Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Tracking moral divergence with DDR in presidential debates over 60 years

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Journal of Computational Social Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Televised presidential debates, a communication form specifically designed to evoke meaningful clash of issue viewpoints, have been criticized for the lack of real clash and issue discussion for decades. Have the debaters made any improvement? This study investigates the evolution of this perennial paradox through the lens of mediatization using an instrument grounded in Moral Foundation Theory. As an outcome of mediatization, politicians have been seeking publicity to achieve authority through media, and therefore they have prioritized self-image building over issue discussion in their social actions. This study quantitatively describes this mediatization process by examining the moral divergence between each pair of presidential debaters with moral loading, an indicator for quantifying moral foundations via DDR, a computational method based on distributed representation. Our results reflect the mediatization process in politics, showing that Democrat and Republican candidates have been increasingly focusing on different moral judgments, and therefore their moral divergence has widened. This study sheds light on the development of ways to encourage more effective political communication by discovering mediatization as a potential determinant of a major challenge faced by televised presidential debates. Accordingly, it provides quantitative empirical evidence for mediatization theory. Moreover, it shows the potential of the distributed representation method, a milestone of machine learning, in future communication explorations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability statement

The research data associated with this paper are available upon request.

References

  1. Altheide, D. L., & Snow, R. P. (1979). Media logic. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Altheide, D. L., & Snow, R. P. (1988). Toward a theory of mediation. Annals of the International Communication Association, 11(1), 194–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Altheide, D. L., & Snow, R. P. (1991). Media worlds in the postjournalism era. Aldine de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Araque, O., Gatti, L., & Kalimeri, K. (2020). MoralStrength: Exploiting a moral lexicon and embedding similarity for moral foundations prediction. Knowledge-Based Systems, 191, 105184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bastien, F. (2020). Using parallel content analysis to measure mediatization of politics: The televised leaders’ debates in Canada, 1968–2008. Journalism, 21(11), 1743–1761. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884917751962.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2014). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. arXiv preprint. arXiv:1406.5823.

  7. Beck, C. S. (1996). “I’ve got some points I’d like to make here”: The achievement of social face through turn management during the 1992 vice presidential debate. Political Communication, 13(2), 165–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Benoit, W. L., & Wells, W. T. (1996). Candidates in conflict: Persuasive attack and defense in the 1992 presidential debates. University of Alabama Press.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bilmes, J. (1999). Questions, answers, and the organization of talk in the 1992 vice presidential debate: Fundamental considerations. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 32(3), 213–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Blumler, J. G. (2014). Mediatization and democracy. In F. Esser & J. Stromback (Eds.), Mediatization of politics (pp. 31–41). Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Blumler, J. G., & Kavanagh, D. (1999). The third age of political communication: Influences and features. Political Communication, 16(3), 209–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Brants, K., & Voltmer, K. (2011). Political communication in postmodern democracy: Challenging the primacy of politics. Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  13. Carlin, D. B., Morris, E., & Smith, S. (2001). The influence of format and questions on candidates’ strategic argument choices in the 2000 presidential debates. American Behavioral Scientist, 44(12), 2196–2218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Carlin, D. P. (1989). A defense of the “debate” in presidential debates. The Journal of the American Forensic Association, 25(4), 208–213.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Carlin, D. P. (1992). Presidential debates as focal points for campaign arguments. Political Communication, 9(4), 251–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Clifford, S., & Jerit, J. (2013). How words do the work of politics: Moral foundations theory and the debate over stem cell research. The Journal of Politics, 75(3), 659–671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. D’Angelo, P., Büchel, F., & Esser, F. (2014). Mediatization of campaign coverage: Metacoverage of US elections. In F. Esser & J. Stromback (Eds.), Mediatization of politics (pp. 156–180). Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Dayan, D., & Katz, E. (1992). Media events. Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  19. Ekström, M., Fornäs, J., Jansson, A., & Jerslev, A. (2016). Three tasks for mediatization research: Contributions to an open agenda. Media, Culture & Society, 38(7), 1090–1108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Esser, F. (2013). Mediatization as a challenge: Media logic versus political logic. In H. Kriesi, S. Lavenex, F. Esser, J. Matthes, M. Bühlmann, & D. Bochsler (Eds.), Democracy in the age of globalization and mediatization (pp. 155–176). Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Esser, F., & Strömbäck, J. (2014). A paradigm in the making: Lessons for the future of mediatization research. In F. Esser & J. Stromback (Eds.), Mediatization of Politics (pp. 223–242). Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Fernandes, D. (2020). Politics at the mall: The moral foundations of boycotts. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 39(4), 494–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Garten, J., Hoover, J., Johnson, K. M., Boghrati, R., Iskiwitch, C., & Dehghani, M. (2018). Dictionaries and distributions: Combining expert knowledge and large scale textual data content analysis. Behavior Research Methods, 50(1), 344–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Graham, J., Haidt, J., Koleva, S., Motyl, M., Iyer, R., Wojcik, S. P., et al. (2013). Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. Advances in experimental social psychology, 47, 55–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 1029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., & Ditto, P. H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion (1st ed.). Pantheon Books.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Haidt, J., & Graham, J. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20(1), 98–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Haidt, J., & Joseph, C. (2004). Intuitive ethics: How innately prepared intuitions generate culturally variable virtues. Daedalus, 133(4), 55–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Haidt, J., & Joseph, C. (2007). The moral mind: How five sets of innate intuitions guide the development of many culture-specific virtues, and perhaps even modules. In P. Carruthers, S. Laurence, & S. Stich (Eds.), The innate mind (Vol. 3, pp. 367–391). New York: Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Hjarvard, S. (2013). The mediatization of culture and society. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  33. Hoover, J., Johnson, K., Boghrati, R., Graham, J., & Dehghani, M. (2018). Moral framing and charitable donation: Integrating exploratory social media analyses and confirmatory experimentation. Collabra. Psychology, 4(1), https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.129.

