What leads citizens to change their candidate preferences during televised debates? The present paper addresses this question with real-time response and panel survey data from respondents recruited in the run-up to the 2017 German national election. Probing the importance of party identity and performance perceptions formed during the debate, the analysis more closely examines several core determinants than has previously been done with real-time response data. The findings suggest, first, that only a strong or very strong party identity is an effective barrier to candidate preference change. Second, beyond party identity, ratings of candidates’ issue-specific statements on policy issues show a very strong effect, albeit regardless of personal issue importance. Third, this influence of candidate ratings does not seem to be mediated through changes in valence perceptions. Rather, viewers seem to form a general impression of the candidates which cannot be reduced to performance perceptions regarding policy issues.
BachlM (2017) How attacks and defenses resonate with viewers’ political attitudes in televised debates: An empirical test of the resonance model of campaign effects. In: SchillDKirkRJaspersonAE (eds) Political Communication in Real Time: Theoretical and Applied Research Approaches. New York: Routledge, pp. 225–248.
2.
BennettWLIyengarS (2008) A new era of minimal effects? The changing foundations of political communication. Journal of Communication58(4): 707–731.
3.
BenoitWLHansenGJ (2004) Presidential debate watching, issue knowledge, character evaluation, and vote choice. Human Communication Research30(1): 121–144.
4.
BenoitWLHansenGJVerserRM (2003) A meta-analysis of the effects of viewing U.S. presidential debates. Communication Monographs70(4): 335–350.
5.
BlaisAPerrellaAML (2008) Systemic effects of televised candidates’ debates. The International Journal of Press/Politics13(4): 451–464.
6.
BoydstunAEGlazierRAPietrykaMT, et al. (2014) Real-time reactions to a 2012 presidential debate. Public Opinion Quarterly78(S1): 330–343.
7.
CampbellAConversePEMillerWE, et al. (1960) The American Voter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
8.
ChoJHaY (2012) On the communicative underpinnings of campaign effects: Presidential debates, citizen communication, and polarization in evaluations of candidates. Political Communication29(2): 184–204.
9.
FinkelSE (1993) Reexamining the “minimal effects” model in recent presidential campaigns. The Journal of Politics55(1): 1–21.
10.
FournierPBlaisANadeauR, et al. (2003) Issue importance and performance voting. Political Behavior25(1): 51–67.
11.
GoldbergACIschenC (2020) Be there or be square – the impact of participation and performance in the 2017 Dutch TV debates and its coverage on voting behaviour. Electoral Studies66: 102171.
12.
GreeneS (1999) Understanding party identification: a social identity approach. Political Psychology20(2): 393–403.
13.
HolbrookTM (1996) Do Campaigns Matter?Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
14.
HuddyLBankertA (2017) Political partisanship as a social identity. In: HuddyLBankertA (eds) Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.250.
15.
IyengarSSoodGLelkesY (2012) Affect, not ideology. Public Opinion Quarterly76(3): 405–431.
16.
JarmanJW (2005) Political affiliation and presidential debates: a real-time analysis of the effect of the arguments used in the presidential debates. American Behavioral Scientist49(2): 229–242.
17.
Knobloch-WesterwickSMothesCPolavinN (2017) Confirmation bias, ingroup bias, and negativity bias in selective exposure to political information. Communication Research47(1): 104–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650217719596.
18.
KrosnickJA (1988) The role of attitude importance in social evaluation: A study of policy preferences, presidential candidate evaluations, and voting behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology55(2): 196–210.
19.
KundaZ (1990) The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin108(3): 480–498.
20.
LanoueDJSchrottPR (1991) The Joint Press Conference: The History, Impact, and Prospects of American Presidential Debates. New York: Greenwood Press.
21.
LazarsfeldPFBerelsonBGaudetH (1969) The People's Choice: How the Voter Makes Up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign (3rd ed). New York: Columbia University of Press.
22.
LeeperTJRobisonJ (2020) More important, but for what exactly? The insignificant role of subjective issue importance in vote decisions. Political Behavior42(1): 239–259.
