Televised Presidential Debates and Public Policy

Kraus, Sidney

doi:10.4324/9781315044859

Cited by 26 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These studies focus on how the public processes the debate information and alter their perceptions and attitudes toward the candidates. This research suggests that the viewing public selectively attends to the information presented in the debates and reinforces prior attitudes and opinions (Hillygus and Jackman 2003;Kraus 1962Kraus , 2000Sears and Whitney 1973;Wall, Golden, and James 1988). Several scholars assert that debates are more likely to strengthen existing preferences and reinforce predispositions than alter preferences (Benoit and Hansen 2004;Sigelman and Sigelman 1984).…”

Section: Debate Evaluationsmentioning

confidence: 57%

“…How do people evaluate candidates in presidential debates? The general consensus is that debates matter but only by reinforcing attitudes that the audience holds prior to the debate (Klapper 1960;Kraus 2000;Sears and Whitney 1973). In short, debates are seen as reinforcing rather than changing prior attitudes among the audience (Abramowitz 1978;Benoit and Hansen 2004;Holbert 2005;Sigelman and Sigelman 1984).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Presidential Debates, Partisan Motivations, and Political Interest

Mullinix

2015

Pres Stud Q

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How does the public evaluate candidates in presidential debates? Previous literature often points to attitude reinforcement, but much of this research ignores heterogeneous effects between individuals. This article builds upon research on debate evaluations and motivated reasoning to isolate which individuals—beyond basic partisan differences—are affected by presidential debates. Like prior work, I find partisan reinforcement effects, but more importantly, I show that these effects are heterogeneous based on political interest (a dynamic never before shown in this context). The most interested individuals are the most likely to demonstrate reinforcement effects. These findings have critical implications for communication effects, opinion formation, presidential campaigns, and polarization.

show abstract

Section: Debate Evaluationsmentioning

confidence: 57%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Presidential Debates, Partisan Motivations, and Political Interest

Mullinix

2015

Pres Stud Q

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Indeed, it has long been suggested that facial appearance may influence voting decisions, particularly since the famous televised debates between Kennedy and Nixon. In one debate, those with visual information (from television) thought that Kennedy had won the debate, while those with only auditory information (from radio) thought that Nixon had won (Kraus, 1988).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

The perception of attractiveness and trustworthiness in male faces affects hypothetical voting decisions differently in wartime and peacetime scenarios

Little

Roberts

Jones

et al. 2012

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Facial appearance of candidates has been linked to real election outcomes. Here we extend these findings by examining the contributions of attractiveness and trustworthiness in male faces to perceived votability. We first use real faces to show that attractiveness and trustworthiness are positively and independently related to perceptions of good leadership (rating study). We then show that computer graphic manipulations of attractiveness and trustworthiness influence choice of leader (experiments 1 and 2). Finally, we show that changing context from wartime to peacetime can affect which face receives the most votes. Attractive faces were relatively more valued for wartime and trustworthy faces relatively more valued for peacetime (experiments 1 and 2). This pattern suggests that attractiveness, which may indicate health and fitness, is perceived to be a useful attribute in wartime leaders, whereas trustworthiness, which may indicate prosocial traits, is perceived to be more important during peacetime. Our studies highlight the possible role of facial appearance in voting behaviour and the role of attributions of attractiveness and trust. We also show that there may be no general characteristics of faces that make them perceived as the best choice of leader; leaders may be chosen because of characteristics that are perceived as the best for leaders to possess in particular situations.

show abstract

“…This is in stark contrast to the USA, for example, where such debates between the main presidential candidates have been a standard feature of politics for over 50 years, and have been shown to influence voters' assessments and decisions (e.g. Hellweg et al 1992;Kraus 2000;Benoit and Hansen 2004). Even in less overtly personalised systems, such as Canada and Germany, there is ample evidence that leader debates can have an impact on voters (e.g .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hellweg et al. 1992; Kraus 2000; Benoit and Hansen 2004). Even in less overtly personalised systems, such as Canada and Germany, there is ample evidence that leader debates can have an impact on voters (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Face for Radio? How Viewers and Listeners Reacted Differently to the Third Leaders' Debate in 2010

Shephard¹,

Johns²

2011

The British Journal of Politics and International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Neil Kinnock expressed scepticism about Gordon Brown's likely showing in the 2010 election debates, suggesting that the Labour leader had a 'radio face'. We report an experiment in which students were split randomly between audio and video conditions for the third debate. As Kinnock predicted, Gordon Brown was more often proclaimed the winner by listeners. Nick Clegg, not David Cameron, benefited most from television. These differences were statistically significant despite a small sample (n = 63). We test three explanations for Clegg's advantage: (i) that television boosts the salience of certain traits (notably attractiveness); (ii) that television boosts the importance of 'style' over 'substance'; (iii) that listeners form judgements based on performance throughout the debate, while viewers are disproportionately influenced by memorable incidents or remarks. There is evidence supporting all three explanations.

show abstract

Televised Presidential Debates and Public Policy

Cited by 26 publications

References 0 publications

Presidential Debates, Partisan Motivations, and Political Interest

Presidential Debates, Partisan Motivations, and Political Interest

The perception of attractiveness and trustworthiness in male faces affects hypothetical voting decisions differently in wartime and peacetime scenarios

A Face for Radio? How Viewers and Listeners Reacted Differently to the Third Leaders' Debate in 2010

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About