  34. Hoover, J., Portillo-Wightman, G., Yeh, L., Havaldar, S., Davani, A. M., Lin, Y., et al. (2020). Moral Foundations Twitter Corpus: A collection of 35k tweets annotated for moral sentiment. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(8), 1057–1071.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Jamieson, K. H., & Birdsell, D. S. (1990). Presidential debates: The challenge of creating an informed electorate. Oxford University Press on Demand.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Kepplinger, H. M. (2002). Mediatization of politics: Theory and data. Journal of Communication, 52(4), 972–986.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Koleva, S. P., Graham, J., Iyer, R., Ditto, P. H., & Haidt, J. (2012). Tracing the threads: How five moral concerns (especially Purity) help explain culture war attitudes. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(2), 184–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Kraft, P. W. (2018). Measuring morality in political attitude expression. The Journal of Politics, 80(3), 1028–1033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kriesi, H. (2013). Conclusion: An assessment of the state of democracy given the challenges of globalization and mediatization. In H. Kriesi, S. Lavenex, F. Esser, J. Matthes, M. Buhlmann, & D. Bochsler (Eds.), Democracy in the Age of Globalization and Mediatization (pp. 202–215). Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  40. Kristensen, N. N. (2000). Journalistik som profession. In F. Henriksen (Ed.), Om journalistens rolleplacering i et professionssociologisk perspektiv. [Journalism as profession] (pp. 159–184). Sekvens.

  41. Lewis, P. G. (2019). Moral foundations in the 2015–16 US Presidential primary debates: The positive and negative moral vocabulary of partisan elites. Social Sciences, 8(8), 233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Lowry, D. T., Bridges, J. A., & Barefield, P. A. (1990). Effects of TV “Instant Analysis and Querulous Criticism:” following the first Bush–Dukakis debate. Journalism Quarterly, 67(4), 814–825.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Marcinkowski, F., & Steiner, A. (2014). Mediatization and political autonomy: A systems approach. In F. Esser & J. Stromback (Eds.), Mediatization of Politics (pp. 74–89). Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  44. Matsuo, A., Sasahara, K., Taguchi, Y., & Karasawa, M. (2019). Development and validation of the Japanese moral foundations dictionary. PLoS One, 14(3), e0213343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Mazzoleni, G. (2008). Mediatization of politics. In W. Donsbach (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of communication (Vol. 7, pp. 3047-3051). Malden, MA: Wiley/Blackwell.

  46. Mazzoleni, G. (2014). Mediatization and political populism. In F. Esser & J. Stromback (Eds.), Mediatization of politics (pp. 42–56): Palgrave Macmillan.

  47. Mazzoleni, G., & Schulz, W. (1999). “Mediatization” of politics: A challenge for democracy? Political Communication, 16(3), 247–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. McKinney, M. S., & Carlin, D. B. (2004). Political campaign debates. In L. L. Kaid (Ed.), Handbook of political communication research (pp. 203–234). New York: Routledge.

  49. McKinney, M. S., Dudash, E. A., & Hodgkinson, G. (2003). Viewer reactions to the 2000 presidential debates. In L. L. Kaid, J. C. Tedesco, D. G. Bystrom, & M. S. McKinney (Eds.), The millennium election: Communication in the 2000 campaign (pp. 43–58): Rowman & Littlefield.

  50. McKinnon, L. M., & Tedesco, J. C. (1999). The influence of medium and media commentary on presidential debate effects. In L. L. Kaid (Ed.), The electronic election: Perspectives on the 1996 campaign (pp. 191–206): Erlbaum.

  51. McKinnon, L. M., Tedesco, J. C., & Kaid, L. L. (1993). The third 1992 presidential debate: Channel and commentary effects. Argumentation and Advocacy, 30(2), 106–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Mikolov, T., Sutskever, I., Chen, K., Corrado, G. S., & Dean, J. (2013). Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. In Paper presented at Neural Information Processing Systems.

