Abstract
This article examines the effect of primary season presidential debates on voters' attitudes toward presidential candidates. Employing a pretest-posttest quasi-experimental design, we examine the 1996 Arizona Republican primary debate. We find that the debate led respondents to change their viability and electability assessments of the candidates and produced significant changes in respondents' vote preferences. In addition, we demonstrate that changes in viability, changes in electability, as well as differences between expected and actual debate performance influenced the vote preferences of audience members. We conclude by speculating about the debate's effect on the Arizona Republican primary, and by noting the potentially important differences between the impact of general election and primary debates.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Abramowitz, Alan I. (1989). Viability, electability, and candidate choice in a presidential primary election: A test of competing models. Journal of Politics 51: 977–992.
Ansolabehere, Stephen, Roy Behr, and Shanto Iyengar (1993). The Media Game: American Politics in the Television Age. New York: Macmillan.
Arminger, G. (1987). Misspecification, asymptotic stability, and ordinal variables in the analysis of panel data. Sociological Methods and Research 15: 336–348.
Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgment. In H. Guetzkow (ed.), Groups, Leadership, and Men (pp. 177–190). Pittsburgh: Carnegie Press.
Asher, Herbert B. (1988). Presidential Elections and American Politics (4th ed.). Chicago: Dorsey Press.
Bartels, Larry M. (1988). Presidential Primaries and Dynamics of Public Choice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bauer, Raymond A. (1969). The obstinate audience: The influence process from the point of view of social communication. In H. C. Lindgren (ed.), Contemporary Research in Social Psychology (pp. 399–412). New York: Wiley.
Beckel, Robert G. (1996). Bob Dole headed down Mondale's dead end. Arizona Republic, July 24, 1996: B9.
Becker, Lee B., Idowu A. Sobowale, Robin E. Cobbey, and Chaim H. Eyal (1978). Debates' effects on voters' understanding of candidates and issues. In G. F. Bishop, R. Meadow, and M. Jackson-Beeck (eds.), Presidential Debate, (pp. 126–139). New York: Praeger.
Brady, Henry E., and Robert Johnston (1987). What's the primary message: Horse race or issue journalism? In G. R. Orren and N. W. Polsby (eds.), Media and Momentum (pp. 127–186) Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
Carlin, Diana Prentice (1992). Presidential debates as focal points for campaign arguments. Political Communications 9: 251–265.
Cook, Thomas D., and Donald Campbell (1979). Quasi-Experimentation. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Dennis, J., S. H. Chaffee, and S. Y. Choe (1979). Impact on partisan, image, and issue voting. In S. Kraus (ed.), The Great Debates, Carter v. Ford, 1976 (pp. 314–330). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Dittes, J. E., and H. H. Kelly (1956). Effects of different conditions of acceptance upon conformity to group norms. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 53: 100–107.
Finkel, Steven E. (1993). Reexamining the minimal effects model in recent presidential campaigns. Journal of Politics 55: 1–23.
Finkel, Steven E. (1995). Causal Analysis with Panel Data. Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 07–105. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Fiske, Susan T., and Shelley E. Taylor (1991). Social Cognition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Geer, John (1988). The effects of presidential debates on the electoral preferences for candidates. American Politics Quarterly 16: 486–501.
Germond, Jack W., and Jules Witcover (1985). Wake Us Up When It's Over. New York: Macmillan.
Gopoian, J. D. (1982). Issue preference and candidate choice in presidential primaries. American Journal of Political Science 26: 524–546.
Hagner, Paul R., and Leroy N. Reiselbach (1978). The impact of the 1976 presidential debates: Conversion or reinforcement? In G. Bishop et al. (eds.), Presidential Debates. (pp. 57–178). New York: Praeger.
Hellweg, Susan A., Michael Pfau, and Steven R. Brydon (1992). Televised Presidential Debates: Advocacy in Contemporary America. New York: Praeger.
Holbrook, Thomas M. (1994). The behavioral consequences of vice-presidential debates: Does the undercard have any punch? American Politics Quarterly 22: 469–482.
Hosmer, David W., and Stanley Lemeshow (1989). Applied Logistic Regression. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Katz, Elihu, and Jacob J. Feldman (1962). The debates in light of research: A survey of surveys. In Sidney Kraus (ed.), The Great Debates: Kennedy v. Nixon, 1960 (pp. 173–223). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Kraus, Sidney (1988). Televised Presidential Debates and Public Policy. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kraus, Sidney, and R. G. Smith (1962). Issues and image. In S. Kraus (ed.), The Great Debates, Kennedy v. Nixon, 1960 (pp. 289–312). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
KTVK (1996). Late Night News, February 22.
Lang, Kurt, and Gladys Engel Lang (1962). Reactions of viewers. In Sidney Kraus (ed.), The Great Debates, Kennedy v. Nixon, 1960 (pp. 313–330). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Lang, Kurt, and Gladys Engel Lang (1968). Politics and Television. Chicago: Quadrangle Books.
