Candidate-issue positioning in the context of presidential debates

Journal of Applied Communication Research

Volumn 31, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 212-237

  Doerfel, Marya L ^a   Marsh, Pamela S ^b  

^a RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

Debater tactics; Language use; Presidential debates; Semantic network analysis; Two against one strategy

Indexed keywords

EID: 0042352657     PISSN: 00909882     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00909880305380     Document Type: Review

References (63)

1. Alexa, M., & Zuell, C. (2000), Text analysis software: Commonalities, differences and limitations: The results of a review. Quality & Quantity, 34, 299-321.
2. Alger, D., Kern, M., & West, D. (1993, May). Political advertising, the information environment and the voter in the 1992 presidential election. Paper presented at the annual convention of the International Communication Association, Washington, DC.
3. Barnett, G. A. (1988). Precise procedure for longitudinal network analysis. In G. A. Barnett & J. Woelfel (Eds.), Readings in the Galileo system: Theory, methods, and applications (pp. 1-22). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
4. Benoit, W. L., & Harthcock, A. (1999). Functions of the great debates: Acclaims, attacks, and defenses in the 1960 presidential debates. Communication Monographs, 66, 341-357.
5. Benoit, W. L., & Wells, W. T. (1996). Candidates in conflict: Persuasive attack and defense in the 1992 presidential debates. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press.
6. Biocca, F. (1991a). Looking for units of meaning in political ads. In F. Biocca (Ed.), Television and political advertising (vol. 2, pp. 17-26). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7. Biocca, F. (1991b). The analysis of discourses within the political ad. In F. Biocca (Ed.), Television and political advertising (vol. 2, pp. 45-60). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
8. Bishop, G. F., Meadow, R. G., & Jackson-Beeck, M. (Eds.). (1978). The presidential debates: Media, electoral, and policy perspectives. New York: Praeger.
9. Carlin, D. B. (1992). Presidential debates as focal points for campaign arguments. Political Communication, 9, 251-265.
10. Carlin, D. B. (1994). A rationale for a focus group study. In D. B. Carlin & M. McKinney (Eds.), The 1992 presidential debates in focus (pp. 3-19). Westport, CT: Praeger.
11. Carmody, J. (1992, October 21). 91 million viewers flock to final debate. The Washington Post, pp. B1, B6.
12. Chaffee, S. H., & Dennis, J. (1979). Presidential debates: An empirical assessment. In A. Ranney (Ed.), The past and future of presidential debates (pp. 75-106). Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.
13. Chaffee, S. H., & Jamieson, K. H. (1994). Studies of the 1992 U.S. election campaign: An overview. Communication Research, 21, 261-263.
14. Chaffee, S. H., Zhao, X., & Leshner, G. (1994). Political knowledge and the campaign media of 1992. Communication Research, 21, 305-324.
15. The character issue. (1992, October 15). The Washington Post, p. A30.
16. Collins, A. M., & Quillian, M. R. (1972). Experiments on semantic memory and language comprehension. In L. W. Gregg (Ed.), Cognition in learning and memory (pp. 117-138). New York: Wiley.
17. Commission on Presidential Debates (1992). Debate history: 1992 debates. Retrieved August 10, 2001 from: http://www.debates.org/pages/debhis92.html
18. Crigler, A., Just, M., & Cook, T. (1993, May). News coverage and citizen perspectives on the 1992 presidential election. Paper presented at the annual convention of the International Communication Association, Washington, DC.
19. Dalton, R. J., Beck, P. A., & Huckfeldt, R. (1998). Partisan cues and the media: Information flows in the 1992 presidential election. American Political Science Review, 92, 111-126.
20. Danowski, J. A. (1982). Computer-mediated communication: A network-based content analysis using a CBBS conference. In M. Burgoon (Ed.), Communication yearbook 6 (pp. 905-924). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
21. Danowski, J. A. (1993). Network analysis of message content. In W. D. Richards & G. A. Barnett (Eds.), Progress in communication science, XII (pp. 197-221). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
22. Doerfel, M. L. (1999). What constitutes semantic network analysis? A comparison of research and methodologies. Connections, 21, 16-26.
23. Doerfel, M. L., & Barnett, G. A. (1999). A semantic network analysis of the International Communication Association. Human Communication Research, 25, 589-603.
24. Downey, P. (1993). The Perot campaign from the field. American Behavioral Scientist, 37, 185-187.
25. Drew, D., & Weaver, D. (1991). Voter learning in the 1988 presidential election: Did the debates and the media matter? Journalism Quarterly, 68, 27-37.
26. Evans, W. (1996). Computer-supported content analysis: Trends, tools, and techniques. Social Science Computer Review, 14, 269-279.
27. Federmeier, K. D., & Kutas, M. (1999). A rose by any other name: Long-term memory structure and processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 469-495.
