Political Behavior

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 67–89 | Cite as

Political Learning from Presidential Debates

  • Thomas M. Holbrook
Article

Abstract

This paper focuses on an important aspect of presidential debates: the degree to which voters are able to glean candidate information from them. Using an open-ended measure of candidate information, the analysis tests hypotheses concerning the impact of debates on information acquisition among the mass public for all debates from 1976 to 1996. The findings indicate that people do learn from debates and that learning is affected by the context in which the information is encountered. Specifically, early debates generate more learning than do subsequent debates, and the public tends to learn more about candidates with whom they are relatively unfamiliar than about better-known candidates.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Alvarez, R. Michael (1997). Information and Elections. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bartels, Larry (1988). Presidential Primaries and the Dynamics of Public Choice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bartels, Larry (1993). Messages received: The political impact of media exposure. American Political Science Review 87: 267–285.Google Scholar
  4. Becker, Lee, Idowu Sobowale, Robin Cobbey, and Chaim Eyal (1978). Debates' effects on voters' understanding of candidates and issues. In George Bishop, Robert Meadow, and Marilyn Jackson-Meadow (eds.), The Presidential Debates. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  5. Bennett, Stephen (1988). Know nothings revisited: The meaning of political ignorance today. Social Science Quarterly 68: 476–490.Google Scholar
  6. Bennett, Stephen (1989). Trends in Americans' political information. American Politics Quarterly 17: 422–435Google Scholar
  7. Berelson, Bernard, Paul Lazarsfeld, and William McPhee (1954). Voting. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bishop, George, Robert Oldendick, and Alfred Tuchfarber (1978). The presidential debates as a device for increasing the “rationality” of electoral behavior. In George Bishop, Robert Meadow, and Marilyn Jackson-Meadow (eds.), The Presidential Debates. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  9. Brady, Henry, and Richard Johnston (1987). What's the primary message: Horse race or issue journalism? In Gary Orren and Nelson Polsby (eds.), Media and Momentum. Chatham, NJ: Chatam House Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. Campbell, James E., Lynne Cherry, and Kenneth Wink (1992). The convention bump. American Politics Quarterly 20: 287–307.Google Scholar
  11. Chaffee, Steven (1978). Presidential debates—Are they helpful to voters? Communications Monographs 45: 331–346.Google Scholar
  12. Chaffee, Steven, and Jack Dennis (1979). Presidential debates: An assessment. In Austin Ranney (ed.), The Past and Future of Presidential Debates. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.Google Scholar
  13. Converse, Philip (1962). Information flow and the stability of partisan attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 26: 578–599.Google Scholar
  14. DeSart, Jay (1995). Information processing and party neutrality: A reexamination of the party decline thesis. Journal of Politics 57: 776–795.Google Scholar
  15. Donohue, George, Clarice Olien, and Phillip Tichenor (1987). Media access and knowledge gaps. Critical Studies in Mass Communications 4: 87–92.Google Scholar
  16. Drew, Dan, and David Weaver (1991). Voter learning in the 1988 presidential election: Did the debates matter? Journalism Quarterly 68: 27–37.Google Scholar
  17. Finkel, Steven (1993). Reexamining the “minimal effects” model in recent presidential elections. Journal of Politics 55: 1–21.Google Scholar
  18. Gaziano, Cecilie (1983). The knowledge gap: An analytical review of media effects. Communication Research 10: 447–486.Google Scholar
  19. Geer, John G. (1988). The effects of presidential debates on the electorate's preferences for candidates. American Politics Quarterly 16: 486–501.Google Scholar
  20. Gelman, Andrew, and Gary King (1993). Why are American presidential election polls so variable when votes are so predictable? British Journal of Political Science 23: 409–451.Google Scholar
  21. Hastie, Reid, and Bernadette Park (1986). The relationship between memory and judgement depends upon whether the judgement task is memory-based or on-line. Psychological Review 93: 258–268.Google Scholar
