Debate viewing as mediator and partisan reinforcement in the relationship between news use and vote choice

Journal of Communication

Volumn 55, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 85-102

  Holbert, R Lance ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PARTY POLITICS; TELEVISION; VOTING BEHAVIOR;

NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES; WESTERN HEMISPHERE; WORLD;

EID: 16344380988     PISSN: 00219916     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/joc/55.1.85     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Alwin, D. F., & Hauser, R. M. (1975) The decomposition of effects in path analysis. American Sociological Review, 40, 37-47.
2. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
3. Bartels, L. M. (2000). Partisanship and voting behavior, 1952-1996. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 35-50.
4. Benoit, W. L., Hansen, G. J., & Vener, R. M. (2003). A meta-analysis of the effects of viewing U.S. presidential debates. Communication Monograpbs, 70, 335-350.
5. Benoit, W. L., McKinney, M. S., & Holbert, R. L. (2001). Beyond learning and persona: Extending the scope of presidential debate effects. Communication Monographs, 68, 259-273.
6. Benoit, W. L., Webber, D., & Berman, J. (1998). Effects of ideology and presidential debate watching and ideology on attitudes and knowledge. Argumentation and Advocacy, 34, 163-172.
7. Brians, C. L., & Wattenberg, M. P. (1996). Campaign issue knowledge and salience: Comparing reception from TV commercials, TV news, and newspapers. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 172-193.
8. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. New York: Wiley.
9. Campbell, K. E., & Jackson, T. T. (1979). The role and need for replication research in social psychology. Replications in social psychology, 1, 3-14.
10. Chaffee, S. H. (1974). National election campaigns as a vehicle for testing major hypotheses about communication. Unpublished manuscript, Mass Communication Research Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
11. Chaffee, S., H., & Hochheimer, J. L. (1985). The beginnings of political communication research in the United States: Origins of the "limited effects model." In M. Gurevitch & M. R. Levy (Eds.), Mass communication review yearbook 5, (pp. 75-104). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
12. Chaffee, S. H., Zhao, X., & Leshner, G. (1994). Political knowledge and the campaign media of 1992. Communication Research, 21, 305-324.
13. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/ correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
14. Collins, H. M. (1985). Changing order: Replication and induction in scientific practice. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
15. Craig, C. C. (1936). On the frequency function of xy. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 7, 1-15.
16. Dennis, J. (1988). Political independence in America, Part I: On being an independent partisan supporter. British Journal of Political Science, 18, 77-109.
17. Drew, D., & Weaver, D. (1998). Voter learning in the 1996 presidential election: Did the media matter? Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 75, 292-301.
18. Eveland, W. P., Jr. (1997). Interactions and nonlinearity in mass communication: Connecting theory and methodology. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 74, 400-416.
19. Gelman, A., & King, G. (1993). Why are American presidential election campaign polls so variable when voters are so predictable? British Journal of Political Science, 23, 409-451.
20. Graber, D. A. (1984). Processing the news. New York: Longman.
21. Gordon, A., & Miller, J. L. (2004). Values and persuasion during the first Bush-Gore presidential debate. Political Communication, 21, 71-92.
22. Holbert, R. L. (2002). The embodied meaning of media forms. In J. P. Dillard & M. Pfau (Eds.), The persuasion handbook (pp. 749-764). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23. Holbert, R. L., Benoit, W. L., Hansen, G. J., & Wen, W-C. (2002). The role of communication in the formation of an issue-based citizenry. Communication Monographs, 69, 296-310.
24. Holbert, R. L., Benoit, W. L., & McKinney, M. S. (2002, July). The role of debate viewing in establishing "enlightened preference "in the 2000 presidential election. Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Communication Association, Political Communication Division, Seoul, Korea.
25. Holbert, R. L., & Stephenson, M. T. (2002). Structural equation modeling in the communication sciences, 1995-2000. Human Communication Research, 28, 531-551.
26. Holbert, R. L., & Stephenson, M. T. (2003). The importance of analyzing indirect effects in media effects research: Testing for mediation in structural equation modeling. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 47, 553-569.
27. Jamieson, K. H., & Birdsell, D. S. (1988). Presidential debates: The challenge of creating an informed electorate. New York: Oxford University Press.
28. Kayany, J. M., & Yelsma, P. (2000). Displacement effects of online media in the socio-technical contexts of households. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44, 215-229.
29. Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Bolger, N. (1998). Data analysis in social psychology. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 233-265). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
30. Keppel, G. (1991). Design and analysis: A researcher's handbook (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
31. Kraus, S., & Smith, R. G. (1962). Issues and images. In S. Kraus (Ed.), The great debates: Background, perspective, effects (pp. 289-313). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
32. Lamal, P. A. (1991). On the importance of replication. In J. W. Neuliep (Ed.), Replication in the social sciences (pp. 31-36). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
33. Lazarsfeld, P. F, Berelson, B. R., & Gaudet, H. (1948). The people's choice (2nd ed.). New York: Columbia University Press.
34. Lodge, M., & McGraw, K. M. (1991). Where is the schema? Critiques. American Political Science Review, 85, 1357-1364.
35. MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C., & Hoffman, J. (1998, June). A new metbod to test for mediation. Paper presented to the Society for Prevention Research, Park City, UT.
36. MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7, 83-104.
37. Martinelli, K. A., & Chaffee, S. H. (1995). Measuring new-voter learning via three channels of political information. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 72, 18-32.
38. McCombs, M. E., Shaw, D. L., & Weaver, D. (1997). Communication and democracy: Exploring the intellectual frontiers in agenda-setting tbeory Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
39. McLeod, D. M., Kosicki, G. M., & McLeod, J. M. (2002). Resurveying the boundaries of political communication effects. In J.Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (2nd ed.; pp. 215-268). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
40. McLeod, J. M., Kosicki, G. M., & Pan, Z. (1996). On understanding and misunderstanding media effects. In J. Curran & M. Gurevitch (Eds.), Mass communication and society (pp. 235-66). London: Edward Arnold.
41. McLeod, J. M., & Reeves, B. (1980). On the nature of mass media effects. In S. B. Withey & R. P. Abeles (Eds.), Television and social behavior Beyond violence and children (pp. 17-54). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
42. McLeod, J. M., Schcufele, D. A., & Moy, P. (1999). Community, communication, and participation: The role of mass media and interpersonal discussion in local political participation. Political Communication, 16, 315-336.
43. Moy, P., Pfau, M., & Kahlor, L. (1999). Media use and public confidence in democratic institutions. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 43, 137-158.
44. Munro, G. D., Ditto, P. H., Lockhart, L. K., Fagerlin, A., Gready, M., & Peterson, E. (2002). Biased assimilation of sociopolitical arguments: Evaluating the 1996 U. S. presidential debate. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 24, 15-26.
45. Nie, N., & Erbing, L. (2000). Internet and society [online]. Available URL: http://www.stanford.edu/group/siqss/Press-Release/ internetStusy.html.
46. Palmgreen, P. (1984). Uses and gratifications: A theoretical perspective. Communication Yearbook, 8, 20-55.
47. Pfau, M., & Eveland, W. P. (1994). Debates versus other communication sources: The pattern of information and influence. In D. B. Carlin & M. S. McKinney (Ed.), The 1992 presidential debates in focus (pp. 155-173). Westport, CT: Praeger.
48. Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2000). A method for comparing completely standardized solutions in multiple groups. Structural Equation Modeling, 7, 292-308.
49. Rhee, J. W., & Cappella, J. N. (1997). The role of political sophistication in learning from news: Measuring schema development. Communication Research, 24, 197-233.
50. Rosenthal, R. (1991). Replication in behavioral research. In J. W. Neuliep (Ed.), Replication in the social sciences (pp. 1-30). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
51. Scheufele, D. A. (2000). Talk or conversation? Dimensions of interpersonal discussion and their implications for participatory democracy. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 77, 727-743.
52. Shah, D. V., Kwak, N., & Holbert, R. L. (2001). "Connecting" and "disconnecting" with civic life: The effects of internet use on the production of social capital. Political Communication, 18, 141-162.
53. Stokes, D. E., Campbell, A., & Miller, W. E. (1958). Components of electoral decisions. American Political Science Review, 52, 367-387.
54. Traugott, M. W., & Katosh, J. P. (1979). Response validity in surveys of voting behavior. Public Opinion Quarterly, 43, 359-377.
55. Weaver, D., & Drew, D. (1995). Voter learning in the 1992 presidential election: Did the "nontraditional" media and debates matter? Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 72, 7-17.
56. Weaver, D., & Drew, D. (2001). Voter learning and interest in the 2000 presidential election: Did the media matter? Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 78, 787-798.
57. Yawn, M., & Beatty, B. (2000). Debate-induced opinion change: What matters? American Politics Quarterly, 28, 270-285.
58. Zhu, J., Milavasky, J. R., & Biswas, R. (1994). Do televised debates affect image perception more than issue knowledge? Human Communication Research, 20, 302-333.