23.
MaierJFaasT (2003) The affected German voter: Televized debates, follow-up communication and candidate evaluations. Communications28: 4.
24.
MaierJFaasT (2011) Miniature campaigns’ in comparison: The German televised debates, 2002–09. German Politics20(1): 75–91.
25.
MaierJHampeJFJahnN (2016) Breaking out of the lab: Measuring real-time responses to televised political content in real-world settings. Public Opinion Quarterly80(2): 542–553.
26.
MaierJMaurerMReinemannC, et al. (2006) Reliability and validity of real-time response measurement: A comparison of two studies of a televised debate in Germany. International Journal of Public Opinion Research19(1): 53–73.
27.
MaierJRittbergerBFaasT (2016) Debating Europe: Effects of the “eurovision debate” on EU attitudes of young German voters and the moderating role played by political involvement. Politics and Governance4(1): 55.
28.
MarshM (2006) Party identification in Ireland: An insecure anchor for a floating party system. Electoral Studies25(3): 489–508.
29.
MaurerM (2016) Nonverbal influence during televised debates: Integrating CRM in experimental channel studies. American Behavioral Scientist60(14): 1799–1815.
30.
MaurerMReinemannC (2009) RTR measurement in the social sciences: Applications, benefits, and some open questions. In: Maier J, Maier M, Maurer M, et al. (eds). Real-time Response Measurement in the Social Sciences. Methodological Perspectives and Applications: Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 1–14.
31.
MckinneyMSCarlinDB (2004) Political campaign debates. In: KaidLL (ed.) Handbook of Political Communication Research. Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 203–234.
32.
McKinneyMSWarnerBR (2013) Do presidential debates matter? Examining a decade of campaign debate effects. Argumentation and Advocacy49(4): 238–258.
33.
McKinnonLMTedescoJCKaidLL (1993) The third 1992 presidential debate: Channel and commentary effects. Argumentation and Advocacy30(2): 106–118.
34.
MunroGDDittoPHLockhartLK, et al. (2002) Biased assimilation of sociopolitical arguments: Evaluating the 1996 U.S. presidential debate. Basic and Applied Social Psychology24(1): 15–26.
35.
NorpothHGschwendT (2010) The chancellor model: Forecasting German elections. International Journal of Forecasting26(1): 42–53.
36.
PattieCJohnstonR (2011) A tale of sound and fury, signifying something? The impact of the leaders’ debates in the 2010 UK general election. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties21(2): 147–177.
37.
RabinowitzGProthroJWJacobyW (1982) Salience as a factor in the impact of issues on candidate evaluation. The Journal of Politics44(1): 41–63.
38.
RedlawskDPCivettiniAJWEmmersonKM (2010) The affective tipping point: Do motivated reasoners ever “get it”?: The affective tipping point. Political Psychology31(4): 563–593.
39.
SchillDKirkR (2014) Courting the swing voter: “real time” insights into the 2008 and 2012 U.S. presidential debates. American Behavioral Scientist58(4): 536–555.
40.
SchrottPRLanoueDJ (2013) The power and limitations of televised presidential debates: Assessing the real impact of candidate performance on public opinion and vote choice. Electoral Studies32(4): 684–692.
41.
TaberCSLodgeMGlatharJ (2001) The motivated construction of political judgments. In: KuklinskiJH (ed.) Citizens and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 198–226. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511896941.010.
42.
WaldvogelTMetzT (2020) Measuring real-time response in real-life settings. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 32(4): 659–675. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edz050.
43.
WarnerBRCarlinDBWinfreyK, et al. (2011) Will the “real” candidates for president and vice president please stand up? 2008 pre- and post-debate viewer perceptions of candidate image. American Behavioral Scientist55(3): 232–252.
44.
WarnerBRMcKinneyMSBramlettJC, et al. (2019) Reconsidering partisanship as a constraint on the persuasive effects of debates. Communication Monographs87(2): 137–157.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
