The influence of format and questions on candidates’ strategic argument choices in the 2000 presidential debates

American Behavioral Scientist

Volumn 44, Issue 12, 2001, Pages 2196-2218

  Carlin, Diana B ^a   Morris, Eric ^a   Smith, Shawna ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 24944443501     PISSN: 00027642     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/00027640121958276     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Apple, R. W. (2000, October 19). Last debate clearly left some voters dissatisfied. The New York Times, p. A1.
2. Auer, J. J. (1962). The counterfeit debates. In S. Kraus (Ed.), The great debates: Background, perspective, effects (pp.142-150). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
3. Beck, C. (1996). "I’ve got some points I’d like to make here": The achievement of social face through turn management during the 1992 vice presidential debate. Political Communication, 13, 165-180.
4. Benoit, W. L., & Wells, W. T. (1996). Candidates in conflict: Persuasive attack and defense in the 1992 presidential debates. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
5. Bilmes, J. (1999). Questions, answers, and the organization of talk in the 1992 vice presidential debate: Fundamental considerations. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 32(3), 213-242.
6. Bitzer, L., & Reuter, T. (1980). Carter v. Ford: The counterfeit debates of 1976. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.
7. Campbell, K. (2000, October 10). Can new format end the debate doldrums? Christian Science Monitor, p. 2.
8. Carlin, D. P. (1992). Presidential debates as focal points for campaign arguments. Political Communication, 9, 251-265.
9. Carlin, D. P. (1994). A rationale for a focus group study. In D. B. Carlin & M. S. McKinney (Eds.), The 1992 presidential debates in focus (pp. 3-20). Westport, CT: Praeger.
10. Carlin, D. P., Howard, C., Stanfield, S., & Reynolds, L. (1991). The effects of presidential debate formats on clash: A comparative analysis. Argumentation and Advocacy, 27, 126-136.
11. Cater, D. (1980, November 4). Semi-requiem for semi-debates. The Washington Post, p. A21.
12. Commission on Presidential Debates. (2000a). Transcript of the first presidential debate. Retrieved from the World Wide Web: Http://www.debates.org
13. Commission on Presidential Debates. (2000b). Transcript of the second presidential debate. Retrieved from the World Wide Web: Http://www.debates.org
14. Commission on Presidential Debates. (2000c). Transcript of the third presidential debate. Retrieved from the World Wide Web: Http://www.debates.org
15. Cos, G. C., & Rossman, L. C. (1997). Articulating civic virtue in the second 1996 presidential debate. American Behavioral Scientist, 40, 1123-1132.
16. Ellsworth, J. H. (1965). Rationality and campaigning: A content analysis of the 1960 presidential campaign debates. Western Political Quarterly, 18, 794-802.
17. Hall, M., Hillkirk, S, & Ullman, O. (2000, October 18). From the experts. USA Today, p. A5.
18. Hart, R. P., & Jarvis, S. E. (1997). Political debate: Forms, styles, and media. American Behavioral Scientist, 40, 1095-1122.
19. Hellweg, S. A., & Verhoye, A. M. (1989, November). A comparative verbal analysis of the two 1988 Bush Dukakis presidential debates. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association, San Francisco.
20. Hinck, E. A. (1993). Enacting the presidency: Political argument, presidential debates, and presidential character. Westport, CT: Praeger.
21. Holsti, O. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
22. Kranish, M. (2000, October 11). Bush plans new defense of tax cut; Gore likely to attack in debate tonight. Boston Globe, p. A1.
23. Kraus, S. (1964). Presidential debates in 1964. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 50, 19-23.
24. Mayer, M. A., & Carlin, D. B. (1994). Debates as a voter education tool. In D. B. Carlin & M. S. McKinney (Eds.), The 1992 presidential debates in focus (pp. 127-138). Westport, CT: Praeger.
25. Morello, J. T. (1988a). Argument and visual structuring in the 1984 Mondale-Reagan debates: The medium’s influence on the perception of clash. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 52, 277-290.
26. Morello, J. T. (1988b). Visual structuring of the 1976 and 1984 nationally televised debates: Implications. Central States Speech Journal, 39, 233-243.
27. Morello, J. T. (1992). The ’look’ and ’language’ of clash: Visual structuring of argument in the 1988 Bush-Dukakis debates. Southern Communication Journal, 57, 205-218.
28. Prentice, D. B., Larsen, J. K., & Sobnosky, M. J. (1981, November). The Carter-Reagan debate: A comparison of clash in the dual format. Paper presented at the meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Anaheim, CA.
29. Riley, P., & Hollihan, T. (1981). The 1980 presidential debate: A content analysis of the issues and arguments. Speaker and Gavel, 18, 47-59.
30. Riley, P., Hollihan, T., and Cooley, D. (1980, April). The 1976 presidential debate: An analysis of the issues and arguments. Paper presented at the meeting of the Central States Speech Association, Chicago.
31. Rosenberg, H. (2000, October 12). Lessons of the first meeting provide candidates with a lose/win strategy. Los Angeles Times, p. A16.
32. Shapiro, W. (2000, October 12). Gentlemen’s debate almost a round-table rumble. USA Today, p. A4.
33. Sisk, R., & DeFrank, T. M. (2000, October 18). Gore zeroes in, holds edge: Paints Bush as friend of special interests. New York Daily News, p. 7.
34. Tiemens, R. K. (1978). Television’s portrayal of the 1976 presidential debates: An analysis of visual content. Communication Monographs, 45, 362-370.
35. Tiemens, R. K., Hellweg, S. A., Kipper, P., & Phillips, S. L. (1985). An integrative verbal and visual analysis of the Carter-Reagan debate. Communication Quarterly, 33, 34-42.