centred leaders’ mediated communication and private persona-centred media reporting and leaders’ mediated communication.

The causal condition “member of the baby boom generation” (“boomer”) was case-informed in Stanyer’s study since he observed that leaders whose private lives were more media visible were mostly those born after the Second World War. He argued this is because “boomer” leaders were more comfortable in talking about

themselves and revealing their private spheres. Since there was some indication that in the Yugoslav/Croatian case some leaders who were members of the baby boom generation might also be more willing to communicate information about their personae, especially private personae, this variable was tested as well. However, unlike in Stanyer’s project, it was tested for persona-, and private persona-centred leaders’ mediated communication, and not media reporting. The variable was calibrated using a crisp set; namely, if a leader was born before 1946, he/she was considered non-member, and if he/she was born after 1946, he/she was considered full member of the set.

The final causal condition calibrated according to Stanyer’s standards is

“weak statutory protection of private lives” (“privacy_law”). It is argued that the media in countries where politicians’ private lives are strongly protected by law are less willing to intrude into politicians’ privacy and/or report their private lives (Stanyer

& Wring, 2004). Hence, this causal condition was tested for the private persona-centred media reporting.

Another variable connected to law is introduced as a possible causal condition that might influence the private persona-centred media reporting, “weak statutory protection against libel” (“libel_law”), given that the literature suggests that the law against libel in journalism was frequently used in post-communist countries to silence reporters and divert them from reporting leaders’ privacy (Badrov, 2007).

The final politically-related causal condition is the “high level of authoritarianism in the society” (“authoritarian”) which was tested in relation to the person-centred leaders’ mediated communication since the leadership cult literature suggests that the communist political elite put the focus on the leader rather than the collective, partly due to the high degree of authoritarianism in the society, in the sense that the people wanted a strong leader (Apor et al., 2004).

Media-related causal conditions

As mentioned, there are five media-related causal conditions tested in this project, two of them being “macrovariables” formed by joining the two lower order conditions. One of these macrovariables is the “autonomous journalistic culture”

(“j_culture”) which was formed by joining the causal condition “nondeferential media”

and “high media independence from political influences” by the “logical or” command which forms the higher order variable by taking the maximum of each case membership (Ragin, 2009). The logic here was that the more autonomous the journalistic culture, the more the media will report in line with media logic, i.e. its

readers, and consequently, advertisers. Also, the leaders might be more willing to pursue a person-centred communication in order to behave in line with media logic and get into the news. Hence, this causal condition was tested for all dimensions of the personalisation in media reporting, and also person-centred leaders’ mediated communication.

Another macrovariable is the “commercialized media system” (“commercial”), which was also formed using the “logical or” command. The two lower order variables were “high degree of private media ownership” and “high degree of advertising in the media”. In essence, it is suggested that in a commercialized media systems, that can be seen as characterized by high degree of private media ownership and advertisers’ influence, the media would act more according to media logic and put the focus on leaders, their political and private personae, and the leaders might also be more willing to reveal their private information in order to be more interesting and newsworthy both to the media and voters. Consequently, this variable was tested for all dimensions of personalisation in media reporting, as well as for the private persona-centred leaders’ mediated communication outcome.

The “strong tabloid sector” (“tabloid”) variable was tested for the private persona-centred media reporting and leaders’ mediated communication since it is argued that the stronger the tabloid sector, the more emphasis the media gives to leaders’ private affairs, and the leaders might also be more willing to volunteer their private information in order to act according to media logic and in that way, make the news (Kuhn, 2004; Stanyer & Wring, 2004).

The final two media-related variables are linked to television. The “large television reach” (“tv_reach”) variable was included since the introduction of television is often considered to have increased the media’s focus on leaders’

political and private personae (Meyrowitz, 1985). Also, it is argued that the leaders have had to adapt to television’s tendency to communicate persona- and private persona-related information (Jamieson, 1988; Meyer, 2002). Hence, this causal condition was tested for the persona- and private persona-centred media reporting and leaders’ mediated communication.

The final media-related variable was the “leaders who participated in a television debate” (“tv_debate”) given that previous research has revealed that the media focuses more on leaders’ personae when they participate in a television debate (Reinemann & Wilke, 2007; Tsfati, 2003). Hence, the leaders were considered full members of the set if they participated in a television debate prior to the elections in which they came to power and full nonmembers if they haven’t. This variable was tested in relation to the persona-centred media reporting.

The summary of the outcomes and their related causal conditions, as well as the details of variables calibrated using fuzzy sets, can be found in the Appendix 5.

The analysis was conducted by following the procedure from Ragin (2009) and using fsqca 2.0 software. The software is based on counterfactual reasoning, meaning that it constructs truth tables in which all possible combinations of causal conditions and their relations to the outcome are listed. If there are five causal conditions (k) tested, then the number of possible causal recipes/combinations is 32 (2^k). The truth table also reveals which combinations of causal conditions are connected with real outcomes, i.e. those entered by the researcher in order to be tested, and these are the only combinations which the researcher continues to examine. Each combination of conditions is presented with values for consistency and coverage, which help the researcher decide which of the combinations are empirically relevant. Both of these values range from 0 to 1. As Ragin (ibid., 112) frames it, consistency shows “the truth value” of the solution. In other words, it shows the degree to which a certain causal recipe is connected to the examined outcome (Ragin, 2006). If a certain solution leads to different outcomes, its consistency will be low. In all analyses but those examining causal paths to the lower degrees of the persona-centred media reporting and higher degrees of the private persona-centred reporting, the consistency cut-off value was not lower than 0,75, as suggested by Ragin (2009). In the two mentioned analyses it was lowered to 0,5 in order to establish at least one causal path. The coverage values assess the extent to which the solution “accounts for instances of the outcome” (Ragin, 2006:

292), or put simply, it shows how much of the outcome a certain solution explains. If there are many paths to the same outcome, it can be expected that the coverage will be small. Also, given that some solutions do not have empirical value on their own, i.e. the cases they explain have already been accounted for by other solutions, the value of the unique coverage is presented. Those solutions with very low unique coverage can be seen as empirically irrelevant (ibid.). In the tables which report the findings from the fsQCA (tables 7.1. – 7.12.) the causal paths that are connected with a certain outcome are presented with values for consistency and coverage. The software calculates these values using complex equations (for more details see Ragin, 2009), and presents them as numbers from 0 to 1, correct to six decimal places, so this is also the way in which they are presented in the tables.