28. Fouhy, E. M. (1992). The debates: A winning miniseries. Washington Journalism Review, 14, 27-29.
29. Freeman, C. A., & Barnett, G. A. (1994). An alternative approach to using interpretive theory to examine corporate messages and organizational culture. In L. Thayer & G. A. Barnett (Eds.), Organizational communication: Emerging perspectives IV (pp. 60-73). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
30. Hart, R. P. (1977). The political pulpit. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.
31. Hart, R. P. (1984). Verbal style and the presidency. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
32. Hart, R. P., & Jarvis, S. E. (1997), Political debate: Forms, styles, and media. American Behavioral Scientist, 40, 1095-1122.
33. Hellweg, S. A., Pfau, M., & Brydon, S. R. (1992). Televised presidential debates: Advocacy in contemporary America. New York: Praeger.
34. Jackson-Beeck, M., & Meadow, R. G. (1979). Content analysis of televised communication events. Communication Research, 6, 321-345.
35. Jamieson, K. H., & Birdsell, D. S. (1988). Presidential debates: The challenge of creating an informed electorate. New York: Oxford University Press.
36. Jang, H., & Barnett, G. A. (1994). Cultural differences in organizational communication: A semantic network analysis. Bulletin de Methodologie Sociologique, 44, 31-59.
37. Just, M. R., Crigler, A. N., Alger, D. E., Cook, T. E., Kern, M., & West, D. M. (1992). Crosstalk: Citizens, candidates, and the media in the presidential campaign. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
38. Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
39. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL:University of Chicago Press.
40. Lang, G. E. (1987). Still seeking answers. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 4, 211-214.
41. Lanoue, D. J., & Schrott, P. R. (1991). The joint press conference: The history, impact and prospects of American presidential debates. Westport, CT: Glenwood Press.
42. Lemert, J. B., Bernstein, J. M., Elliott, W. R., & Rosenberg, W. L. (1993, November). Media and mass views of the presidential debates as institutions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Miami, FL.
43. Lemert, J. B., Elliott, W. R., Bernstein, J. M., & Rosenberg, W. L. (1996). The politics of disenchantment: Bush, Clinton, Perot and the press. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
44. Lemert, J. B., Elliott, W. R., Bernstein, J. M., Rosenberg, W. L., & Nestvold, K. J. (1991), New verdicts, the debates, and presidential campaigns. New York: Praeger.
45. Leon, M. A. (1993). Revealing character and addressing voters' needs in the 1992 presidential debates: A content analysis. Argumentation & Advocacy, 30, 88-106.
46. McKinnon, L. M., Tedesco, J. C., & Kaid, L. L. (1993, November). Mass mediated debates: Effects of the third 1992 presidential debate. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Miami, FL.
47. Monge, P. R., & Eisenberg, E. M. (1987). Emergent communication networks. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 304-342), Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
48. Myers, D. (1993). New technology and the 1992 Clinton presidential campaign. American Behavioral Scientist, 37, 181-184.
49. Payne, J. G. (1993). Introduction. American Behavioral Scientist, 37, 188-193.
50. Pfau, M., & Eveland Jr., W. P. (1996). Influence of traditional and non-traditional news media in the 1992 election campaign. Western Journal of Communication, 60, 214-233.
51. Rice, R. E., & Danowski, J. A. (1993). Is it really just like a fancy answering machine? Comparing semantic networks of different types of voice mail users. Journal of Business Communication, 30, 369-397.
52. Ritter, K., & Hellweg, S. A. (1986). The emergence of a new national forum for political debating: Televised presidential primary debates, 1956-1984, Journal of the American Forensic Association, 23, 1-4.
53. Rosenthal, A. (1992, October 12). The 1992 campaign: Assessment; Bush didn't score the needed knockout. The New York Times, p. A1.
54. Stubbs, M. (1983). Discourse analysis: The sociolinguistic analysis of natural language. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
55. Van Dijk, T. (1988). News as discourse. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
56. Van Dijk, T., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
57. Weaver, D., & Drew, D. (1993). Voter learning in the 1992 presidential election: Did the 'Nontraditional' media and debates matter? Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 72, 7-17.
58. Woelfel, J. (1990). Galileo manual. Troy, NY: Terra Research & Computing.
59. Woelfel, J. (1993, Winter). Artificial neural networks for policy research. Journal of Communication, 43, 63-80.
60. Woelfel, J. (1995). Communication and science (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
61. Ward, J. (1963). Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58, 236-244.
62. Woelfel, J., & Fink, E. L. (1980). Measurement of communication processes. New York: Academic Press.
63. Zhu, J. H., Milavsky, J. R., & Biswas, R. (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.