Political Candidates’ Credibility

and the Filipino Youth’s Voting Behaviors:

Gauging the Influences of Ethos
in the 2016 Philippine National Elections

Jose Carlo Garcia de Pano

Abstract

The paper investigates the possible effects of the Filipino youth’s

perceptions of political candidates’ ethos on their voting behaviors in
the 2016 Philippine National Elections. Ethos or source credibility is
measured through its dimensions originally conceptualized by Aristotle—
competence, trustworthiness, and goodwill. The results reveal that the
three facets have significant effects on voting decisions. Moreover, the
statistical models employed show that the interactions between ethos
dimensions and voting patterns are more than just causal relations;
competence, trustworthiness, and goodwill could be significant
predictors of polling decisions. The findings reaffirm the propositions of
both classical and contemporary persuasion theories that argue the
crucial role of credibility in persuasive communication transactions.
The same data as well implicitly lend support to the triadic association
of the aforementioned ethos factors, strengthening claims that these
dimensions are intercorrelated; and that they move in the same direction.

Keywords: ethos/ source credibility, competence, trustworthiness,

goodwill, voting behaviors, 2016 Philippine National Elections
2 | DE PANO

Introducing the Problem:

Ethos as a Mode of Persuasion and the Philippine Elections

Any Philippine election, considering the dynamics and the nature

of the country’s socio-political space, may be regarded as a battle of
persuasion, where candidates’ chances of being elected partly lie in their
abilities to convince the populace – including the youth, accounting for about
37 to 40 per cent of the total voting population in the 2016 National Elections
(Nicolas and Santos 2015) – to vote for them. Persuasion, as a means of
securing enough votes to win, comes in various forms and acts. Diverse
and innovative cases of alleged vote buying (Gotinga 2015), for instance, as
reported by different media, can be seen as persuasive measures to ensure
advantageous candidacy outcomes. The traditional “promise making” in
political gatherings and campaign sorties, where the pressing concerns of
the public are addressed through speeches, can be interpreted as a mode
of convincing them to cast favorable votes. Political advertisements aired
on television, radio; and bannered on the Internet platforms are another
modern alternative way of persuading laymen to vote, or even, fight for their
bets. Whether adhering to ethical standards or not, the aforementioned
may be seen as mechanisms of persuasion whose ultimate goal is to
translate voting preferences into actual favorable voting behaviors.

Persuasion, as an art of convincing message receivers, audience,

or market, whether in the context of elections or other communicative
situations, is not limited to tangible or explicitly observable actions
and/ or behaviors as it is shaped by a number of factors (Bulan and de
Leon 2002, 63; McCroskey 1986, 62-66). The Aristotelian tradition, for
example, argues that while persuasion could be influenced by inartistic
operations (the more recognizable modes), it is also determined,
perhaps even to a greater extent, by artistic means (the ones that can
be directed by the source of communication) (Tompkins 1982, 31)

Although the inartistic modes of persuasion could be used

to strengthen the presented arguments, they are not really made,
controlled, and structured by the communication source (Tompkins
1982, 31-32). Examples of these are oaths, contracts, pieces of
evidence, facts, and other items of information that can support and
 PHILIPPINE HUMANITIES REVIEW | 3

reinforce the ideas of the message source. On the other hand, the
artistic category of persuasion is classified into three: ethos, pathos, and
logos (Bulan and de Leon 2002, 60; Tompkins 1982, 31-32). Simply,
ethos pertains to the communicator’s source credibility; pathos, to the
communicator’s emotional appeal; and logos, to the communicator’s
method of reasoning and argumentation (Bulan and de Leon 2002, 60).

Among the three modes, it is assumed that ethos is the most potent.
Moreover, it may be removed from the triadic association it maintains with
pathos and logos since it operates at a different level or plane of classification
(Rosenthal 1966, 26). While this view of the importance of ethos has
undoubtedly acceptable basis, it may be supererogatory as more recent
interrogations of the concept contend that credibility cannot be totally
detached from emotion and logic primarily because their manifestations
and functions may also be exemplified and embodied in ethos (Cheng
2012, 428); perceptions of ethos may largely stem from pathos and logos
(in the same way that the values of pathos and logos may as well be
dependent on ethos—emotion and logic in the absence of credibility
cannot be persuasion). Moreover, the conceptualization of ethos as a
construct that is connected with empathy and intelligence (among other
concepts linked with credibility) (McCroskey and Teven 1999, 95-96; Niu
and Ying 2016, 45) may imply its inherent relations with pathos and logos,
hence, questioning its absolute independence from the two other artistic
persuasion measures. Despite these seemingly contradicting takes on
ethos’ interactions with pathos and logos, none of them refute the former’s
vital position in communication transactions that necessitate persuasive
appeals. Following, then, the notion that ethos plays an extremely crucial
role in persuasion, it may be said that if credibility is presented well and
perceived positively by the message receivers, it is easier for the source to
persuade the listeners, rendering higher probability of the receivers to act
the way the source wishes. In the context of the study, it can be claimed
that credibility of politicians may, to a great extent, hone the publics’
voting behaviors, especially those of the youth who can significantly
influence election results, considering their substantial numbers.

Credibility is composed of three dimensions: competence or

authoritativeness, trustworthiness or character, and goodwill or intention
4 | DE PANO

(Bulan and de Leon 2002, 63; McCroskey 1986, 62-66). These three facets
of ethos are all essential in measuring credibility. In fact, empirical data
suggest that ethos may not be quantified using only one category rating;
meaning, three ratings, one for each dimension, should be computed
when accounting for credibility (McCroskey and Teven 1999, 99). In this
paper, then, these concepts are variables that are necessary in gauging the
effects of political candidates’ credibility on public’s voting behaviors.

Establishing that credibility is a critical aspect of persuasion, and

accepting the idea that the elections comprise a communicative situation
strongly anchored in the principles of persuasion, it is undeniably interesting
to define the roles of ethos and its dimensions in convincing people to vote
for certain candidates. More specifically, it is thought-provoking to determine
the effects of the Filipino youth’s perceptions of political candidates’
credibility on their voting behaviors in the 2016 National Elections.

