Social influence on political judgments: The case of presidential debates

Political Psychology

Volumn 28, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 165-192

  Fein, Steven ^a   Goethals, George R ^b   Kugler, Matthew B ^c  

^a WILLIAMS COLLEGE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF RICHMOND   (United States)

^c PRINCETON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Ambiguity; Conformity; Informational social influence; Political communication; Presidential debates

Indexed keywords

EID: 33847638930     PISSN: 0162895X     EISSN: 14679221     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2007.00561.x     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. In H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership, and men. Pittsburgh: Carnegie Press.
2. Axsom, D., Yates, S., & Chaiken, S. (1987). Audience response as a heuristic cue in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 30-40.
3. Baron, R. S., Vandello, J. A., & Brunsman, B. (1996). The forgotten variable in conformity research: Impact of task importance on social influence. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 71, 915-927.
4. Brehm, J. W. (1966) A theory of psychological reactance. New York: Academic.
5. Brock, T. M., & Becker, L. A. (1965). Ineffectiveness of "overheard" counterpropaganda. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2, 654-660.
6. Cacioppo, J. T. & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116-131.
7. Cantril, H. (1940). The invasion from Mars. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
8. Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 51, 629-636.
9. Fein, S., Frost, L. A., Goethals, G. R., & Kassin, S. M. (1994). The effects of expectations on perceptions of presidential debate performance. Presented at the 102nd meeting of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles.
10. Fein, S., Hoshino-Browne, E., Davies, P. G., & Spencer, S. J. (2003). Self-image maintenance goals and sociocultural norms in motivated social perception. In S. J. Spencer, S. Fein, M. Zanna, & J. M. Olson (Eds.), Motivated social perception: The Ontario symposium (vol. 9, pp. 21-44). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
11. Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
12. Germond, J. W., & Witcover, J. (1989). Whose broad stripes and bright stars? The trivial pursuit of the presidency 1988. New York: Warner.
13. Insko, C. A., Drenan, S., Solomon, M. R., Smith, R., & Wade, T. J. (1983). Conformity as a function of the consistency of positive self-evaluation with being liked and being right. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 341-358.
14. Jamieson, K. H., & Waldman, P. (2002). The press effect: Politicians, journalists, and the stories that shape the political world. Cambridge: Oxford University Press.
15. Kaid, L. L., & Bystrom, D. G. (1999). The electronic election: Perspectives on the 1996 campaign communication. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
16. Kelley, H. H. (1950). The warm-cold variable in first impressions of persons. Journal of Personality, 18, 431-439.
17. Kiesler, C. A., & Kiesler, S. B. (1969). Conformity. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
18. Kraus, S. (1962). The great debates: Background, perspectives, effects. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
19. Kugler, M. B., & Goethals, G. R. (2005). Trait-focused spin in presidential debates: Surviving the kisses of death. Unpublished manuscript, Williams College.
20. McKinnon, 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: Perspectives on the 1996 campaign communication (pp. 191-206). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
21. McKinnon, L. M., Tedesco, J. C., & Kaid, L. L. (1993). The third 1992 presidential debate: Channel and commentary effects. Augmentation and Advocacy, 30, 106-118.
22. Newtson, D. (1976). Foundations of attribution: The perception of ongoing behavior. In J. H. Harvey, W. J. Ickes, & R. F. Kidd (Eds.), New directions in attribution research (pp. 223-247). New York: John Wiley and Sons.
23. Norton, M. I., & Goethals, G. R. (2004). Spin (and pitch) doctors: Campaign strategies in televised political debates. Political Behavior, 26, 227-248.
24. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
25. Schroeder, A. (2000). Presidential debates: Forty years of high-risk TV. New York: Columbia University Press.
26. Sears, D. O., & Chaffee, S. H. (1979). Uses and effects of the 1976 debates: An overview of the empirical studies. In S. Kraus (Ed.), The great debates: Carter versus Ford, 1976. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
27. Sherif, M. (1936). The psychology of social norms. New York: Harper.
28. Sigelman, L. (1992). There you go again: The media and the debasement of American politics. Communication Monographs, 59, 407-410.
29. Sigelman, L., & Sigelman, C. K. (1984). Judgments of the Carter-Reagan debate: The eyes of thebeholders. Public Opinion Quarterly, 48, 624-628.
30. Steeper, F. T. (1978). Public response to Gerald Ford's statements 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.
31. Zarevsky, D. (1992). Spectator politics and the revival of public argument. Communication Monographs, 59, 411-414.