Leading up to the 2004 presidential debates, there was considerable discussion about the mode of presentation on television, that is, debate coverage with simultaneous reaction shots of the opponent while a candidate was speaking or coverage with isolated shorts of each candidate only. In fact, many commentators argued that split-screen coverage of Bush's reactions to Kerry's statements hurt the president during the first debate. This study analyzes the impact of split-versus single-screen debate coverage in the 2004 campaign using a large-scale experimental design with about 700 participants, conducted at a large midwestern university. Consistent with explanatory models from political science and social psychology, findings show that split-screen coverage led Bush supporters to become more extreme in their positive and negative judgments about Bush and Kerry, respectively. Kerry supporters however, had strong views about Bush from the beginning and changed little based on the mode of coverage.
Abelson, R. P. (1986). Beliefs are like possessions. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 16, 223-250.
2.
Anderson, N., & Collins, S. (2004, October 2). The race for the White House: Split screen wasn't kind to Bush. Los Angeles Times, p. 18-18.
3.
Benoit, W. L., & Hansen, G. L. (2004). Presidential debate watching, issue knowledge, character evaluation, and vote choice. Human Communication Research, 30(1), 121-144.
4.
Benoit, W. L., McKinney, M. S., & Holbert, R. L. (2001). Beyond learning and persona: Extending the scope of presidential debate effects, Communication Monographs, 68(3), 259-273.
5.
Berelson, B., Lazarsfeld, P. F., & McPhee, W. N. (1954). Voting: A study of opinion formation in a presidential campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
6.
Bradac, J. J. (1983). On generalizing cabbages, messages, kings, and several other things: The virtues of multiplicity. Human Communication Research, 9, 181-186.
7.
Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. New York: John Wiley.
8.
Chaffee, S. (1978). Presidential debates: Are they helpful to voters?Communication Monographs, 45, 330-346.
9.
Davis, S. (1999). The effects of audience reaction shots on attitudes toward controversial issues. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 43(4), 476-491.
10.
Druckman, J. M. (2003). The power of television images: The first Kennedy-Nixon debate revisited. Journal of Politics, 65(2), 559-571.
11.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
12.
Hastie, R., & Park, B. (1986). The relationship between memory and judgment depends on whether the task is memory-based or on-line. Psychological Review, 93, 258-268.
13.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: John Wiley.
14.
Hellweg, S. A., Pfau, M., & Brydon, S. R. (1992). Televised presidential debates. New York: Praeger.
15.
Hodges, S. D., & Wilson, T. D. (1993). Effects of analyzing reasons on attitude change: The moderating role of attitude accessibility. Social Cognition, 11, 353-366.
16.
Houston, D. A., & Fazio, R. H. (1989). Biased processing as a function of attitude accessibility: Making objective judgments subjectively. Social Cognition, 7, 51-66.
17.
Hovland, C. I. (1959). Reconciling conflicting results derived from experimental and survey studies of attitude change. American Psychologist, 14, 8-17.
18.
Iyengar, S. (1990). The accessibility bias in politics: Television news and public opinion. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 2, 1-15.
19.
Iyengar, S., & Kinder, D. R. (1987). News that matters. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
20.
Jervis, R. (1993). The drunkard's search. In S. Iyengar & W. J. McGuire (Eds.), Explorations in political psychology (pp. 338-360). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
21.
Jurkowitz, M. (2004, September 30). TV says it won't stick to debate restrictions: Networks say they determine camera angles. Boston Globe, p. A23-A23.
22.
Keeter, S. (1987). The illusion of intimacy. Public Opinion Quarterly, 51(3), 344-358.
23.
Keppel, G. (1991). Design and analysis: A researcher's handbook. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
24.
Kepplinger, H. M., & Donsbach, W. (1987). The influence of camera perspective on the perception of a politician by supporters, opponents and neutral viewers. In D. L. Paletz (Ed.), Political communication research: Approaches, studies, assessments (pp. 62-72). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
25.
Kirk, R. E. (1995). Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral science. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
26.
Krosnick, J. A. (1990). Lessons learned: A review and integration of our findings. Social Cognition,8, 154-158.
27.
Krosnick, J. A., & Milburn, M. A. (1990). Psychological determinants of political opinionation. Social Cognition, 8, 49-72.
28.
Lang, K., & Lang, G. E. (1962). Reactions of viewers. In S. Kraus (Ed.), Great debates: Backgrounds, perspective, and effects (pp. 313-330). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
29.
Lanoue, D. J. (1992). One that made a difference: Cognitive consistency, political knowledge, and the 1980 presidential debate. Public Opinion Quarterly, 56, 168-184.
30.
Lemert, J. B. (1993). Do televised presidential debates help inform voters. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 37(1), 83-94.
31.
Lemert, J. B., Elliott, W. R., Bernstein, J. M., Rosenberg, W. L., & Nestvold, K. J. (1991). News, verdicts, the debates, and presidential campaigns. New York: Praeger.
32.
Leshner, G. (2006). A plea for message sampling. CT & M Concepts, 35(3), 2-2 & 12-12.
33.
Messaris, P. (1994). Visual literacy: Image, mind and reality. Boulder, CO: Westview.
34.
Messaris, P. (1997). Visual persuasion: The roles of images in advertising. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
35.
Milbank, D. (2004, October 2). Reaction shots may tell tale of debate: Bush's scowls compared to Gore's sighs. The Washington Post, p. A10-A10.
36.
Miller, A. H., & MacKuen, M. (1979). Learning about candidates: The 1976 presidential debates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 43, 326-346.
37.
Mondak, J. J. (1995). Competence, integrity, and the electoral success of congressional incumbents. Journal of Politics, 57(4), 1043-1069.
38.
Mutz, D. C., & Holbrook, R. A. (2003, April). Televised political conflict: Nemesis or necessity? Paper presented at the annual convention of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.
39.
Mutz, D. C., & Reeves, B. (2005). The new videomalaise: Effects of televised incivility on political trust. American Political Science Review, 99(1), 1-15.
40.
Newcomb, T. M. (1953). An approach to the study of communication acts. Psychological Review, 60, 393-404.
41.
Osgood, C. E., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1955). The principle of congruity in the prediction of attitude change. Psychological Review, 62, 42-55.
42.
Perloff, R. M. (1998). Political communication: Politics, press, and public in America. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
43.
Price, V., & Tewksbury, D. (1997). News values and public opinion: A theoretical account of media priming and framing. In G. A. Barett & F. J. Boster (Eds.), Progress in communication sciences: Advances in persuasion (Vol. 13, pp. 173-213). Greenwich, CT: Ablex.
44.
Reeves, B., & Geiger, S. (1994). Designing experiments that assess psychological responses to media messages. In A. Lang (Ed.), Measuring psychological responses to media (pp. 165-180). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
45.
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.
46.
Sears, D. O., Freedman, J. L., & O'Connor, E. F., Jr. (1964). The effects of anticipated debate and commitment on the polarization of audience opinion. Public Opinion Quarterly, 28, 615-627.
47.
Seiter, J. S. (1999). Split-screen versus single-screen formats in televised debates: Dose access to an opponent's nonverbal behaviors affect viewers' perceptions of a speaker's credibility?Perceptual and Motor Skills, 96(2), 491-497.
48.
Seiter, J. S., Abraham, J. A., & Nakagama, B. T. (1998). Split-screen versus single-screen formats in televised debates: Does access to an opponent's nonverbal behaviors affect viewer's perception of a speaker's credibility?Perceptual and Motor Skills, 86, 491-497.
49.
Sherif, M., & Sherif, C. W. (1967). Attitudes as the individual's own categories: The social-judgment approach to attitude and attitude change. In C. W. Sherif & M. Sherif (Eds.), Attitude, ego-involvement and change (pp. 105-139). New York: John Wiley.
50.
Tannenbaum, P. H. (1968). The congruity principle: Retrospective reflections and recent research. In R. P. Abelson, E. Aronson, W. J. McGuire, T. M. Newcomb, M. J. Rosenberg, & P. H. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Cognitive consistency theories: A sourcebook (pp. 52-72). Chicago: Rand McNally.
51.
Tannenbaum, P. H., Greenberg, B. S., & Silverman, F. R. (1962). Candidate images. In S. Kraus (Ed.), Great debates: Backgrounds, perspective, and effects (pp. 271-288). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
52.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207-232.
53.
Zaller, J. (1990). Political awareness, elite opinion leadership and mass survey response. Social Cognition, 8, 125-133.
54.
Zaller, J. R. (1992). The nature and origin of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.
55.
Zhu, J. H., Milavsky, J. R., & Biswas, R. (1994). Do televised debate affect image perception more than issue knowledge? A study of the first 1992 presidential debate. Human Communication Research, 20(3), 302-333.
