Learning versus knowing: Effects of misinformation in televised debates

Communication Research

Volumn 33, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 489-506

  Maurer, Marcus ^a   Reinemann, Carsten ^a  

^a JOHANNES GUTENBERG UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Learning; Misinformation; State of the economy; Televised debates

Indexed keywords

EID: 33750452349     PISSN: 00936502     EISSN: 15523810     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0093650206293252     Document Type: Review

References (65)

1. Bartels, L. M. (1996). Uninformed votes: Information effects in presidential elections. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 194-230.
2. Becker, L., Sobowale, I. A., Cobbey, R. E., & Eyal, C. H. (1978). Debates' effects on voters' understanding of candidates and issues. In G. F. Bishop, R. G. Meadow, & M. Jackson-Beeck (Eds.), The presidential debates. Media, electoral, and policy perspectives (pp. 126-139). New York: Praeger.
3. Benoit, W. L., & Hansen, G. J. (2004). Presidential debate watching, issue knowledge, character evaluation, and vote choice. Human Communication Research, 30, 121-144.
4. Benoit, W. L., Pier, P. M., Brazeal, L. M., McHale, J. P., Klyukovski, A., & Airne, D. (2002). The primary decision. A functional analysis of debates in presidential primaries. Westport, CT: Praeger.
5. Benoit, W. L., Webber, D. J., & Berman, J. (1998). Effects of presidential debate watching and ideology on attitudes and knowledge. Argumentation and Advocacy, 34, 163-172.
6. Berelson, B. R., Lazarsfeld, P. F., & McPhee, W. N. (1954). Voting: A study of opinion formation in a presidential campaign. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
7. Biocca, F., Prabu, D., & West, M. (1994). Continuous response measurement (CRM): A computerized tool for research on the cognitive processing of communication messages. In A. Lang (Ed.), Measuring psychological responses to media messages (pp. 15-64). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
8. Blood, D. J., & Phillips, P. C. B. (1995). Recession headline news, consumer sentiment, the state of the economy, and presidential popularity: A time series analysis, 1989-1993. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 7, 2-22.
9. Budge, I., & Farlie, D. J. (1983). Explaining and predicting elections. London: Allen & Unwin.
10. Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1979). Effects of message repetition and position on cognitive response, recall, and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 97-109.
11. 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.
12. Chaffee, S. H. (1978). Presidential debates: Are they helpful to voters? Communication Monographs, 45, 330-346.
13. Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
14. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper and Row.
15. Drew, D., & Weaver, D. (1991). Voter learning in the 1988 presidential election: Did the debates and the media matter? Journalism Quarterly, 68, 27-37.
16. Drew, D., & Weaver, D. (1998). Voter learning in the 1996 presidential election: Did the media matter? Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 75, 292-301.
17. Eveland, W. P., Jr. (2001). The cognitive mediation model of learning from the news: Evidence from non-election, off-year election, and presidential election contexts. Communication Research, 28, 571-601.
18. Eveland, W. P., Jr. (2002). News information processing as mediator between motivations and public affairs knowledge. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 79, 26-40.
19. Eveland, W. P., Jr., & Scheufele, D. (2000). Connecting news media use with gaps in knowledge and participation. Political Communication, 17, 215-237.
20. Eveland, W. P., Jr., Shah, D. V., & Kwak, N. (2003). Assessing causality in the cognitive mediation model. A panel study of motivations, information processing, and learning during campaign 2000. Communication Research, 30, 359-386.
21. Faas, T., & Maier, J. (2004). Chancellor-candidates in the 2002 televised debates. German Politics, 13, 300-316.
22. Gilbert, D. T., Tafarodi, R. W., & Malone, P. S. (1993). You can't not believe everything you read. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 221-233.
23. Graber, D. A. (1984). Processing the news. How people tame the information tide. New York: Longman.
24. Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action. Boston: Beacon.
25. Hallin, D. (1992). Sound bite news: Television coverage of elections, 1968-1988. Journal of Communication, 42, 5-24.
26. Hart, R. T. (2000). Campaign talk: Why elections are good for us. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
27. Hofstetter, C. R., Barker, D., Smith, J. T., Zari, G. M., & Ingrassia, T. A. (1999). Information, misinformation, and political talk radio. Political Research Quarterly, 52, 353-369.
28. 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.
29. Holbrook, T. M. (1999). Political learnings from presidential debates. Political Behavior, 21, 67-89.
30. Holbrook, T. M. (2002). Presidential campaigns and the knowledge gap. Political Communication, 19, 437-454.
31. Infratest-Dimap. (2002). ARD Deutschlandtrend September 2002 II. Retrieved September 24, 2002, from http://www.infratest-dimap.de
32. Jamieson, K. H., & Adasiewicz, C. (2000). What can voters learn from election debates. In S. Coleman (Ed.), Televised election debates: International perspectives (pp. 25-42). New York: St. Martin's.
33. Joslyn, R. A. (1990). Election campaigns as occasions for civic education. In D. L. Swanson & D. Nimmo (Eds.), New directions in political communication (pp. 86-119). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
34. Katz, E., & Feldman, J. J. (1962). The debates in the light of research: A survey of surveys. In S. Kraus (Ed.), The great debates. Background - perspectives - effects (pp. 173-223). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
35. Kepplinger, H. M., & Daschmann, G. (1997). Today's news, tomorrow's context: A dynamic model of news processing. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 41, 548-565.
36. Kepplinger, H. M., & Maurer, M. (2005). Abschied vom rationalen Waehler. Warum Wahlen im Fernsehen entschieden werden [Farewell to the rational voter. Why elections are decided on television]. Freiburg, Germany: Verlag Karl Alber.
37. Kessler, G., & Allen, M. (2004, October 13). Attacks misleading and out of context. The Washington Post, p. A06 - A06.
38. Kiewiet, D. R. (1983). Macroeconomics and micropolitics: The electoral effects of economic issues. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
39. Kuklinski, J. H., & Quirk, P. J. (2000). Reconsidering the rational public: Cognition, heuristics, and mass opinion. In A. Lupia, M. D. McCubbins, & S. L. Popkin (Eds.), Elements of reason. Cognition, choice, and the bounds of rationality (pp. 153-182). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
40. Kuklinski, J. H., Quirk, P. J., Jerit, J., Schwieder, D., & Rich, R. F. (2000). Misinformation and the currency of democratic citizenship. Journal of Politics, 62, 790-816.
41. Lemert, J. B. (1993). Do televised debates help inform voters? Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 37, 83-94.
42. Leshner, G., & McKean, M. L. (1997). Using TV news for political information during an off-year election: Effects on political knowledge and cynicism. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 74, 69-83.
43. Lipset, S. M. (1960). Political man. The social bases of politics. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
44. Luhmann, N. (2000). The reality of the mass media. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
45. Maurer, M., & Reinemann, C. (2003). Schroeder gegen Stoiber. Nutzung, Wahrnehmung und Wirkung der TV-Duelle [Schroeder vs. Stoiber. Uses, perceptions and effects of the televised debates]. Wiesbaden, Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag.
46. 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: Lawrence Erlbaum.
47. McLeod, D. M., & Perse, E. M. (1994). Direct and indirect effects of socioeconomic status on political affairs knowledge. Journalism Quarterly, 71, 433-442.
48. Meffert, M. F., Chung, S., Joiner, A. J., Waks, L., & Garst, J. (2006). The effect of negativity and motivated information processing during a political campaign. Journal of Communication, 56, 27-51.
49. Miller, A. H., & MacKuen, M. (1979). Informing the electorate: A national study. In S. Kraus (Ed.), The great debates: Carter vs. Ford, 1976 (pp. 269-297). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
50. Morley, D. R., & Walker, K. B. (1987). The role of importance, novelty, and plausibility in producing belief change. Communication Monographs, 54, 436-442.
51. Mutz, D. C. (1994). Contextualizing personal experience: The role of mass media. Journal of Politics, 56, 689-714.
52. Neuman, R. W. (1986). The paradox of mass politics. Knowledge and opinion in the American electorate. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
53. Noelle-Neumann, E. (1973). Return to the concept of powerful mass media. Studies of Broadcasting, 9, 67-112.
54. O'Keefe, D. J. (1987). The persuasive effects of delaying identification of high- and low-credibility communicators: A meta-analytic review. Central States Speech Journal, 38, 63-72.
55. Patterson, T. E. (1993). Out of order. New York: Knopf.
56. Patzelt, W. J. (1999). Politikverdrossenheit, populäres Parlamentsverständnis und die Aufgaben der politischen Bildung [Political alienation, popular understanding of parliament, and the mission of political education]. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, B 7-8, 31-38.
57. Pfau, M., Cho, J., & Chong, K. (2001). Communication forms in U.S. presidential campaigns. Influence on candidate perceptions and the democratic process. Harvard Journal of Press/Politics, 6, 88-105.
58. Popkin, S. L. (1991). The reasoning voter: Communication and persuasion in presidential campaigns. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
59. Reinemann, C., & Maurer, M. (2005). Unifying or polarizing? Short-term effects and postdebate consequences of different rhetorical strategies in televised debates. Journal of Communication, 55, 775-794.
60. Robinson, J. P., & Levy, M. R. (1996). News media and the informed public: A 1990s update. Journal of Communication, 46, 129-135.
61. 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.
62. Waldman, P., & Jamieson, K. H. (2003). Rhetorical convergence and issue knowledge in the 2000 presidential election. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 33, 145-163.
63. Weaver, D., & Drew, D. (1995). Voter learning in the 1992 presidential election: Did the "non-traditional" media and debates matter? Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 72, 7-17.
64. Weaver, D., & Drew, D. (2001). Voter learning and interest in the 2000 presidential election: Did the media matter? Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 78, 787-798.
65. Zhu, J.-H., Milavsky, J. R., & Biswas, R. (1994). Do televised debates affect image perception more than issue knowledge? Human Communication Research, 20, 302-333.