The 1992 presidential campaign, especially its presidential debates, produced cognitive, affective, and emotive effects which the Cognigraphics research method was able to distinguish. George Bush's campaign decline was dramatically etched in respondent cognitions. Bill Clinton survived early emotion and continuing affective disadvantage to win the election on what seemed clearly cognitive grounds—the country's need for a change by someone seen as capable of changing things. Ross Perot was strongly criticized for dropping out of the race, but his debate performance turned around his affective picture, even though respondents seemed unconvinced that he was capable of making the needed changes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Carter, R. F.
(1962). Some effects of the debates. In S. Kraus (Ed.), The great debates: Background, perspective, effects pp. 253-270. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
2.
Carter, R. F. (1991). Ideational mechanics. Unpublished manuscript, University of Washington.
3.
Carter, R. F.
(1992, May). Cognigraphics: Taking the measure of ideas. Paper presented to American Association for Public Opinion Research, St. Petersburg, FL.
4.
Carter, R. F.
, & Stamm, K. R. (1993). How we thought about the Gulf War. In B. S. Greenberg & W. Gantz (Eds.), Desert Storm and the mass media. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
5.
Carter, R. F.
, Stamm, K. R., & Heintz-Knowles, K. (1993). Agenda-setting and consequentiality. Journalism Quarterly, 69, 868-877.
6.
Chaffee, S. H.
(1978). Presidential debates—Are they helpful to voters? Communication Monographs, 45, 330-346.
7.
Chaffee, S. H.
, & Hochheimer, J. L. (1985). The beginnings of political communication research in the United States: Origins of the “limited effects model.” In M. Gurevitch & M. R. Levy (Eds.), Mass communication review yearbook (Vol. 5, pp. 75-104). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
8.
Cramer, P.
(1968). Word association. New York: Academic Press.
9.
Deese, J.
(1962). On the structure of associative meaning. Psychological Review, 69, 161-175.
10.
Green, B. F.
(1954). Attitude measurement. In G. Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 335-369). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
11.
Jamieson, K. H.
, & Birdsell, D. S. (1991). Presidential debates: The challenge of creating an informed electorate. New York: Oxford University Press.
12.
Jung, C. G.
(1918). Studies in word-association. London: Heinemann.
13.
Katz, D.
(1960). The functional approach to the study of attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 24, 163-205.
14.
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, perspective, effects pp. 173-223. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
15.
Kent, G. H.
, & Rosanoff, A. J. (1910). A study of association in insanity. American Journal of Insanity, 67, 37-96.
16.
Kinder, D. R.
(1986). Presidential character revisited. In R. R. Lau & D. O. Sears (Eds.), Political cognition: The 19th annual Carnegie symposium on cognition (pp. 233-256). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17.
Kraus, S.
(Ed.). (1962). The great debates: Background, perspective, effects. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
18.
Lang, K.
, & Lang, G. E. (1962). Reactions of viewers. In S. Kraus (Ed.), The great debates: Background, perspective, effects (pp. 313-330). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
19.
Lau, R. R.
, & Sears, D. O. (1986). Social cognition and political cognition: The past, the present, and the future. In R. R. Lau & D. O. Sears (Eds.), Political cognition: The 19th annual Carnegie symposium on cognition (pp. 347-366). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
20.
Lemert, J. B.
(1993). Do televised presidential debates help inform voters? Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 37, 83-94.
21.
Mednick, S. A.
(1962). The associational basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69, 220-232.
22.
Osgood, C. E.
(1953). Method and theory in experimental psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.
23.
Rogers, E. M.
, & Dearing, J. W. (1988). Agenda-setting research: Where has it been, where is it going? In J. Anderson (Ed.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 11, pp. 554-594). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
24.
Rosenberg, S. W.
, Ward, D., & Chilton, S. (1989). Political reasoning and cognition: A Piagetian view. London, NC: Duke University Press.
25.
Stamm, K. R.
(1989, August). Effects of the 1988 debates on candidate characterization. Paper presented to Association for Education in Journalism & Mass Communication, Portland, OR.
26.
Swanson, D. L.
(1981). A constructivist approach to political communication. In D. Nimmo & K. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of political communication (pp. 169-194). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
27.
Tesser, A.
(1979). Self-generated attitude change. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 289-338). New York: Academic Press.