  22. Holbrook, Thomas M. (1996). Do Campaigns Matter? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  23. Jamieson, Kathleen Hall, and David S. Birdsell (1988). Presidential Debates: The Challenge of Creating an Informed Electorate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Kraus, Sidney (1979). The Great Debates: Carter vs. Ford, 1976. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Lanoue, David J. (1991). The “turning point”: Viewers' reactions to the second 1988 presidential debate. American Politics Quarterly 19: 80–95.Google Scholar
  26. Lanoue, David (1992). One that made a difference: Cognitive consistency, political knowledge, and the 1980 presidential debate. Public Opinion Quarterly 56: 168–184.Google Scholar
  27. Lanoue, David, and Peter Schrott (1991). The Joint Press Conference. New York: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  28. Lau, Richard (1986). Political schemata, candidate, evaluations, and voting behavior. In Richard Lau and David Sears (eds.), Political Cognition. Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.Google Scholar
  29. Lau, Richard R. (1995). Information search during an election campaign: Introducing a processing-tracing methodology for political scientists. In Milton Lodge and Kathleen McGraw (eds.), Political Judgement: Structure and Process. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  30. Lemert, James (1993). Do televised presidential debates help inform voters? Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 37: 83–94.Google Scholar
  31. Lemert, James, William Elliot, James Bernstein, William Rosenberg, and Karl Nestvold (1991). News Verdicts, the Debates, and Presidential Campaigns. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  32. Lenart, Silvo (1994). Shaping Political Attitudes. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  33. Lodge, Milton, and Patrick Stroh (1993). Inside the mental voting booth: An impression-driven model of candidate evaluation. In Shanto Iengar and William J. McGuire (eds.), Explorations in Political Psychology. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Lodge, Milton, Kathleen McGraw, and Patrick Stroh (1989). An impression-driven model of candidate evaluation. American Political Science Review 87: 399–419.Google Scholar
  35. Lodge, Milton, Marco Steenbergen, and Shawn Brau (1995). The responsive voter: Campaign information and the dynamics of candidate evaluation. American Political Science Review 89: 309–326.Google Scholar
  36. Luskin, Robert (1990). Explaining political sophistication. Political Behavior 31: 856–899.Google Scholar
  37. Miller, Arthur, and Michael MacKuen (1979). Informing the electorate: A national study. In Sidney Kraus (ed.), The Great Debates: Carter vs. Ford, 1976. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Patterson, Thomas (1980). The Mass Media Election. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  39. Popkin, Samuel (1991). The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  40. Rahn, Wendy, Jon Krosnick, and Marijke Breuning (1994). Rationalization and derivation process in survey studies of candidate evaluations. American Journal of Political Science 38: 582–600.Google Scholar
  41. Sears, David, and Steven Chaffee (1979). Uses and effects of the 1976 debates: An overview of empirical studies. In Sidney Kraus (ed.), The Great Debates: Carter vs. Ford, 1976. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Shaw, Daron (1995). Strong persuasion? The effect of campaigns in U.S. presidential elections. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  43. Shelley, Mack C. II, and Hwang-Du Hwang (1991). The mass media and public opinion polls in the 1988 presidential election. American Politics Quarterly 19: 59–79.Google Scholar
  44. Smith, Eric R. A. N. (1989). The Unchanging American Voter. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  45. Tichenor, P. J., G. A. Donohue, and C. N. Olien (1970). Mass media flow and differential growth in knowledge. Public Opinion Quarterly, Summer, pp. 159–170.Google Scholar
  46. Weaver, David, and Dan Drew (1995). Voter learning in the 1992 presidential election: Did the “nontraditional” media and debates matter? Journalism and Mass Communications Quarterly 72: 7–17.Google Scholar
  47. Zaller, John (1989). Bringing converse back in: Information flow in political campaigns. Political Analysis 1: 181–234.Google Scholar
  48. Zaller, John (1992). The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Zaller, John, and Vincent Price (1993). Who gets the news? Alternative measures of news reception and their implications for research. Public Opinion Quarterly 57: 133–164.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas M. Holbrook
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of Wisconsin-MilwaukeeMilwaukee

Personalised recommendations