My Friend's enemy: How split-screen debate coverage influences evaluation of presidential debates

Communication Research

Volumn 34, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 3-24

  Scheufele, Dietram A ^a   Kim, Eunkyung ^a   Brossard, Dominique ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

Negativity; Presidential debates; Split screen coverage; Turnout

Indexed keywords

EID: 33845995092     PISSN: 00936502     EISSN: 15523810     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0093650206296079     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Abelson, R. P. (1986). Beliefs are like possessions. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 16, 223-250.
2. Anderson, N., & Collins, S. (2004, October 2). The race for the White House: Split screen wasn't kind to Bush. Los Angeles Times, p. 18-18.
3. Benoit, W. L., & Hansen, G. L. (2004). Presidential debate watching, issue knowledge, character evaluation, and vote choice. Human Communication Research, 30 (1). 121-144.
4. Benoit, W. L., McKinney, M. S., & Holbert, R. L. (2001). Beyond learning and persona: Extending the scope of presidential debate effects, Communication Monographs, 68 (3). 259-273.
5. Berelson, B., Lazarsfeld, P. F., & McPhee, W. N. (1954). Voting: A study of opinion formation in a presidential campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
6. Bradac, J. J. (1983). On generalizing cabbages, messages, kings, and several other things: The virtues of multiplicity. Human Communication Research, 9, 181-186.
7. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. New York: John Wiley.
8. Chaffee, S. (1978). Presidential debates: Are they helpful to voters? Communication Monographs, 45, 330-346.
9. Davis, S. (1999). The effects of audience reaction shots on attitudes toward controversial issues. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 43 (4). 476-491.
10. Druckman, J. M. (2003). The power of television images: The first Kennedy-Nixon debate revisited. Journal of Politics, 65 (2). 559-571.
11. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
12. Hastie, R., & Park, B. (1986). The relationship between memory and judgment depends on whether the task is memory-based or on-line. Psychological Review, 93, 258-268.
13. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: John Wiley.
14. Hellweg, S. A., Pfau, M., & Brydon, S. R. (1992). Televised presidential debates. New York: Praeger.
15. Hodges, S. D., & Wilson, T. D. (1993). Effects of analyzing reasons on attitude change: The moderating role of attitude accessibility. Social Cognition, 11, 353-366.
16. Houston, D. A., & Fazio, R. H. (1989). Biased processing as a function of attitude accessibility: Making objective judgments subjectively. Social Cognition, 7, 51-66.
17. Hovland, C. I. (1959). Reconciling conflicting results derived from experimental and survey studies of attitude change. American Psychologist, 14, 8-17.
18. Iyengar, S. (1990). The accessibility bias in politics: Television news and public opinion. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 2, 1-15.
19. Iyengar, S., & Kinder, D. R. (1987). News that matters. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
20. Jervis, R. (1993). The drunkard's search. In S. Iyengar & W. J. McGuire (Eds.), Explorations in political psychology (pp. 338-360). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
21. Jurkowitz, M. (2004, September 30). TV says it won't stick to debate restrictions: Networks say they determine camera angles. Boston Globe, p. A23 - A23.
22. Keeter, S. (1987). The illusion of intimacy. Public Opinion Quarterly, 51 (3). 344-358.
23. Keppel, G. (1991). Design and analysis: A researcher's handbook. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
24. Kepplinger, H. M., & Donsbach, W. (1987). The influence of camera perspective on the perception of a politician by supporters, opponents and neutral viewers. In D. L. Paletz (Ed.), Political communication research: Approaches, studies, assessments (pp. 62-72). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
25. Kirk, R. E. (1995). Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral science. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
26. Krosnick, J. A. (1990). Lessons learned: A review and integration of our findings. Social Cognition, 8, 154-158.
27. Krosnick, J. A., & Milburn, M. A. (1990). Psychological determinants of political opinionation. Social Cognition, 8, 49-72.
28. Lang, K., & Lang, G. E. (1962). Reactions of viewers. In S. Kraus (Ed.), Great debates: Backgrounds, perspective, and effects (pp. 313-330). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
29. Lanoue, D. J. (1992). One that made a difference: Cognitive consistency, political knowledge, and the 1980 presidential debate. Public Opinion Quarterly, 56, 168-184.
30. Lemert, J. B. (1993). Do televised presidential debates help inform voters. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 37 (1). 83-94.
31. Lemert, J. B., Elliott, W. R., Bernstein, J. M., Rosenberg, W. L., & Nestvold, K. J. (1991). News, verdicts, the debates, and presidential campaigns. New York: Praeger.
32. Leshner, G. (2006). A plea for message sampling. CT & M Concepts, 35 (3). 2 & 12.
33. Messaris, P. (1994). Visual literacy: Image, mind and reality. Boulder, CO: Westview.
34. Messaris, P. (1997). Visual persuasion: The roles of images in advertising. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
35. Milbank, D. (2004, October 2). Reaction shots may tell tale of debate: Bush's scowls compared to Gore's sighs. The Washington Post, p. A10 - A10.
36. Miller, A. H., & MacKuen, M. (1979). Learning about candidates: The 1976 presidential debates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 43, 326-346.
37. Mondak, J. J. (1995). Competence, integrity, and the electoral success of congressional incumbents. Journal of Politics, 57 (4). 1043-1069.
38. Mutz, D. C., & Holbrook, R. A. (2003, April). Televised political conflict: Nemesis or necessity? Paper presented at the annual convention of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.
39. Mutz, D. C., & Reeves, B. (2005). The new videomalaise: Effects of televised incivility on political trust. American Political Science Review, 99 (1). 1-15.
40. Newcomb, T. M. (1953). An approach to the study of communication acts. Psychological Review, 60, 393-404.
41. Osgood, C. E., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1955). The principle of congruity in the prediction of attitude change. Psychological Review, 62, 42-55.
42. Perloff, R. M. (1998). Political communication: Politics, press, and public in America. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
43. Price, V., & Tewksbury, D. (1997). News values and public opinion: A theoretical account of media priming and framing. In G. A. Barett & F. J. Boster (Eds.), Progress in communication sciences: Advances in persuasion (Vol. 13, pp. 173-213). Greenwich, CT: Ablex.
44. Reeves, B., & Geiger, S. (1994). Designing experiments that assess psychological responses to media messages. In A. Lang (Ed.), Measuring psychological responses to media (pp. 165-180). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
45. 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.
46. Sears, D. O., Freedman, J. L., & O'Connor, E. F., Jr. (1964). The effects of anticipated debate and commitment on the polarization of audience opinion. Public Opinion Quarterly, 28, 615-627.
47. Seiter, J. S. (1999). Split-screen versus single-screen formats in televised debates: Dose access to an opponent's nonverbal behaviors affect viewers' perceptions of a speaker's credibility? Perceptual and Motor Skills, 96 (2). 491-497.
48. Seiter, J. S., Abraham, J. A., & Nakagama, B. T. (1998). Split-screen versus single-screen formats in televised debates: Does access to an opponent's nonverbal behaviors affect viewer's perception of a speaker's credibility? Perceptual and Motor Skills, 86, 491-497.
49. Sherif, M., & Sherif, C. W. (1967). Attitudes as the individual's own categories: The social-judgment approach to attitude and attitude change. In C. W. Sherif & M. Sherif (Eds.), Attitude, ego-involvement and change (pp. 105-139). New York: John Wiley.
50. Tannenbaum, P. H. (1968). The congruity principle: Retrospective reflections and recent research. In R. P. Abelson, E. Aronson, W. J. McGuire, T. M. Newcomb, M. J. Rosenberg, & P. H. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Cognitive consistency theories: A sourcebook (pp. 52-72). Chicago: Rand McNally.
51. Tannenbaum, P. H., Greenberg, B. S., & Silverman, F. R. (1962). Candidate images. In S. Kraus (Ed.), Great debates: Backgrounds, perspective, and effects (pp. 271-288). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
52. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207-232.
53. Zaller, J. (1990). Political awareness, elite opinion leadership and mass survey response. Social Cognition, 8, 125-133.
54. Zaller, J. R. (1992). The nature and origin of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.
55. Zhu, J. H., Milavsky, J. R., & Biswas, R. (1994). Do televised debate affect image perception more than issue knowledge? A study of the first 1992 presidential debate. Human Communication Research, 20 (3). 302-333.