Political Debates

This is a page for students of PS 240. On 9/22 and 9/24 we discussed political debates. We also have watched and written about the first Presidential and Vice Presidential debates of 2008.

Possible Exam Questions

1. Discuss the change in criteria used for picking Vice Presidential candidates.

Readings

K.L. Fridkin, Kenney, P.J., Gershon, S.A. and Serignese Woodall, G. (2008). Spinning Debates: The Impact of the News Media's Coverage of the Final 2004 Presidential Debate. International Journal of Press/Politics, 13, 29-51.

Summary:

K. Kenski and Stroud, N.J. (2005). Who Watches Presidential Debates? A Comparative Analysis of Presidential Debate Viewing in 2000 and 2004. American Behavioral Scientist, 49, 213-228.

Summary:

M. Norton and Goethals, G. (2004). Spin (and Pitch) Doctors: Campaign Strategies in Televised Political Debates. Political Behavior, 26, 227-248.

Summary:

S. Fein, Goethals, G.R. and Kugler, M.B. (2007). Social Influence on Political Judgments: The Case of Presidential Debates. Political Psychology, 28, 165-192.

Summary: These researchers performed four experiments to evaluate the effects of audience reactions on the opinions and reactions of debate viewers. The first three experiments showed a 1984 Reagan-Mondale Debate to undergraduate viewers. The first experiment divided into three conditions, one that included the whole debate, one that deleted two key sound-bites and the accompanying audience reactions, and one that showed the debate with the sound-bites but without the accompanying reactions from the studio audience and the moderator. In the first condition (the control), viewers judged that Reagan had won, just as most viewers did in 1984. In the second condition, Reagan's ratings fell, and in the third Mondale won decisively. This demonstrated that the reaction of the studio audience significantly influenced the judgments of debate viewers. The second experiment demonstrated that giving breaks to the viewers in the experiment made no difference. The third experiment showed viewers one of two graphs which the subjects were told reflected the approval of the other people in the room. One graph supposedly showed the room's overall approval of Reagan, and the other graph supposedly showed the audience's approval of Mondale. These conditions produced an average of a 36 point net difference between subjects' approval ratings. The fourth experiment showed subjects a 1992 debate between Clinton, Bush, and Perot. Subjects entered rooms with confederates which either voiced pro-Clinton, pro-Bush, or neutral reactions during the debate. This produced a moderate effect on the final opinions of subjects, but not a statistically significant one. All together, this study demonstrated that potential voters are influenced, at least in the short term, by their perception of others' reactions.

T.M. Holbrook (1999). Political Learning from Presidential Debates. Political Behavior, 21, 67-89.

Summary:

J.W. Jarman (2005). Political Affiliation and Presidential Debates: A Real-Time Analysis of the Effect of the Arguments Used in the Presidential Debates. American Behavioral Scientist, 49, 229-242.

Summary: