This article examines the impact of watching political debates with others—whether the others are personally present or linked via social media. Co-viewing theory suggests that watching television with others, in comparison to solo viewing, increases viewing enjoyment and duration. Research about watching political debates suggests that the experience may make viewers feel emotionally negative and insecure, especially when their favored candidate is attacked. Debate viewers may also relish “being part of” an event of national importance. These possibilities suggest that engaging in social watching behaviors, whether face-to-face and/or via social media, will amplify the positive experiences of debate viewing potentially by providing opinion-confirmatory information. In turn, this may increase the likelihood of watching more debates and sticking with each debate longer. These predictions are strongly supported with a sample of American newspaper subscribers, whose political reporters had participated in a paper-sponsored debate-watch/tweet program.
AnsonJ. M.PyszczynskiT.SolomonS.GreenbergJ. (2009). Political ideology in the 21st century: A terror management perspective on maintenance and change of the status quo. In JostJ. T.KayA. C.ThorisdottirH. (Eds.), Social and psychological bases of ideology and system justification (pp. 210–240). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
2.
BenoitW. L.HansenG. L. (2003). Presidential debate watching, issue knowledge, character evaluation, and vote choice. Human Communication Research, 30, 121–144. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2004.tb00727.x
3.
BoydD.EllisonN. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 210–230. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x
4.
CarlinD. B.McKinneyM. S. (1994). The 1992 presidential debates in focus. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
5.
ChaffeeS. H.DennisJ. (1979). Presidential debates: An empirical assessment. In RanneyA. (Ed.), The past and future of presidential debates (pp. 75–101). Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.
6.
ChoJ.HaY. (2012). On the communicative underpinnings of campaign effects: Presidential debates, citizen communication, and polarization in evaluations of candidates. Political Communication, 29, 184–204. doi:10.1080/10584609.2012.671233
7.
CsikszentmihalyiM.KubeyR. (1981). Television and the rest of life: A systematic comparison of subjective experience. Public Opinion Quarterly, 45, 317–328. doi:10.1086/268667
8.
EvelandW. P. (2004). The effect of political discussion in producing informed citizens: The roles of information, motivation, and elaboration. Political Communication, 21, 177–193. doi:10.1080/10584600490443877
9.
EvelandW. P.HivelyM. H. (2009). Political discussion frequency, network size, and “heterogeneity” of discussion as predictors of political knowledge and participation. Journal of Communication, 59, 205–224. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01412.x
FooteN. (2004, 1130). Television: Watch with mother and everyone else. Financial Times, FT Creative Business, p. 4.
13.
HaridakisP.HansonG. (2009). Social interaction and co-viewing with YouTube: Blending mass communication reception and social connection. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 53, 317–335. doi:10.1080/08838150902908270
14.
HimelboimI.McCreeryS.SmithM. (2013). Birds of a feather tweet together: Integrating network and content analyses to examine cross-ideology exposure on Twitter. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18, 154–174. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12001
15.
HockingJ. E. (1982). Sports and spectators: Intra-audience effects. Journal of Communication, 32, 100–108.
16.
KenskiK.JamiesonK. H. (2011). Presidential and vice presidential debates in 2008: A profile of audience composition. American Behavioral Scientist, 55, 307–324. doi:10.1177/0002764210392166
17.
KenskiK.StroudN. J. (2005). Who watches presidential debates? A comparative analysis of presidential debate viewing in 2000 and 2004. American Behavioral Scientist, 49, 213–228. doi:10.1177/0002764205279423
18.
KubeyR. W.CsikszentmihalyiM. (1990). Television and the quality of life: How viewing shapes everyday experience. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
19.
LeeM. S.HeeterC.LaRoseR. (2010). A modern Cinderella story: A comparison of viewer responses to interactive vs linear narrative in solitary and co-viewing settings. New Media and Society, 12, 779–795. doi:10.1177/1461444809348771
20.
LeeB.LeeR. S. (1995). How and why people watch TV: Implications for the future of interactive television. Journal of Advertising Research, 35, 9–18.
21.
LemertJ. B. (1993). Do televised presidential debates help inform voters?Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 37, 83–94. doi:10.1080/08838159309364205
22.
LipsetS. M.RokkanS. (1967). Cleavage structures, party systems, and voter alignments: An introduction. In LipsetS. M.RokkanS. (Eds.), Party systems and voter alignments: Cross-national perspectives (pp. 23–56). New York, NY: Free Press.
23.
LullK. (1980). The social uses of television. Human Communication Research, 6, 197–209. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1980.tb00140.x
24.
McKinneyM. S.RillL. A.GullyD. (2011). Civic engagement through presidential debates: Young citizens’ attitudes of political engagement throughout the 2008 election. In McKinneyM. S.BanwartM. C. (Eds.), Communication in the 2008 U.S. election: Digital natives elect a president (pp. 1–9). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
25.
McKinneyM. S.WarnerB. R. (2013). Do presidential debates matter? Examining a decade of campaign debate effects. Argumentation and Advocacy, 49, 238–258.
26.
McLeodJ. M.BybeeC. R.DurallJ. A. (1979). Equivalence of informed political participation the 1976 presidential debates as a source of influence. Communication Research, 6, 463–487. doi:10.1177/009365027900600404
27.
MoraJ.-D.HoJ.KriderR. (2011). Television co-viewing in Mexico: An assessment on people meter data. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 55, 448–469. doi:10.1080/08838151.2011.620905
28.
PattersonT. E. (2002). The vanishing voter: Public involvement in an age of uncertainty. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
SchmittK. L.WoolfK. D.AndersonD. R. (2003). Viewing the viewers: Viewing behaviors by children and adults during television programs and commercials. Journal of Communication, 53, 265–281.
33.
SchulteB. (2009). The distribution revolution: How news organizations are intensifying their use of social networking venues like Twitter and Facebook to circulate their stories and connect with their communities. American Journalism Review, 31, 22. Retrieved fromhttp://ajrarchive.org/Article.asp?id=4844
34.
ShammaD. A.KennedyL.ChurchillE. F. (2009). Tweet the debates: Understanding community annotation of uncollected sources. In Proceedings of the first SIGMM workshop on Social media (pp. 3–10). New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/1631144.1631148
