Previous research on televised presidential debates tends to minimize their effectiveness as agents of mass attitude change, suggesting that they serve merely to reinforce existing preferences. Much of this work, though, stems from analyses of vote decisions during the closing stages of the general election campaign when preferences are anchored by 9 months of prior information. Using an experimental design that controls for debate viewership, we assess the impact of an early primary season debate—when voters possess limited information and potentially malleable political attitudes—on a broad range of political predispositions. The results demonstrate that debates possess the capacity to influence viewers' campaign engagement, issue appraisals, and candidate evaluations, suggesting that the impact of debates may be dramatically understated.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bartels, L. M.
(1988). Presidential primaries and the dynamics of public choice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
2.
Berke, R. L.
(1995, October 12). G.O.P. candidates try to raise voices above Dole's in TV debate. New York Times, p. A16.
3.
Birdsell, D.
(1994). What should debates be? Standards of public discourse. In A. H. Miller & B. E. Gronbeck (Eds.), Presidential campaigns and American self-images (pp. 118-137). Boulder, CO: Westview.
4.
Block, J.
(1965). The challenge of response sets. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
5.
Campbell, D. T.
, & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally.
6.
Drew, E.
(1985). Campaign journal: The political events of 1983-1984. New York: Macmillan.
7.
Geer, J. G.
(1988). The effects of presidential debates on the electorate's preferences for candidates. American Politics Quarterly, 16, 486-501.
8.
Germond, J.
(1981). Blue smoke and mirrors: How Reagan won, and why Carter lost the election of 1980. New York: Viking.
9.
Gillespie, M. W.
(1977). Log-linear techniques and the regression analysis of dummy dependent variables. Sociological Methods and Research, 6, 103-122.
10.
Goldman, P. L.
, & Mathews, T. (1989). The quest for the presidency, 1988. New York: Simon & Schuster.
11.
Hellweg, S. A.
, Pfau, M., & Brydon, S. R. (1992). Televised presidential debates: Advocacy in contemporary America. New York: Praeger.
12.
Holbrook, T. M.
(1994). The behavioral consequences of vice-presidential debates: Does the undercard have any punch. American Politics Quarterly, 22, 469-482.
13.
Jamieson, K. H.
, & Birdsell, D. S. (1988). Presidential debates: The challenge of creating an informed electorate. New York: Oxford University Press.
14.
Just, M. R.
, Crigler, A. N., Alger, D. E., Cook, T. E., Kern, M., & West, D. M. (1996). Crosstalk: Citizens, candidates and the media in a presidential campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
15.
Kraus, S.
(Ed.). (1962). The great debates: Background, perspective, effects. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
16.
Kraus, S.
(Ed.). (1979). The great debates: Carter vs. Ford, 1976. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
17.
Lanoue, D. J.
(1991). The turning point: Viewers' reactions to the second 1988 presidential debate. American Politics Quarterly, 19, 80-95.
18.
Lanoue, D. J.
(1992). One that made a difference: Cognitive consistency, political knowledge, and the 1980 presidential debate. Public Opinion Quarterly, 56, 168-184.
19.
Lanoue, D. J.
, & Schrott, P. R. (1989). The effects of primary season debates on public opinion. Political Behavior, 11, 289-306.
20.
McGraw, K. M.
, & Hoekstra, V. (1994). Experimentation in political science: Historical trends and future directions. In M. X. Delli Carpini, L. Huddy, & R. Y. Shapiro (Eds.), Research in micropolitics volume 4: New directions in political psychology (pp. 3-29). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
21.
McGuire, W. J.
(1985). Attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (3rd ed. pp. 233-346). New York: Random House.
22.
Patterson
. (1993). Out of order. New York: Vintage Books.
23.
Petty, R.
, & Cacioppo, J. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches. Dubuque, IA: Brown.
24.
Sears, D. O.
(1986). College sophomores in the laboratory: Influence of a narrow data base on social psychology's view of human nature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 515-530.
25.
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.
26.
Semetko, H. A.
, Blumler, J. G., Gurevitch, M., & Weaver, D. H. (1991). The formation of campaign agendas. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
27.
Yawn, M.
, Ellsworth, K., Beatty, B., & Kahn, K. F. (1998). How a presidential primary debate changed attitudes of audience members. Political Behavior, 20, 155-181.