Defining the Current Study:

Effects of Filipino Youth’s Perceptions of Candidates’ Ethos
on Their Voting Behavior

As framed earlier, the paper argues that credibility, operationalized

through its dimensions namely competence or authoritativeness,
trustworthiness or character, and goodwill or intention, may be considered
a strong factor of persuasion that affects quite a number of communicative
acts like elections. Taking this into account, the paper aims to answer
the question: What are the effects of the Filipino youth’s perceptions
of political candidates’ competence, trustworthiness, and goodwill
on their voting behaviors in the 2016 Philippine National Elections?

Reviewing the Literature:

Ethos, and Its Role in Persuasive Communication and Elections

Ethos and its dimensions, taken as a research point, is no longer

a new zone in the field of communication studies, more so, in the area
 PHILIPPINE HUMANITIES REVIEW | 5

of persuasion. However, its dynamic features, anchored in its evolving

characteristics: being a product of perception; being a function of time,
culture, and geographic location; being situational and contextual; being
composite; and varying from individual to individual, and from group to
group (Bulan and de Leon 2002, 63; McCroskey 1986, 62-66), warrant
thorough investigations, especially when linked with other variables,
such as the one being examined in this paper—voting behavior(s).

Ethos as a Construct

Being an artistic persuasive mode, ethos is all the time associated

with pathos and logos. Pathos is often referred to as the use of emotional
appeals (Bulan and de Leon 2002, 60; McCroskey 1986, 264), the state
of mind that shapes judgments (Covino and Joliffe 1995, 71). It is said
that the message source is persuasive if s/he is able to “stir the emotions”
of the receivers. Logos pertains to the source’s method of reasoning and
argumentation (Bulan and de Leon 2002, 60; McCroskey 1986, 264).
The Aristotelian tradition supposes that proofs through logos are made
up of persuasive examples and enthymemes (Covino and Joliffe 1995,
64), which are indispensable in rhetorical communication mainly because
they aid in strengthening the arguments presented in the content of the
message. It must be noted though that the premises of these proofs
are based on message receivers’ beliefs and dispositions rather than
on certainties or accepted facts (Covino and Joliffe 1995, 48).

The main distinction that separates ethos, pathos, and logos

(artistic modes of persuasion) from the inartistic persuasive devices lies
in the idea that the former are creatively controlled and resourcefully
manipulated by the communication source, while the latter are more
focused on the materials that are used to build and intensify arguments
(Tompkins 1982, 31). Inartistic factors draw their values from the veracities
of the pieces of information made available to the message receivers during
the communication transaction; artistic modes deduce their significance
from the ability of the source to craft the performance effectively using
accessible and relevant substantiations. In simpler terms, the inartistic
cluster deals with “what is presented”; the artistic cluster, with “how ‘what
6 | DE PANO

is presented’ is actually presented.” These elucidations answer why artistic

modes belong to the realm of rhetoric, and the inartistic means do not.

In classical rhetorical theory, largely anchored in Aristotelian

principles, ethos is most emphasized because of its capability to strongly
impress, convince, and actuate listeners (McCroskey 1986, 264). Apart
from its definition as “the attitude toward a source of communication
held at a given time by a receiver” (McCroskey 1986, 62), it is also
frequently related to prestige, character, integrity, believability, and
likeability (Bulan and de Leon 2002, 63; McCroskey 1986, 62).

Ethos has three stages: extrinsic or initial; intrinsic, transactional

or derived; and terminal (Bulan and de Leon 2002, 64-65; McCroskey
1986, 62-63). Extrinsic ethos is the source’s credibility level prior to
the actual interaction (Bulan and de Leon 2002, 64; McCroskey 1986,
62-63). Social characteristics, personal traits, educational and family
backgrounds, previous knowledge about the communication source,
other information made available to message receivers, and the
communication environment are relevant to the assessment of initial
credibility (Bulan and de Leon 2002, 64; McCroskey 1986, 66-70).

Next to initial ethos is the intrinsic ethos or the source’s credibility

during the encounter. This is the modified initial ethos, determined by
the rhetorical choices included in the message, the message itself, and
how the message is crafted and presented (Bulan and de Leon 2002,
64; McCroskey 1986, 63, 71-77). Aside from these, the circumstances
where the communication takes place, to a certain degree, also affect this
ethos stage (Bulan and de Leon 2002, 64; McCroskey 1986, 63).

The third stage, the final one, is the terminal ethos. This is the
source’s credibility upon the completion of the communicative act, the
sum total of the first two ethos levels, the product of extrinsic and intrinsic
credibility (Bulan and de Leon 2002, 64-65; McCroskey 1986, 77-78). It
may be assumed that this is the most critical ethos stage since it can greatly
affect the source’s initial ethos in future communication interactions.

Understanding ethos’ conceptualization is not limited to

 PHILIPPINE HUMANITIES REVIEW | 7

knowing its stages as its dimensions are equally important, if not more
so, especially in gauging its effects on different components in various
communication settings. Aristotle’s rhetoric proposes three universal
ethos facets: competence or authoritativeness (source’s expertise,
training, and intelligence), trustworthiness or character (source’s honor
and moral qualifications), and goodwill or intention (source’s genuineness
and sensitivity) (McCroskey 1986, 63-66). These dimensions are said to
be concrete determinants of communicator’s total credibility (McCroksey
and Teven 1999, 95-96; Teven 2008, 389-94), which means that they
stand on equal footing and are evenly important; hence, the three must
always be considered in any attempt to gauge one’s credibility so as to
preserve the triadic nature of ethos. In determining, then, the effects of
political candidates’ credibility on Filipino youth’s voting behaviors, it is of
paramount importance that all the three above-said aspects are assessed;
otherwise the quantitative evaluation of ethos is compromised.

The conversations on Aristotelian conception of ethos facets may be

extended to their manifestations in persuasive transactions as abstracted from
an approach, like source credibility theory (SCT) (Hovland, Janis, and Kelley
1953, 35). While having incongruent labels, the theory allocates the same
degree of importance to each of the credibility factors initially constructed
by Aristotle; it supposes, based on research evidence, that “intentions”
(goodwill in classical rhetorical tradition), “expertness” (competence in
classical rhetorical tradition) and “trustworthiness” (same label in classical
rhetorical tradition) are significant cues that shape one’s credibility, and
in turn, persuasiveness (Hovland, Janis, and Kelley 1953, 35).

Interpretations of SCT put forward the idea that the power of

credibility in relation to persuasion can be comprehended and simplified
through three models: the factor model, the functional model, and the
constructivist model (Umeogu 2012, 115). Each of these models may be
taken as a level or a degree, where the third phase ultimately becomes
the outcome, the magnitude of the source’s persuasive appeal.

The factor model discusses the extent to which the receivers deem
the source as credible. It is the first mechanism that affects the degree of
persuasion, in the manner that, if the judgment of the receivers is favorable
8 | DE PANO

to the communication source, persuasion becomes easier (Umeogu

2012, 115). Commonsensically, on the other hand, if the evaluation of the
receivers is negative, persuasion becomes more challenging. The second
is the functional model which operationalizes credibility as the ability of the
source to satisfy the needs of the receivers (Umeogu 2012, 115). It is said
that when these needs are met, the receivers are more inclined to believe
the source and be persuaded by him/ her. From this, it is clear that effective
persuasion is a product of a credible source’s faculty to touch, address,
and fulfill the needs of the intended message receivers. Finally, the third, the
constructivist model, tackles the humanistic side of the theory, by analyzing
what the receivers do with the proposal of the source (Umeogu 2012, 115).
This may be presumed to be the definitive gauge of persuasion, especially
in communicative settings that actuate message receivers, or that require
observable actions. It is at this stage that the conceptualized attitudes
towards the communication source and his proposal materialize.

In a nutshell, SCT maintains that intentions (goodwill), expertness

(competence), and trustworthiness (same label) concurrently operate
at different but continuous planes that define credibility’s power to
influence communication receivers. Additionally, it posits that ethos
may be classified as the most compelling mode of persuasion, that by
enhancing it and ensuring audience’s positive perception towards it, the
communication source may expect advantageous outcomes.

Despite the consistent and evidence-based assumptions that

confirm the positions of competence, trustworthiness, and goodwill in
measuring credibility, ethos still faces challenges that interrogate the validity
of its third factor. One side of such question claims that over goodwill,
dynamism is a more appropriate and a more substantial credibility facet
(Sereno and Hawkins 1967, 58-64; Tuppen 1974, 253-60); while the other
side either simply reaffirms and strengthens the constancy of the first two
factors, or offers a totally diverse set of ethos determinants; thus, neither
acknowledging goodwill’s position in the realms of ethos and persuasion
nor recognizing the contended worth of dynamism (Hellmueller and Trilling
2012; Holtzman 1966, 464-66; McCroskey and Dunham 1966, 456-
58; Ostermeier 1967, 141-43; Sereno 1968, 476-81). It is argued, for
example, that in lieu of defining credibility as end product of the source’s
 PHILIPPINE HUMANITIES REVIEW | 9

competence, trustworthiness, and goodwill, it may be supposed that its

multifaceted and multidimensional nature is rooted in the principles of
telling the truth (“inclination toward the truth”), knowing the truth (“potential
of truth”), and appearing to tell the truth (“presentation of truth”) (Eisend
2006, 23). Although this perspective presents seemingly new takes on
ethos dimensions, examination of its central tenets shows that they
essentially mirror the previously discussed credibility clusters originally
theorized by Aristotle; that they are reiterations – if not basically more
detailed phrasings – of the classical rhetorical tradition’s characterizations
of credibility. “Inclination toward the truth” may be an elaboration of
the trustworthiness dimension; “potential of truth,” of the competence
dimension; and “presentation of truth,” of the goodwill dimension.

While the developments and alterations of ethos’ theoretical bases

demonstrate a range of conflicting perspectives on the capacity of the
third dimension intellectualized by Aristotle—goodwill—to translate source
credibility levels into numerical evaluations, none of them challenge the
merit of ethos in persuasion. In fact, more recent papers propose that
the crucial role of credibility even in the more current times may never
be dismissed (La Ferle and Choi 2005, 77-79; Florentino 2010, 181-184;
Jackson and Darrow 2005, 95-97); thus, lending support to the current
study’s thesis that credibility may partly shape voting patterns or behaviors.

Ethos in Persuasion and Political Communication

In situations that aim to sway communicators, credibility may be

perceived as a powerful tool in convincing the intended message receivers
to act in accordance with how the source wants them to. This action, which
may be interpreted as compliance gaining, is verified to maintain positive
correlations with ethos dimensions—competence, trustworthiness, and
goodwill (Florentino 2010, 181-184). By providing evidence of relationships,
these findings partially prove the possible effects of credibility on
persuasiveness. Since election is treated in this paper as a communicative act
that centers on persuasion, it may be supposed that credibility would carry
the same function and exemplification in said kind of transaction.
10 | DE PANO

The impact of credibility on the degree of persuasion, to the extent

of attitude shift or reversal, cannot be discounted as it is empirically proven
to be significant (La Ferle and Choi 2005, 77-79; Jackson and Darrow 2005,
95-97). This expresses that ethos, as an apparatus of persuasion, is capable
of changing or altering behaviors in numerous communication contexts.
Following this line of argument, it may be safely assumed that its dimensions
can be regarded as fundamental components of any election process (taking
into consideration the process’s nature as a persuasive communication
event) since the components can undoubtedly convey and bring about
preference change, even in relation to public’s voting patterns.

The presupposed connection between electorate’s perceived

credibility towards politicians and their predilections in elections is
strengthened by findings derived from positivist methods that relate ethos
dimensions, especially competence and trustworthiness, with voting
decisions (Relao 2011, 115-22; Teven 2008, 389-94). The moderate to
strong correlations that exist between the two, while not explicitly indicating
causation, still strongly emphasize the value of credibility in persuasion and
political communication, in general; and in elections, in particular.

Further investigations on credibility and voters’ selections reveal

that the former is instrumental in finalizing polling decisions (Alsamydai and
Al Khasawneh 2013, 122; Stephen et al. 2004 [cited in Alsamydai and Al
Khasawneh 2013, 109]). It is claimed that electoral success may be critically
dependent on ethos level, in the sense that a candidate would garner
favorable votes if people deem him/ her credible. Credibility, in this setting,
is constantly operationalized as the combination of being competent,
being trustworthy, and showing goodwill (Teven 2008, 391-93).

Credibility’s power in political candidates’ chances of winning the

elections may never be underestimated as it is forwarded that the character
of anyone running for elective government office may be the most important
issue in determining the public’s voting behaviors (Stephen et al. 2004 [cited
in Alsamydai and Al Khasawneh 2013, 109]). In addition, it is contended
that, persona-based perceptions – that is to say, personal traits – are salient
to the selection process electors go through before casting their votes
(Wayne 2002 [cited in Teven 2008, 386]). Indeed, source ethos, in this case,
 PHILIPPINE HUMANITIES REVIEW | 11

candidate credibility, may incontestably be a significant and solid predictor

of political persuasion (Teven 2008, 389-94); therefore, elections as political
contests are assumed to be competitions in credibility (McCroskey 1971, 5).

While the paper, through the studies reviewed above, aims to solidify
the grounds of credibility in the turf of political persuasion, it cannot be
denied that there are also data that somewhat negate or downplay ethos’
weight in assessment of one’s persuasive faculty. Claims that credibility
does not enjoy significant effects on behavioral change in the context of
persuasive political communication is found in existing literature (Morin,
Ivory, and Tubbs 2012, 418-19). It is suggested that though ethos and its
facets may sustain relationships with the public’s electoral preference, the
significant influences of the former on the latter can not be categorically
inferred. Although this does not support the paper’s claims on the
centrality of ethos dimensions in Filipinos’ voting attitudes, it nevertheless,
and in fact, all the more, necessitates examination or reexamination
of said variable primarily because of the incongruent view it exhibits.

In the local socio-political space, it is posited that credibility is vital to

formations of voting choices. Data affirm that competence, trustworthiness,
and goodwill occupy key roles in elections (Relao 2011, 115-22; Office of
the Ombudsman n.d., 15). They are fundamental characteristics the public
looks for in a candidate.

Considering the various, but coherent, arguments that establish

the associations and possible effects of credibility and its dimensions with
and on persuasive appeals in the context of political communication – more
precisely, in connection with voting behaviors – it is certainly necessary
to conduct a study that may provide empirical, practical, and theory-
driven data that can argue and stress the importance and value of ethos.
12 | DE PANO

Operationalizing the Variables:

Measures of Ethos and Voting Behaviors

The paper’s central thesis rests on the presupposition that credibility,

being a function of perception (Bulan and de Leon 2002, 60-67; Covino and
Joliffe 1995, 48-71; McCroskey 1986, 62-82, 261-272; Tompkins 1982,
30-32), can greatly influence voting preferences. It views ethos and its
three facets—competence, trustworthiness, and goodwill—as quantifiable
constructs whose effects on voting patterns can be measured statistically.

While voting behaviors carry various definitions, in this paper, they are
operationalized as either positive or negative. Positive voting behavior indicates
favorable voting decision (voted for); negative voting behavior, unfavorable
voting decision (did not vote for and would have least likely voted for).

Stating the Hypotheses:

Causal Interactions between Ethos and Voting Behaviors

H1: There will be a significant difference between the Filipino youth’s

perceived competence levels of political candidates whom they
voted for (exhibiting positive voting behavior) and political candidates
whom they did not vote for (exhibiting negative voting behavior).

H2: There will be a significant difference between the Filipino youth’s

perceived trustworthiness levels of political candidates whom they
voted for (exhibiting positive voting behavior) and political candidates
whom they did not vote for (exhibiting negative voting behavior).

H3: There will be a significant difference between the Filipino youth’s

perceived goodwill levels of political candidates whom they voted
for (exhibiting positive voting behavior) and political candidates
whom they did not vote for (exhibiting negative voting behavior).
 PHILIPPINE HUMANITIES REVIEW | 13

Presenting the Methods:

Procedures of Assessing Ethos and Its Effects on Voting Behaviors

A total of 206 respondents, from different academic units of the

University of the Philippines Diliman, participated in the study that was
conducted approximately two months after the elections. Originally, 210
students were requested to answer the survey forms; however, four of
them did not completely fill out the questionnaires. The sample size was
arbitrarily determined considering the assumptions of the required statistical
tool. This might not be statistically representative of the investigated
population, and thus, will not yield inferences and generalizations;
however, it will still undoubtedly deliver valid and useful empirical data.

The respondents were each selected through purposive

sampling technique which posed the following criteria: (1) an
undergraduate student of the University; (2) 24 years old or below
(United Nation’s definition of young adult’s age) when the study was
implemented; and (3) voted in the last national elections.

The first half of the respondents, 101 students, evaluated the

credibility of the presidential candidates they voted for in the last 2016
Philippine National Elections; while the remaining 105 respondents
assessed the credibility of the presidential candidates they did not vote
for and would have least likely voted for. The presidential aspirants were
chosen to represent and contextualize “political candidates” in this study.
Since this might carry certain limitations, especially with regard to validity of
findings in measuring the effects of credibility dimensions on voting decisions
concerning other candidates or elective posts in general, a question
asking the youth respondents to rank and gauge the likeliness of them
assigning the same ratings to other politicians was included in the survey.

Source Credibility Measure(s) (McCroskey and Teven 1999,

95), composed of 18 pairs of bipolar adjectives (six for each credibility
facet), was used to quantify the dimensions of ethos. Having a highest
possible score of 42 and lowest possible score of 6 for each dimension,
scores ranging from 31 to 42 can be categorized as high; 19 to 30,
moderate; and 6 to 18, low. The instrument’s alpha reliability rates
14 | DE PANO

can range between .80 and .94 (McCroskey and Teven 1999, 95).

To determine the effect of credibility dimensions on Filipino

youth’s voting behaviors, t-test of independent samples was utilized. The
statistical results were analyzed and interpreted at the usual .05 alpha level.

Detailing the Findings:

Effects of Filipino Youth’s Perceptions of Candidates’ Ethos on Their
Voting Behaviors

Findings show that 94.06% of the youth respondents who rated the
credibility of the presidential candidates they voted for assigned them high
competence ratings. These are consistent with the perceived competence
mean score of 38.61, also categorized as high. In the cases of trustworthiness
and goodwill dimensions, the same findings are observed; 82.18% of the
same respondents gave their presidential bets high trustworthiness ratings
(mean score of 35.12, high); and 64.36% assigned them high goodwill
ratings (mean score of 32.15, high). Table 1 summarizes these results.

Ethos Dimensions
Competence Trustworthiness Goodwill

Score Number of Number of Number of

Categories Respondents % Respondents % Respondents %
High 95 94.06 83 82.18 65 64.36
Moderate 6 5.94 18 17.82 36 35.64
Low 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mean Scores 38.61 (High) 35.12 (High) 32.15 (High)
Table 1: Summary of Ratings Assigned by the Respondents Who Exhibited Positive Voting Behavior

Out of the 105 student respondents who demonstrated negative

voting behavior, 63.81% gave the presidential candidates they did not
vote for (and would have least likely voted for) moderate competence
ratings. These are consistent with the perceived competence mean score
 PHILIPPINE HUMANITIES REVIEW | 15

of 24.98, also regarded as moderate. For the two other dimensions,

58.10% of the above-said respondents assigned low trustworthiness
ratings (mean score of 16.73, low); and 65.71% gave low goodwill
ratings (mean score of 16.24, low). Table 2 presents these findings.

Ethos Dimensions
Competence Trustworthiness Goodwill

Score Number of Number of Number of

Categories Respondents % Respondents % Respondents %
High 21 20.00 2 1.90 2 1.90
Moderate 67 63.81 42 40.00 42 32.38
Low 17 16.19 61 58.10 69 65.17
Mean Scores 24.98 (Moderate) 16.73 (Low) 16.24 (Low)
Table 2: Summary of Ratings Assigned by Respondents Who Exhibited Negative Voting Behavior

Results of the statistical test indicate that the difference between

the competence ratings of the youth respondents who demonstrated
positive voting behavior (perceived competence mean score of 38.61, high)
and those who exhibited negative voting behavior (perceived competence
mean score of 24.98, moderate) is significant (p-value: 0.000), accepting
the first hypothesis that there would be a significant difference between
the Filipino youth’s perceived competence levels of political candidates
whom they voted for (exhibiting positive voting behavior) and political
candidates whom they did not vote for (exhibiting negative voting behavior).

For the trustworthiness dimension, the findings reveal that the

difference between the ratings provided by the student respondents
who assessed the credibility of the presidential candidates they voted
for (perceived trustworthiness mean score of 35.12, high) and those who
quantified the ethos of the presidential candidates they did not vote for
(and would have least likely voted for) (perceived trustworthiness mean
score of 16.73, low) is significant (p-value: 0.000), accepting the second
hypothesis that there can be a significant difference between the Filipino
youth’s perceived trustworthiness levels of political candidates whom
16 | DE PANO

they voted for (exhibiting positive voting behavior) and political candidates
whom they did not vote for (exhibiting negative voting behavior).

Lastly, for the goodwill dimension, the same findings are recorded.
The difference between the evaluations of the respondents who displayed
positive voting behavior (perceived goodwill mean score of 32.15, high)
and those who presented negative voting behavior (perceived goodwill
mean score of 16.24, low) is significant (p-value: 0.000), accepting the
third hypothesis that there would be a significant difference between the
Filipino youth’s perceived goodwill levels of political candidates whom
they voted for (exhibiting positive voting behavior) and political candidates
whom they did not vote for (exhibiting negative voting behavior).

Table 3 shows the results of the statistical test for difference run to
examine and measure the effect of credibility dimensions on youth’s voting
patterns.

95% Confidence Interval Estimates of the

Ethos Dimensions Difference in Mean Scores p-values
Competence 12.04 15.23 0.000*
Trustworthiness 16.72 20.05 0.000*
Goodwill 14.41 17.41 0.000*

Table 3: Summary of the Statistical Differences Measuring the Effects of Credibility Dimensions on
Youth’s Voting Behaviors
*significant at .05 alpha level

To generate additional findings, logistic regression was also

performed. Results of the test suggest that competence (p-value: 0.012),
trustworthiness (p-value: 0.027), and goodwill (p-value: 0.046) can be
significant predictors of voting behaviors, where the probability of a youth
voter demonstrating favorable voting attitude towards a specific presidential
candidate could increase by 23.10% for every one-point increase in
the perceived competence score; 21.50% for every one-point increase
in the perceived trustworthiness score; and 22.48% for every one-point
increase in the perceived goodwill score. Table 4 illustrates these findings.
 PHILIPPINE HUMANITIES REVIEW | 17

Standard 95% Confidence

Ethos Dimensions Odd Ratios Errors Inteterval Examinations p-values
Competence 1.2310 0.1016 1.047008 1.447129 0.012*
Trustworthiness 1.2150 0.1067 1.022958 1.44311 0.027*
Goodwill 1.2248 0.1242 1.00406 1.494016 0.046*

Table 4: Summary of the Logistic Regression Test Results Examining Each Credibility Dimension as a
Predictor of Voting Behaviors
*significant at .05 alpha level

As mentioned earlier, the presidential candidates, being the

“subjects” of the study, were employed simply to represent political
candidates in the 2016 National Elections (and contextualize the
paper). To verify if the respondents would have given the same ratings
to other politicians they voted for or did not vote for (and would have
least likely voted for), one question included asked them to quantify the
chance of them assigning the same ratings to the credibility of other
candidates (through rating said chance on a scale from one to five; one
being the lowest, and five being the highest). Out of the 206 student
respondents, 79.61% said that they would assign the same ratings;
while only 20.39% said otherwise. Table 5 condenses these findings.

Number of
Responses Respondents %
Would have given the same ratings
164 79.61
(Gave scores of 3, 4, and 5)
Would not have given the same ratings
42 20.39
(Gave scores of 1 and 2)

Table 5: Summary of Ratings on the Likeliness of Giving the Same Credibility Evaluations to Other
Political Candidates in the 2016 National Elections
18 | DE PANO

Making Sense of the Findings:

Discussions and Implications of Ethos’ Causal Relations
with Voting Behaviors

Despite the limitations posed by the sampling procedure and size,

the results of the study may still argue that credibility and its dimensions
occupy a crucial role in persuasion and political communication,
especially in the context of election. The significantly higher competence,
trustworthiness, and goodwill ratings assigned by selected Filipino young
adults to political candidates they voted for, exemplifying positive voting
behavior, provide concrete empirical evidence to assume the possible
influence of credibility on voting patterns. These findings lend support to
past studies and other existing literatures, positing that credibility may be
key to attitude modification, or to a certain extent, attitude shift, in persuasive
communicative interactions (La Ferle and Choi 2005, 77-79; Jackson and
Darrow 2005, 95-97). More precisely, the current paper’s results echo other
evidence-based observations that ethos dimensions may be intensely linked
with polling decisions, in such direction that when perceptions of credibility
facets are positive, favorable voting patterns may follow (Alsamydai and
Al Khasawneh 2013, 122; Relao 2011, 115-22; Stephen et al. 2004
[cited in Alsamydai and Al Khasawneh 2013, 109]; Teven 2008, 389-94).

The notion that credibility, including character and personality, has

great weight in electors’ selection process and on their voting patterns
(Stephen et al. 2004 [cited in Alsamydai and Al Khasawneh 2013, 109];
Wayne 2002 [cited in Teven 2008, 386]) is further highlighted in the
current study since the findings may statistically prove that the three
dimensions of ethos could greatly impact voting decisions. Undeniably,
the recorded significant differences between the respondents’ quantitative
assessments of the candidates’ competence, trustworthiness, and
goodwill offer substantial proofs of the credibility’s power, as a rhetorical
device, to partly dictate Filipino young adults’ polling behaviors.

The additional findings, derived from the logistic regression (model)

test, that emphasize the ethos dimensions’ natures as predictors of youth’s
voting behaviors certainly attest to the earlier stated assertion that credibility
may be deemed one of the determinants of voting patterns (Teven 2008,
 PHILIPPINE HUMANITIES REVIEW | 19

389-94). Having said this, two other assumptions may be forwarded: first,
that whatever happens to politicians’ credibility levels will reflect in their
ability to market themselves to the voting populace; and second, since
credibility can partially forecast voting behaviors, the factors that hone ethos
at its various states and stages may well have bearing on polling verdicts.

Some declarations undervalue the role and function of credibility

in persuasive communication, limiting the connection between the
two variables to relationship, consequently, debunking the claim of
causation (Morin, Ivory, and Tubbs 2012, 418-19). While these are
valid since they are grounded in accepted positivist methodologies,
the current paper’s conclusions may somehow offer an alternative
view as the results of the statistical procedures done denote not only
the causal agency of credibility, but more strongly, its predictive facility.

Aside from the study’s implications on voting behaviors, the data

may also reaffirm the triadic association of ethos dimensions originally
conceptualized by Aristotle (Bulan and de Leon 2002, 63; McCroskey
1986, 63-66; McCroskey and Teven 1999, 101; Teven 2008, 386-94).
The consistent results across respondents’ competence, trustworthiness,
and goodwill ratings of the political candidates they voted for and did not
vote for may convey the intercorrelatedness of the three credibility facets.
Undoubtedly, the data produced in the paper can strengthen and revalidate
the central tenets of the classical rhetorical tradition, rooted in the Aristotelian
fashion, that assumes the universality of ethos factors and their capacity
to transcend cultural, contextual, and situational boundaries. They as well
confirm the applicability of said approach even in the changing times and in
various communication settings, more specifically, in the area of persuasion.

Aristotle’s assumption that ethos can be defined by the personality

and other traits of the source as perceived by the message receivers is
implicitly proven in this study. The high competence, trustworthiness, and
goodwill ratings assigned to the presidential candidate voted for confirm
the classical rhetorical theory’s proposition that points to the importance of
credibility in the realm of persuasive communication. The findings, from both
the difference test and the logistic regression model, may partially prove that
ethos is a valid mode of persuasion in the Philippine setting. The quantitative
20 | DE PANO

evidence that shows the statically significant effects of ethos on Filipino

youth’s voting behaviors and its predictive nature reaffirm the applicability of a
classical tradition in the contemporary and changing times. More than these,
the consistent evaluations of ethos facets presented earlier may advance
imperative theoretical implications, supporting the tenets of Aristotelian
rhetoric, with regard not only to the multidimensionality of credibility, but
more notably, to the triangular relations of competence, trustworthiness,
and goodwill as universal and cross-cultural dimensions of ethos.

While not a primary objective of the study, the empirical data may
as well offer basis for acceptance of goodwill’s legitimacy as a measure of
Aristotelian ethos. The results also reconfirm the statistical validity and reliability
of the constructs included in the instrument to quantitatively assess credibility.