Lanoue, David J. (1991). The “turning point”: Viewers' reactions to the second 1988 presidential debate. American Politics Quarterly 19: 80–95.
Lanoue, David J. (1992). One that made a difference: Cognitive consistency, political knowledge, and the 1980 presidential debate. Public Opinion Quarterly 56: 168–184.
Lanoue, David J., and Peter R. Schrott (1989). The effects of primary season debates on public opinion. Political Behavior 11: 289–306.
Lanoue, David J., and Peter R. Schrott (1991). The Joint Press Conference: The History, Impact, and Prospects of American Presidential Debates. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Lemert, James B. (1993). Do televised presidential debates help inform voters? Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 37: 83–94.
McIntosh, Everton G. (1989). Perceived bias in presidential debates. Perceptual and Motor Skills 68: 462.
McIntosh, Everton G. (1993). Do presidential debates contribute to a change in voters' attitudes? Perceptual and Motor Skills 77: 545–546.
Milburn, Michael A. (1991). Persuasion and Politics: The Social Psychology of Public Opinion. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing.
Miller, Arthur H., and Michael MacKuen (1979). Informing the electorate: A national study. In Sidney Kraus (ed.), The Great Debates, Carter v. Ford, 1976 (p. 269–297). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Murphy, Michael (1996a). 55% undecided, poll says. Arizona Republic, February 21: A5.
Murphy, Michael (1996b). Dole “snub” leaves debate wide open. Arizona Republic, February 22: A1-A2.
Murphy, Michael, and Kris Mayes (1996). Buchanan trades jabs with 2 rivals. Arizona Republic, February 23: A1.
Nemeth, C. J. (1986). Differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psychological Review 93: 23–32.
Newsweek (1976). The debates. September 27: 24–29.
Nisbett, R. E., and L. Ross (1980). Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgement. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Orren, G. R. (1985). The nomination process: Vieissitudes of candidate selection. In M. Nelson (ed.), The Elections of 1984 (pp. 27–82). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.
Patterson, Thomas E. (1980). The Mass Media Election. New York: Praeger.
Payne, J. Gregory, James L. Golden, John Marlier, and Scott C. Ratzan (1989). Perceptions of the 1988 presidential and vice-presidential debates. American Behavioral Scientist 32: 425–435.
Polsby, Nelson W., and Aaron Wildavsky (1996). Presidential Elections. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publishers, Inc.
Popkin, Samuel L. (1994). The Reasoning Voter. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Ray, Michael L. (1973). Psychological theories and interpretations of learning. In S. Ward and T. S. Robertson (eds.), Consumer Behavior: Theoretical Perspectives. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Ray, Michael L. (1974a). The present and potential linkages between the microtheoretical notions of the behavioral sciences and the problems of advertising. In Harry Davis and Alvin J. Silk (eds.), The Behavioral and Management Sciences in Marketing. New York: Ronald Press.
Ray, Michael L. (1974b). Consumer initial processing: Definitions, issues, and applications. In G. David Hughes and Michael L. Ray (eds.), Buyer/Consumer Information Processing (pp. 145–156). Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
Reagan, Ronald (1990). An American Life. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Schrott, Peter R. (1990). Electoral consequences of “winning” campaign debates. Public Opinion Quarterly 54: 567–585.
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 (pp. 223–261). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Steeper, Frederic T. (1978). Public response to Gerald Ford's statements on Eastern Europe in the second debate. In G. F. Bishop et al. (eds.), Presidential Debates (pp. 81–101). New York: Praeger.
Stone, Walter J., Ronald B. Rapoport, and Lonna Rae Atkeson (1995). A simulation model of presidential nomination choice. American Journal of Political Science 39: 135–161.
Swanson, L. L., and D. L. Swanson (1978). The agenda-setting function of the first Ford-Carter debate. Communication Monographs 45: 347–353.
Taylor, Shelley E., and S. C. Thompson (1982). Stalking the elusive “vividness” effect. Psychological Review 89: 155–181.
Wall, V., J. Golden, and H. James (1988). Perceptions of the 1984 presidential debates and a select 1988 presidential primary debate. Presidential Studies Quarterly 18: 541–563.
White, Theodore H. (1982). America in Search of Itself. New York: Warner.
Zaller, John R. (1992). The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Zaller, John R. (1996). The myth of massive media impact revived: New support for a discredited idea. In Diana C. Mutz, Paul M. Sniderman, and Richard A. Brody (eds.), Political Persuasion and Attitude Change (pp. 17–78). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Zhu, Jian-Hua, J. Ronald Milavsky, and Rahul Biswas (1994). Do televised debates affect image perception more than issue knowledge? A study of the first 1992 presidential debate. Human Communication Research 20: 302–333.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Yawn, M., Ellsworth, K., Beatty, B. et al. How a Presidential Primary Debate Changed Attitudes of Audience Members. Political Behavior 20, 155–181 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024832830083
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024832830083