  53. Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84(3), 231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Sagi, E., & Dehghani, M. (2014). Measuring moral rhetoric in text. Social Science Computer Review, 32(2), 132–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Steeper, F. T. (1978). Public response to Gerald Ford's statements on Eastern Europe in the second debate. In G. F. Bishop, R. G. Meadow, & M. Jackson-Beeck (Eds.), The presidential debates: Media, electoral, and policy perspectives (pp. 81–101). New York, NY: Praeger.

  56. Strömbäck, J. (2008). Four phases of mediatization: An analysis of the mediatization of politics. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 13(3), 228–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Strömbäck, J., & Esser, F. (2014). Mediatization of politics: Towards a theoretical framework. In F. Esser & J. Stromback (Eds.), Mediatization of politics (pp. 3–28): Palgrave Macmillan.

  58. Strömbäck, J., Esser, F., & Lundby, K. (2009). Shaping politics: Mediatization and media interventionism. In K. Lundby (Ed.), Mediatization: Concept, Chages, Consequences. New York: Peter Lang.

  59. Van Aelst, P., Thesen, G., Walgrave, S., & Vliegenthart, R. (2014). Mediatization and political agenda-setting: changing issue priorities? In F. Esser & J. Stromback (Eds.), Mediatization of politics (pp. 200-220): Palgrave Macmillan.

  60. Weber, C. R., & Federico, C. M. (2013). Moral foundations and heterogeneity in ideological preferences. Political Psychology, 34(1), 107–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Wheatley, T., & Haidt, J. (2005). Hypnotic disgust makes moral judgments more severe. Psychological Science, 16(10), 780–784.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Missouri School of Journalism, 246 Williams Hall, Columbia, Missouri, 65211, USA

    Mengyao Xu & Glen T. Cameron

  2. Department of Business Administration, Williams School of Commerce, Economics, and Politics, Washington and Lee University, Lexington, Virginia, 24450, USA

    Lingshu Hu

Authors
  1. Mengyao Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lingshu Hu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Glen T. Cameron
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mengyao Xu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

We do not have any interests that might be interpreted as influencing the research, and APA ethical standards were adhered to in the research process.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Multilevel regression of moral dimensions and partisanship on moral loadings

Variables

b

se

95% CI

Intercept

0.438

0.003

[0.432, 0.443]

Party (R)

− 0.014

0.003

[− 0.02, − 0.008]

Moral (betrayal)

− 0.112

0.003

[− 0.117, − 0.106]

Moral (care)

0.027

0.003

[0.021, 0.033]

Moral (cheating)

− 0.083

0.003

[− 0.089, − 0.078]

Moral (degradation)

− 0.113

0.003

[− 0.118, − 0.107]

Moral (fairness)

− 0.012

0.003

[− 0.018, − 0.007]

Moral (harm)

0.009

0.003

[0.003, 0.015]

Moral(loyalty)

− 0.014

0.003

[− 0.019, − 0.008]

Moral (sanctity)

− 0.117

0.003

[− 0.122, − 0.111]

Moral (subversion)

− 0.091

0.003

[− 0.097, − 0.085]

Party (R) × moral (betrayal)

0.014

0.004

[0.006, 0.022]

Party (R) × moral (care)

0.001

0.004

[− 0.007, 0.009]

Party (R) × moral (cheating)

0.009

0.004

[0.001, 0.017]

Party (R) × moral (degradation)

0.021

0.004

[0.013, 0.029]

Party (R) × moral (fairness)

0.001

0.004

[− 0.007, 0.009]

Party (R) × moral (harm)

0.009

0.004

[0.001, 0.018]

Party (R) × moral (loyalty)

− 0.002

0.004

[− 0.01, 0.006]

Party (R) × moral (sanctity)

0.012

0.004

[0.004, 0.02]

Party (R) ×moral (subversion)

0.011

0.004

[0.002, 0.019]

 

ICC (debate rounds) = 0.343

 

ICC (election years) = 0.173

 

N = 680

Regression of the moral divergence between Republican and Democratic presidential candidates over years

Variables

b

se

p value

Intercept

− 2.345

0.985

0.023*

Election year

0.005

0.002

0.017*

 

R2 = 0.166

 

N = 34

Multilevel regression of the moral divergence between Republican and Democratic presidential candidates in different debate rounds

Variables

b

se

95% CI

Intercept

0.160

0.014

[0.132, 0.188]

Round 2

− 0.035

0.013

[− 0.059, − 0.011]

Round 3

− 0.012

0.015

[− 0.040, 0.016]

Round 4

0.056

0.037

[− 0.128, 0.013]

 

ICC (election years) = 0.629

 

N = 34

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Xu, M., Hu, L. & Cameron, G.T. Tracking moral divergence with DDR in presidential debates over 60 years. J Comput Soc Sc 6, 339–357 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42001-023-00198-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42001-023-00198-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation