Unifying or polarizing? Short-term effects and postdebate consequences of different rhetorical strategies in televised debates

Journal of Communication

Volumn 55, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 775-794

  Reinemann, Carsten ^a   Maurer, Marcus ^a  

^a JOHANNES GUTENBERG UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK;

EID: 31044436031     PISSN: 00219916     EISSN: 14602466     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/joc/55.4.775     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Allen, M., & Burrell, N. (2002). The negativity effect in political advertising: A meta-analysis. In J. P. Dillard & M. Pfau (Eds.), The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 83-96). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
2. Benoit, W. L., & Brazeal, L. M. (2002). A functional analysis of the 1988 Bush-Dukakis presidential debates. Argumentation & Advocacy, 38, 219-233.
3. Benoit, W. L., Hansen, G. J., & Verser, R. M. (2003). A meta-analysis of the effects of viewing U.S. presidential debates. Communication Monographs, 70, 335-350.
4. Benoit, W. L., & Smythe, M. J. (2003). Rhetorical theory as message reception: A cognitive response approach to rhetorical theory and criticism. Communication Studies, 51, 96-114.
5. Biocca, F., Prabu, D., & West, M. (1994). Continuous response measurement (CRM). In A. Lang (Ed.), Measuring psychological responses to media messages (pp. 15-64). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
6. Burke, K. (1969). A rhetoric of motives. Berkeley: University of California Press.
7. Bystrom, D. G., Roper, C., Gobetz, R., Massey, T., & Beall, C. (1991) The effects of a televised gubernatorial debate. Political Communication Review, 16, 57-80.
8. Carlin, D. B., Morris, E., & Smith, S. (2001). The influence of format and questions on candidates' strategic argument choices in the 2000 presidential debates. American Behavioral Scientist, 44, 2196-2218.
9. Clayman, S. E. (1995). Defining moments, presidential debates, and the dynamics of quotability. Journal of Communication, 45(3), 118-146.
10. Coleman, S. (Ed.). (2000). Televised election debates: International perspectives. New York: St. Martin's Press.
11. Conover, P. J., & Feldman, S. (1989). Candidates in an ambiguous world: Campaigns, cues, and inference processes. American Journal of Political Science, 33, 912-940.
12. Delli Carpini, M. X., Keeter, S., & Webb, S. (1997). The impact of presidential debates. In P. Norris (Ed.), Politics and the press (pp. 145-164). Boulder, CO: Rienner.
13. Faas, T., & Maier, J. (2004). Chancellor-candidates in the 2002 televised debates. German Politics, 13, 300-316.
14. Fazio, R. H. (1989). On the power and functionality of attitudes: The role of attitude accessibility. In A. R. Pratkanis, S. J. Breckler, & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Attitude structure and function (pp. 153-179). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
15. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
16. Gordon, A., & Miller, J. L. (2004). Values and persuasion during the first Bush-Gore presidential debate. Political Communication, 21, 71-92.
17. Holbrook, T. M. (1996). Do campaigns matter? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18. Kepplinger, H. M., & Maurer, M. (2005). Abschied vom rationalen Waehler: Warum Wahlen im Fernsehen entschieden werden. Freiburg, Germany: Verlag Karl Alber.
19. Levasseur, D., & Dean, K. W. (1996). The use of evidence in presidential debates: A study of evidence levels and types from 1960 to 1988. Argumentation & Advocacy, 32, 129-142.
20. Maurer, M., & Reinemann, C. (2003). Schroeder gegen Stoiber: Nutzung, Wahrnehmung und Wirkung der TV-Duelle. Wiesbaden, Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag.
21. McKinney, M. S., & Carlin, D. B. (2004). Political campaign debates. In L. L. Kaid (Ed.), Handbook of political communication research (pp. 203-234). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
22. McKinnon, L. M., Tedesco, J. C., & Kaid, L. L. (1993). The third 1992 presidential debate: Channel and commentary effects. Argumentation & Advocacy, 30, 106-118.
23. McKinnon, L. M., & Tedesco, J. C. (1999). The influence of medium and media commentary on presidential debate effects. In L. L. Kaid (Ed.), The electronic election: Perspectives on the 1996 campaign (pp. 191-206). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
24. Meffert, M., Chung, S., Joiner, A. J., & Waks, L. (2004). Counterarguing: How voters process negative, incongruent political campaign information. Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Communication Association, New Orleans, LA.
25. Morley, D. R., & Walker, K. B. (1987). The role of importance, novelty, and plausibility in producing belief change. Communication Monographs, 54, 436-442.
26. Noelle-Neumann, E., & Koecher, R. (2002). Allensbacher Jahrbuch fuer Demoskopie 1998-2002. Munich, Germany: Sauer.
27. Pfau, M. (1987). The influence of intraparty political debates on candidate preference. Communication Research, 14, 687-697.
28. Pfau, M. (2003) The changing nature of presidential debate influence in the new age of mass media communication. Paper presented at the 9th Annual Conference on Presidential Rhetoric, Texas A&M University, College Station.
29. Racine Group (2002). White paper on televised political campaign debates. Argumentation & Advocacy, 38, 199-218.
30. Reinard, J. C. (1988). The empirical study of the persuasive effects of evidence: The status after fifty years of research. Human Communication Research, 15, 3-59.
31. Reinemann, C., Maier, J., Faas, T., & Maurer, M. (2005). Reliabilität und Validität von RTR-Messungen. Publizistik, 50, 56-73.
32. Shaw, D. R. (1999) A study of presidential campaign event effects from 1952 to 1992. Journal of Politics, 61, 387-422.
33. Sherif, M., & Sherif, C. W. (1967). Attitude as the individual's own categories: The social judgment-involvement approach to attitude and attitude change. In M. Sherif & C. W. Sherif (Eds.), Attitude, ego-involvement and change (pp. 105-139). New York: Wiley.
34. Skowronski, J. J., & Carlston, D. E. (1989). Negativity and extremity biases in impression formation. A review of explanations. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 131-142.
35. Slater, M. D., & Rouner, D. (1996) Value-affirmative and value-protective processing of alcohol education messages that include statistical evidence or anecdotes. Communication Research, 23, 210-235.
36. Smith, C., & Voth, B. (2002). The role of humor in political argument: How "strategery" and "lockboxes" changed a political campaign. Argumentation & Advocacy, 39, 110-129.
37. Steeper, F. T. (1978). Public responses to Gerald Ford's statement on Eastern Europe in the second debate. In G. F. Bishop, R. G. Meadow, & M. Jackson-Beeck (Eds.), The presidential debates. Media, electoral, and policy perspectives (pp. 81-101). New York: Praeger.
38. Yawn, M., & Beatty, B. (2000). Debate-induced opinion change. What matters? American Politics Quarterly, 28, 270-285.
39. Vancil, D. L., & Pendell, S. D. (1984). Winning presidential debates: An analysis of criteria influencing audience response. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 48, 62-74.
40. Waldman, P., & Jamieson, K. H. (2003). Rhetorical convergence and issue knowledge in the 2000 Presidential election. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 33, 145-163.
41. Williams, M. L. (1980). The effect of deliberate vagueness on receiver recall and agreement. Central States Speech Journal, 31, 30-41.
42. Wilke, J., & Reinemann, C. (2003). Die Bundestagswahl 2002: Ein Sonderfall? In C. Holtz-Bacha (Ed.), Die Massenmedien im Wahlkampf. Die Bundestagswahl 2002 (pp. 29-56). Wiesbaden, Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag.