Many studies have shown that voters do learn about political issues from televised debates. Because debaters may not be interested in educating voters but in gaining votes, this does not necessarily mean that debate viewers improve their knowledge (i.e., learning something that is correct). Instead, they may become misinformed by watching a debate. Taking the second debate in the 2002 German general election as an example, we first compare people’s knowledge about economic facts before and after the debate with the actual situation as represented by official statistics. In a second step, we trace back the change or stability of their assessments of the state of the economy to candidates’ statements on that issue during the debate by using continuous-response measurement (CRM) measurement. Our analysis shows substantial learning effects among debate viewers. However, most of them did not improve their knowledge. They were rather misled by candidates’ selective presentation of facts.
Bartels, L. M. (1996). Uninformed votes: Information effects in presidential elections. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 194-230.
2.
Becker, L., Sobowale, I. A., Cobbey, R. E., & Eyal, C. H. (1978). Debates’ effects on voters’ understanding of candidates and issues. In G. F. Bishop, R. G. Meadow, & M. Jackson-Beeck (Eds.), The presidential debates. Media, electoral, and policy perspectives (pp. 126-139). New York: Praeger.
3.
Benoit, W. L., & Hansen, G. J. (2004). Presidential debate watching, issue knowledge, character evaluation, and vote choice. Human Communication Research, 30, 121-144.
4.
Benoit, W. L., Pier, P. M., Brazeal, L. M., McHale, J. P., Klyukovski, A., & Airne, D. (2002). The primary decision. A functional analysis of debates in presidential primaries. Westport, CT: Praeger.
5.
Benoit, W. L., Webber, D. J., & Berman, J. (1998). Effects of presidential debate watching and ideology on attitudes and knowledge. Argumentation and Advocacy, 34, 163-172.
6.
Berelson, B. R., Lazarsfeld, P. F., & McPhee, W. N. (1954). Voting: A study of opinion formation in a presidential campaign. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
7.
Biocca, F., Prabu, D., & West, M. (1994). Continuous response measurement (CRM): A computerized tool for research on the cognitive processing of communication messages. In A. Lang (Ed.), Measuring psychological responses to media messages (pp. 15-64). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
8.
Blood, D. J., & Phillips, P. C. B. (1995). Recession headline news, consumer sentiment, the state of the economy, and presidential popularity: A time series analysis, 1989-1993. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 7, 2-22.
9.
Budge, I., & Farlie, D. J. (1983). Explaining and predicting elections. London: Allen & Unwin.
10.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1979). Effects of message repetition and position on cognitive response, recall, and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 97-109.
11.
Carlin, D. B., Morris, E., & Smith, S. (2001). The influence of format and questions on candidates’ strategic argument choices in the 2000 presidential debates. American Behavioral Scientist, 44, 2196-2218.
12.
Chaffee, S. H. (1978). Presidential debates: Are they helpful to voters?Communication Monographs, 45, 330-346.
13.
Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
14.
Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper and Row.
15.
Drew, D., & Weaver, D. (1991). Voter learning in the 1988 presidential election: Did the debates and the media matter?Journalism Quarterly, 68, 27-37.
16.
Drew, D., & Weaver, D. (1998). Voter learning in the 1996 presidential election: Did the media matter?Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 75, 292-301.
17.
Eveland, W. P., Jr. (2001). The cognitive mediation model of learning from the news: Evidence from non-election, off-year election, and presidential election contexts. Communication Research, 28, 571-601.
18.
Eveland, W. P., Jr. (2002). News information processing as mediator between motivations and public affairs knowledge. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 79, 26-40.
19.
Eveland, W. P., Jr., & Scheufele, D. (2000). Connecting news media use with gaps in knowledge and participation. Political Communication, 17, 215-237.
20.
Eveland, W. P., Jr., Shah, D. V., & Kwak, N. (2003). Assessing causality in the cognitive mediation model. A panel study of motivations, information processing, and learning during campaign 2000. Communication Research, 30, 359-386.
21.
Faas, T., & Maier, J. (2004). Chancellor-candidates in the 2002 televised debates. German Politics, 13, 300-316.
22.
Gilbert, D. T., Tafarodi, R. W., & Malone, P. S. (1993). You can’t not believe everything you read. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 221-233.
23.
Graber, D. A. (1984). Processing the news. How people tame the information tide. New York: Longman.
24.
Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action. Boston: Beacon.
25.
Hallin, D. (1992). Sound bite news: Television coverage of elections, 1968-1988. Journal of Communication, 42, 5-24.
26.
Hart, R. T. (2000). Campaign talk: Why elections are good for us. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
27.
Hofstetter, C. R., Barker, D., Smith, J. T., Zari, G. M., & Ingrassia, T. A. (1999). Information, misinformation, and political talk radio. Political Research Quarterly, 52, 353-369.
28.
Holbert, R. L., Benoit, W. L., Hansen, G. J., & Wen, W.-C. (2002). The role of communication in the formation of an issue-based citizenry. Communication Monographs, 69, 296-310.
29.
Holbrook, T. M. (1999). Political learnings from presidential debates. Political Behavior, 21, 67-89.
30.
Holbrook, T. M. (2002). Presidential campaigns and the knowledge gap. Political Communication, 19, 437-454.
31.
Infratest-Dimap. (2002). ARD Deutschlandtrend September 2002 II. Retrieved September 24, 2002, from http://www.infratest-dimap.de
32.
Jamieson, K. H., & Adasiewicz, C. (2000). What can voters learn from election debates. In S. Coleman (Ed.), Televised election debates: International perspectives (pp. 25-42). New York: St. Martin’s.