Applying the source credibility theory’s propositions, explained in

the earlier sections, in interpreting the generated data, it may be argued
that ethos as a major factor that sets the direction of persuasion may be
accepted. The findings evidently reveal credibility’s power to influence
message receivers in a persuasive communication event. Moreover, they
open avenues that foster and facilitate better comprehension of SCT’s three
models and the connection they maintain. Through the empirical evidence
presented in this paper, it may be supposed that ethos’ effect (demonstrated
by the assigned credibility ratings) on the source’s persuasiveness (reflected
in the Filipino youth’s voting behaviors) starts with the audience’s perception
of the source’s credibility; and ends with the product of said perception.
This means that positive attitudes towards source’s credibility can lead
to solicitation of the desired responses to the communication source’s
proposal. This process may be referred to as the materialization of ethos.

As a final point of analysis on the connection between the two

problematized variables in this paper, it could be said that the study mainly
speaks about one major feature that Filipino young adults consider as they
cast their votes—ethos. Even if there is a contention that demographics such
as socio-economic status, educational attainment, family background, and
other related indicators can affect youth’s polling patterns, the empirically
verified presumption of ethos serving as a stimulus that shapes informed
votes cannot be rejected. In the end, since young voters in the Philippines
 PHILIPPINE HUMANITIES REVIEW | 21

constitute a big chunk of the electing population and play a vital role in
any Philippine election, since they constitute a big chunk of the electing
population, this paper provides political candidates an effectual means to
secure affirmative voting attitudes. Indeed, the study, in general, stresses
the strength of ethos in the field of persuasion and communication.

Extending the Implications:

Other Thoughts on Ethos as a Concept in Persuasion

While the paper really intends to center on the association between

credibility and voting behaviors, the findings may also be useful in furthering
the theorization on Aristotelian ethos. The generated data may open
or reopen the interrogation on the acceptability of the three Aristotelian
ethos dimensions—competence, trustworthiness, and goodwill—as
factors that define credibility. The respondents’ coherent evaluations of
the three ethos facets (of the political candidates) largely speak about
their inter-correlatedness both at the surface level, and as proven through
statistical procedures. From this, it may be inferred that each of the three
is dependent on the other two, that good assessment of one ethos aspect
can almost always predict positive valuations of the remaining two. On
the other hand, negative perceptions towards one credibility dimension
may forecast negative attitudes towards the other two. Although there
are contentions that goodwill cannot accurately represent a portion of
credibility as other indicators might be more appropriate, say for instance,
dynamism (Sereno and Hawkins 1967, 58-64; Tuppen 1974, 253-60), the
findings reveal that goodwill shares significant relations with competence
and trustworthiness. This leads to acceptance of goodwill as an equally
important feature of ethos, just like competence and trustworthiness.

It must be noted that while the study results advance the legitimacy
of goodwill, along with competence and trustworthiness, as ethos criterion,
they do not discredit other alternative hypotheses that expect isolations of
more constructs that can likewise determine ethos. Meaning, it is possible
that apart from the three universally accepted dimensions, credibility may
be shaped by other variables. In a nutshell, the findings acknowledge
and demonstrate the importance of Aristotelian ethos constructs, but
22 | DE PANO

do not discount the capacities of other factors to impact credibility. This

assumption can be further amplified and supported by the fundamental
conceptualization of ethos as a function of culture and geographic location
(Bulan and de Leon 2002, 63; McCroskey 1986, 62-66). If it were cultural, it
would be logical to claim that it has certain components that vary from one
setting to another. In the local ground, for example, it is found that language,
specifically, the use of English, has effects on perceived credibility (Madrigal
1992, 108). This presupposition stems from the data that argue that Filipinos
have a tendency to put a premium on one’s English language competence;
that proper, elegant, and eloquent speaking of said language may lead to
more favorable credibility ratings. Although it may be contended that the
command of the language is subsumed in the competence dimension,
the findings suggest that its functions are manifested at a distinct plane,
making it a credibility facet that is connected, yet, dependent from the three
theorized by classical rhetorical approaches. Regardless of whether or not
language proficiency belongs to the competence aspect of ethos, what
is interesting in this data set is its attempt to establish a different stance
on the issue of credibility factors by asserting a fourth component. This
undoubtedly provides venues for theorizing and conceptualizing more ethos
features that are rooted in the unique characteristics of the communication
source’s and message receivers’ cultural and social atmospheres.

In connection with the points above, since ethos may be

anchored in the dynamics of one’s culture, it may be argued that the
bases for evaluating and quantifying its dimensions are modified from
one sociocultural space to another. This supposes that while ethos may
have parallel dimensions that transcend cultural boundaries, indicators
of such dimensions differ depending on one’s cultural frame. Taking
the data of the present study, for example, although there is firsthand
evidentiary verification that competence, trustworthiness, and goodwill are
stable gauges of credibility, it cannot be repudiated that the descriptions
and evaluative metrics of these ethos aspects are not uniform across
geographic locations; hence, their indicators may be different. The case
of competence dimension may be taken as an example. Regardless of
the established meters of communication source’s competence (i.e.
educational background, experience, training, expertise, and others), its
ratings are not solely reliant on these measures as its dimensionality in
 PHILIPPINE HUMANITIES REVIEW | 23

connection with ethos is a function of perception. Meaning, even if the

source may be regarded as highly competent in consideration of socially
acceptable proof-based gauges, if the perceptions of the audience are
incongruent, then the source’s credibility level remains low. This principle
may be assumed to hold true as well for trustworthiness and goodwill.

Finally, the intercorrelatedness of competence, trustworthiness, and

goodwill not only strengthens the triadic, or maybe multifaceted, nature of
ethos, but as well signifies their overlapping characteristics. Being aspects
of credibility that presumably stand on equal grounds, many of the factors
that affect each of the three, to a certain extent, also influence the other two.
For instance, the audience perceives the source to be caring and having
good intentions (goodwill dimension); therefore, s/he is recognized as
someone who can be trusted (trustworthiness dimension). Another may be
when one is regarded as an expert or a well-trained individual (competence
dimension), s/he is thought to be ethical (trustworthiness dimension).

