The front-runner, contenders, and also-rans: Effects of watching a 2000 republican primary debate

American Behavioral Scientist

Volumn 44, Issue 12, 2001, Pages 2232-2251

  McKinney, Mitchell S ^a   Kaid, Lynda Lee ^b   Robertson, Terry A ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

^c and Social Sciences   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 23044527104     PISSN: 00027642     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/00027640121958294     Document Type: Short Survey

References (29)

1. Benoit, W. L., Blaney, J. R., & Pier, P. M. (1998). Campaign '96: A functional analysis of acclaiming, attacking, and defending. Westport, CT: Praeger.
2. Best, S. J., & Hubbard, C. (1999). Maximizing "minimal effects": The impact of early primary season debates on voter preferences. American Politics Quarterly, 27, 450-467.
3. Best, S. J., & Hubbard, C. (2000). The role of televised debates in the presidential nominating process. In W. G. Mayer (Ed.), In pursuit of the White House 2000: How we choose our presidential nominees (pp. 255-284). New York: Chatham House.
4. Carlin, D. P. (1992). Presidential debates as focal points for campaign arguments. Political Communication, 9, 251-265.
5. Chaffee, S. H. (1978). Presidential debates - are they helpful to voters? Communication Monographs, 45, 330-346.
6. Eaton, A. H. (1912). The Oregon system: The story of direct legislation in Oregon. Chicago: A. C. McClurg.
7. Ferraro, T. (1999). Candidate Bush stirs passions in New Hampshire. Yahoo!.news. Retrieved November 23, 1999, from the World Wide Web: http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/19991123/ pl/bush_voters/1.html
8. Greenfield, J. (2000). A political junkie's dream. Retrieved March 3, 2000, from the World Wide Web:http://cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/03/03/greenfield.column/index/html
9. Just, M. R., Crigler, A. N., Alger, D. E., Cook, T. E., Kern, M., & West, D. M. (1996). Crosstalk: Citizens, candidates, and the media in a presidential campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
10. Kaid, L. L., & Boydston, J. (1987). An experimental study of the effectiveness of negative political advertisements. Communication Quarterly, 35, 193-201.
11. Kaid, L. L., & Chanslor, M. (1995). Changing candidate images: The effects of television advertising. In K. Hacker (Ed.), Candidate images in presidential election campaigns (pp. 83-97). New York: Praeger.
12. Kaid, L. L., McKinney, M. S., & Tedesco, J. C. (2000). Civic dialogue in the 1996 presidential campaign: Candidate, media, and public voices. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
13. Katz, E., & Feldman, J. (1962). The debates in light of research: A survey of surveys. In S. Kraus (Ed.), The great debates (pp. 173-223). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
14. Kendall, K. E. (2000). Communication in the presidential primaries: Candidates and the media, 1912-2000. Westport, CT: Praeger.
15. Kennamer, J. D., & Chaffee, S. H. (1982). Communication of political information during early presidential primaries: Cognition, affect, and uncertainty. In M. Burgoon (Ed.), Communication yearbook 5 (pp. 627-650). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
16. Lanoue, D. J., & Schrott, P. R. (1989). The effects of primary season debates on public opinion. Political Behavior, 11, 289-306.
17. Lemert, J. B., Elliott, W. R., Nestvold, K. J., & Rarick, G. R. (1983). Effects of viewing a presidential primary debate: An experiment. Communication Research, 10, 155-173.
18. Martel, M. (1983). Political campaign debates: Issues, strategies, and tactics. New York: Longman.
19. McKinney, L. M., & Tedesco, J. C. (1999). The influence of medium and media commentary on presidential debate effects. In L. L. Kaid & D. G. Bystrom (Eds.), The electronic election (pp. 191-206). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
20. McKinney, L. M., Tedesco, J. C., & Kaid, L. L. (1993). The third 1992 presidential debate: Channel and commentary effects. Argumentation and Advocacy, 30, 106-118.
21. McLeod, J. M., Durrall, J., Ziemke, D., & Bybee, C. (1979). Expanding the context of effects. In S. Kraus (Ed.), The great debates: Carter vs. Ford, 1976 (pp. 348-367). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
22. Pfau, M. (1987). The influence of intraparty debates on candidate preference. Communication Research, 14, 687-697.
23. Pfau, M. (1988). Intra-party political debates and issue learning. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 16, 99-112.
24. Ritter, K., & Hellweg, S. A. (1986). Televised presidential primary debates: A new national forum for political debating. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 23, 1-14.
25. Sanders, K. R., & Pace, T. J. (1977). The influence of speech communication on the image of a political candidate: "Limited effects" revisited. In B. D. Ruben (Ed.), Communication yearbook 1 (pp. 465-474). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
26. Sears, D. O., & Chaffee, S. H. (1979). Uses and effects of the 1976 debates: An overview of empirical studies. In S. Kraus (Ed.), The great debates: Carter vs. Ford, 1976 (pp. 223-261). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
27. Wall, V., Golden, J., & James, H. (1988). Perceptions of the 1984 presidential debates and a select 1988 presidential primary debate. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 18, 541-563.
28. Yawn, M., Ellsworth, K., Beatty, B., & Kahn, K. F. (1988). How a presidential primary debate changed attitudes of audience members. Political Behavior, 20, 155-181.
29. 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.