33.
Joslyn, R. A. (1990). Election campaigns as occasions for civic education. In D. L. Swanson & D. Nimmo (Eds.), New directions in political communication (pp. 86-119). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
34.
Katz, E., & Feldman, J. J. (1962). The debates in the light of research: A survey of surveys. In S. Kraus (Ed.), The great debates. Background - perspectives - effects (pp. 173-223). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
35.
Kepplinger, H. M., & Daschmann, G. (1997). Today’s news, tomorrow’s context: A dynamic model of news processing. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 41, 548-565.
36.
Kepplinger, H. M., & Maurer, M. (2005). Abschied vom rationalen Waehler. Warum Wahlen im Fernsehen entschieden werden [Farewell to the rational voter. Why elections are decided on television]. Freiburg, Germany: Verlag Karl Alber.
37.
Kessler, G., & Allen, M. (2004, October 13). Attacks misleading and out of context. The Washington Post, p. A06-A06.
38.
Kiewiet, D. R. (1983). Macroeconomics and micropolitics: The electoral effects of economic issues. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
39.
Kuklinski, J. H., & Quirk, P. J. (2000). Reconsidering the rational public: Cognition, heuristics, and mass opinion. In A. Lupia, M. D. McCubbins, & S. L. Popkin (Eds.), Elements of reason. Cognition, choice, and the bounds of rationality (pp. 153-182). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
40.
Kuklinski, J. H., Quirk, P. J., Jerit, J., Schwieder, D., & Rich, R. F. (2000). Misinformation and the currency of democratic citizenship. Journal of Politics, 62, 790-816.
41.
Lemert, J. B. (1993). Do televised debates help inform voters?Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 37, 83-94.
42.
Leshner, G., & McKean, M. L. (1997). Using TV news for political information during an off-year election: Effects on political knowledge and cynicism. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 74, 69-83.
43.
Lipset, S. M. (1960). Political man. The social bases of politics. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
44.
Luhmann, N. (2000). The reality of the mass media. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
45.
Maurer, M., & Reinemann, C. (2003). Schroeder gegen Stoiber. Nutzung, Wahrnehmung und Wirkung der TV-Duelle [Schroeder vs. Stoiber. Uses, perceptions and effects of the televised debates]. Wiesbaden, Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag.
46.
McKinney, M. S., & Carlin, D. B. (2004). Political campaign debates. In L. L. Kaid (Ed.), Handbook of political communication research (pp. 203-234). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
47.
McLeod, D. M., & Perse, E. M. (1994). Direct and indirect effects of socioeconomic status on political affairs knowledge. Journalism Quarterly, 71, 433-442.
48.
Meffert, M. F., Chung, S., Joiner, A. J., Waks, L., & Garst, J. (2006). The effect of negativity and motivated information processing during a political campaign. Journal of Communication, 56, 27-51.
49.
Miller, A. H., & MacKuen, M. (1979). Informing the electorate: A national study. In S. Kraus (Ed.), The great debates: Carter vs. Ford, 1976 (pp. 269-297). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
50.
Morley, D. R., & Walker, K. B. (1987). The role of importance, novelty, and plausibility in producing belief change. Communication Monographs, 54, 436-442.
51.
Mutz, D. C. (1994). Contextualizing personal experience: The role of mass media. Journal of Politics, 56, 689-714.
52.
Neuman, R. W. (1986). The paradox of mass politics. Knowledge and opinion in the American electorate. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
53.
Noelle-Neumann, E. (1973). Return to the concept of powerful mass media. Studies of Broadcasting, 9, 67-112.
54.
O’Keefe, D. J. (1987). The persuasive effects of delaying identification of high- and low-credibility communicators: A meta-analytic review. Central States Speech Journal, 38, 63-72.
55.
Patterson, T. E. (1993). Out of order. New York: Knopf.
56.
Patzelt, W. J. (1999). Politikverdrossenheit, populäres Parlamentsverständnis und die Aufgaben der politischen Bildung [Political alienation, popular understanding of parliament, and the mission of political education]. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, B 7-8, 31-38.
57.
Pfau, M., Cho, J., & Chong, K. (2001). Communication forms in U.S. presidential campaigns. Influence on candidate perceptions and the democratic process. Harvard Journal of Press/Politics, 6, 88-105.
58.
Popkin, S. L. (1991). The reasoning voter: Communication and persuasion in presidential campaigns. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
59.
Reinemann, C., & Maurer, M. (2005). Unifying or polarizing? Short-term effects and postdebate consequences of different rhetorical strategies in televised debates. Journal of Communication, 55, 775-794.
60.
Robinson, J. P., & Levy, M. R. (1996). News media and the informed public: A 1990s update. Journal of Communication, 46, 129-135.
61.
Sears, D. O., & Chaffee, S. H. (1979). Uses and effects of the 1976 debates: An overview of empirical studies. In S. Kraus (Ed.), The great debates: Carter vs. Ford, 1976 (pp. 223-261). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
62.
Waldman, P., & Jamieson, K. H. (2003). Rhetorical convergence and issue knowledge in the 2000 presidential election. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 33, 145-163.
63.
Weaver, D., & Drew, D. (1995). Voter learning in the 1992 presidential election: Did the “non-traditional” media and debates matter?Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 72, 7-17.
64.
Weaver, D., & Drew, D. (2001). Voter learning and interest in the 2000 presidential election: Did the media matter?Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 78, 787-798.
65.
Zhu, J.-H., Milavsky, J. R., & Biswas, R. (1994). Do televised debates affect image perception more than issue knowledge?Human Communication Research, 20, 302-333.