In sum, all these discourses that build platforms for

debates, discussions, and dialogues on the nature of ethos and
its positions in various persuasive communication transactions
like elections (among others) demonstrate credibility’s discursive
character, almost always requiring examination and reexamination.

References

Alsamydai, Mahmod and Mohammad Hamdi Al Khasawneh. “Basic citeria for

the success of the electoral candidates and their influence on voters’ selection
decision.” Advances in Management and Applied Economics. 2013.

Bulan, Celia and Ianthe de Leon. Communication 3: Practical speech

fundamentals, experimental edition. Quezon City: Department of Speech
Communication and Theatre Arts, University of the Philippines Diliman. 2002.

Cheng, Martha. “Colin Powell’s Speech to the UN: A discourse analytic study of
reconstituted ethos.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly. 2012.
24 | DE PANO

Covino, William and David Joliffe. Rhetoric: Concepts, definitions, boundaries.

Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon. 1995.
Eisend, Martin. “Source credibility dimensions in marketing communication: A
generalized solution.” Journal of Empirical Generalisations in Marketing Science
2006.

Florentino, Joan. “The effects of selected speaker characteristics on ethos and

persuasion at the initial interpersonal level as measured through compliance-
gaining among students of University of the Philippines Diliman.” Undergraduate
thesis, University of the Philippines Diliman. 2006.

Gotinga, JC. “Poll watchdog PPCRV: Candidates now buy votes by wholesale.”
CNN News Site, October 26, 2015. http://cnnphilippines.com/
news/2015/10/26/vote-buying-PPCRV-2016-elections.html (accessed May 19,
2016).

Hellmueller, Lea and Damian Trilling. “The credibility of credibility measures: A

meta-analysis in leading communication journals, 1951-2011.” Paper presented
at the WAPOR 65th Annual Conference in Hong Kong. 2012.

Hovland, Carl, Irving Janis, and Harold Kelley. Communication and Persuasion:
Psychological studies of opinion change. New Haven: Yale university Press.
1953.

Holtzman, Paul. “Confirmation of ethos as a confounding element in

communication research.” Speech Monographs. 1966

Jackson, David and Thomas Darrow. “The influences of celebrity endorsements

on young adults’ political opinions.” Harvard International Journal of Press/
Politics. 2005.

La Ferle, Carrie and Sejung Marina Choi. “The importance of perceived

endorser credibility in South Korean advertising.” Journal of Current Issues and
Research in Advertising. 2005.

Madrigal, Albert. “Dimensions of ethos: A study in the Philippine setting.”

Master’s thesis, University of the Philippines Diliman. 1992.

McCroskey, James. “Ethos, credibility, and communication in the real world.”

North Carolina Journal of Speech. 1971.
 PHILIPPINE HUMANITIES REVIEW | 25

McCroskey, James. An introduction to rhetorical communication. New Jersey:

Prentice Hall. 1986.

McCroskey, James and Robert Dunham. “Ethos: A confounding element in

communication research.” Speech Monographs. 1966.

McCroskey, James and Jason Teven. “Goodwill: A re-examination of the

construct and its measurement.” Communication Monographs. 1999.

Morin, David, James Ivory, and Meghan Tubbs. “Celebrity and politics: Effects of
endorser credibility and sex on voter attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors.” The
Social Science Journal. 2012.

Nicolas, Fiona and David Santos. “The youth ask, who deserves our vote?”
CNN Philippines News Site, August 14, 2015. http://cnnphilippines.com/
news/2015/08/12/youth-ask-who-deserves-our-vote.html (accessed July 19,
2016). 2015.

Niu, Wang and Yuan Ying. “Reframing ethos rhetorical criticism.” Linguistics and
Literature Studies. 2016.

Office of the Ombudsman. n.d. Restudying the Filipino voter today.

http://www.ombudsman.gov.ph/UNDP4/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/
FinalPsychographics_HTML.pdf (accessed July 19, 2016).

Ostermeier, Terry. “Effects of type and frequency of reference upon perceived

source credibility and attitude change.” Speech Monographs. 1967.

Relao, Eileen Kae. “Politicians in the public eye: A study on the relationship
between the source credibility and parasociability of selected politician endorsers
and the publics’ voting behaviour during the May 2010 national elections.”
Underraduate thesis, University of the Philippines Diliman. 2011.

Rosenthal, Paul. “The concept of ethos and the structure of persuasion.” Speech
Monographs. 1966.

Sereno, Kenneth. “Ego-involvement, high source credibility, and response to a

belief-discrepant communication.” Speech Monographs. 1968.
26 | DE PANO

Sereno, Kenneth and Gary Hawkins. “The effects of variations in speakers’

nonfluency upon audience ratings of attitude toward the speech topic and
speaker’s credibility.” Speech Monographs. 1967.

Stephen, Timothy, Teresa Harrison, William Husson, and David Albert.

Interpersonal communication styles of political candidates: Predicting winning
and losing candidates in three U.S. presidential elections. In Presidential
candidate images, edited by Kenneth Hacker, 177-96. Oxford: Rowman &
Littlefield. Cited in Alsamydai, Mahmod and Mohammad Hamdi Al Khasawneh.
2013. Basic citeria for the success of the electoral candidates and their influence
on voters’ selection decision. Advances in Management and Applied Economics.
2004.

Teven, Jason. “An examination of perceived credibility of the 2008 presidential

candidates: Relationships with believability, likeability, and deceptiveness.”
Human Communication. 2008.

Tompkins, Phillip. Communication as action: An introduction to rhetoric and

communication. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company. 1982.

Tuppen, Christopher. “Dimensions of communicator credibility: An oblique

solution.” Speech Monographs. 1974.

Umeogu, Bonachristus. “Source credibility: A philosophical analysis.” Open

Journal of Philosophy. 2012.

Wayne, Stephen. The road to white house. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Cited in
Teven, Jason. 2008. An examination of perceived credibility of the 2008
presidential candidates: Relationships with believability, likeability, and
deceptiveness. Human Communication. 2002.