Fanning the flames of a partisan divide: Debate viewing, vote choice, and perceptions of vote count accuracy

Communication Research

Volumn 36, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 155-177

  Holbert, R Lance ^a   Lamarre, Heather L ^a   Landreville, Kristen D ^a  

^a OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Cognitive dissonance; Debate viewing; Partisanship; U.S. presidential elections; Vote accuracy

Indexed keywords

EID: 61849084094     PISSN: 00936502     EISSN: 15523810     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0093650208330248     Document Type: Article

References (74)

1. Abramowitz, A.I. (1978). The impact of a presidential debate on voter rationality. American Journal of Political Science, 22, 680-690.
2. Argersinger, P.H. (1985). New perspectives on election fraud in the gilded age. Political Science Quarterly, 100, 669-687.
3. Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
4. Bartels, L.M. (2002). Beyond the running tally: Partisan bias in political perceptions. Political Behavior, 24, 117-150.
5. Bass, L.R., & Thomas, D.B. (1980). Dissonance and perception during a presidential campaign: Pre- and postelection findings from the Carter-Ford contest. Journal of Social Psychology, 112, 305-306.
6. Beasley, R.K., & Joslyn, M.R. (2001). Cognitive dissonance and post-election attitude change in six presidential elections. Political Psychology, 22, 521-540.
7. 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.
8. Benoit, W.L., & Holbert, R.L. (in press). Empirical intersections in communication research: Replication, multiple quantitative methods, and bridging the quantitative-qualitative divide. Journal of Communication.
9. Benoit, W.L., McKinney, M.S., & Holbert, R.L. (2001). Beyond learning and persona: Extending the scope of presidential debate effects. Communication Monographs, 68, 259-273.
10. Biemer, P., Folsom, R., Kulka, R., Lessler, J., Shah, B., & Weeks, M. (2003). An evaluation of procedures and operations used by the voter news service for the 2000 presidential election. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67, 31-44.
11. Blais, A., & Gelineau, F. (2007). Winning, losing and satisfaction with democracy. Political Studies, 55, 425-444.
12. Campbell, A., Converse, P.E., Miller, W.E., & Stokes, D.E. (1960). The American voter. New York: John Wiley.
13. Chaffee, S.H. (1978). Presidential debates-are they helpful to voters ? Communication Monographs, 45, 330-346.
14. Chaffee, S.H., & Hochheimer, J.L. (1985). The beginnings of political communication research in the United States: Origins of the "limited effects model." In M. Gurevitch & M. R. Levy (Eds.), Mass communication review yearbook 5 (pp. 75-104). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
15. Cigler, A.J., & Getter, R. (1977). Conflict resolution in the post-election period: A test of the depolarization thesis. Western Political Quarterly, 30, 363-376.
16. Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (Rev. ed.). New York: Academic Press.
17. Craig, S.C., Martinez, M.D., Gainous, J., & Kane, J.G. (2006). Winners, losers, and election context: Voter responses to the 2000 presidential election. Political Research Quarterly, 59, 579-592.
18. Dillard, J.P., & Peck, E. (2000). Affect and persuasion: Emotional responses to public service announcements. Communication Research, 27, 461-495.
19. Eveland, W.P., Jr. (1997). Interactions and nonlinearity in mass communication: Connecting theory and methodology. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 74, 400-416.
20. Faul, F., & Erdfelder, E. (1992). GPOWER: A priori, post-hoc, and compromise power analyses for MS-DOS [Computer software]. Bonn, Germany: Bonn University, Department of Psychology. Retrieved April 1, 2005, from http://www.psycho.uni-duesseldorf.de/aap/projects/gpower
21. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.
22. Gangl, A. (2003). Procedural justice theory and evaluations of the lawmaking process. Political Behavior, 25, 119-149.
23. Gelman, A., & King, G. (1993). Why are American presidential election campaign polls so variable when voters are so predictable ? British Journal of Political Science, 23, 409-451.
24. Gibson, J.L. (1991). Institutional legitimacy, procedural justice, and compliance with Supreme Court decisions: A question of causality. Law & Society Review, 25, 631-636.
25. Granberg, D., & Nanneman, T. (1986). Attitude change in an electoral context as a function of expectations not being fulfilled. Political Psychology, 7, 753-765.
26. Gunther, A.C., & Schmitt, K. (2003). Mapping the boundaries of the hostile media effect. Journal of Communication, 54, 55-70.
27. Harmon-Jones, E., & Mills, J. (1999). An introduction to cognitive dissonance theory and an overview of current perspectives on the theory. In E. Harmon-Jones & J. Mills (Eds.), Cognitive dissonance: Progress on a pivotal theory in social psychology (pp. 3-24). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
28. Holbert, R.L. (2005 a). Debate viewing as mediator and partisan reinforcement in the relationship between news use and vote choice. Journal of Communication, 55, 85-102.
29. Holbert, R.L. (2005 b). Intramedia mediation: The cumulative and complementary effects of news media use. Political Communication, 22, 447-462.
30. 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.
31. Holbert, R.L., Hansen, G.J., Caplan, S.E., & Mortensen, S. (2007). Presidential debate viewing and Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9-11: A study of affect-as-transfer and passionate reasoning. Media Psychology, 9, 673-694.
32. Holbert, R.L., & Stephenson, M.T. (2003). The importance of analyzing indirect effects in media effects research: Testing for mediation in structural equation modeling. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 47, 553-569.
33. Huckfeldt, R., Johnson, P.E., & Sprague, J. (2002). Political environments, political dynamics, and the survival of disagreement. Journal of Politics, 64, 1-21.
34. Hwang, H., Gotlieb, M.R., Nah, S., & McLeod, D.M. (2007). Applying a cognitive-processing model to presidential debate effects: Postdebate news analysis and primed reflection. Journal of Communication, 57, 40-59.
35. 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.
36. Jamieson, K.H., & Birdsell, D.S. (1988). Presidential debates: The challenge creating an informed electorate. New York: Oxford University Press.
37. Johnston, R. (2006). Party identification: Unmoved mover or sum of preferences ? Annual Review of Political Science, 9, 329-351.
38. 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.
39. Kenski, K., & Stroud, N.J. (2005). Who watches presidential debates? A comparative analysis of presidential debate viewing in 2000 and 2004. American Behavioral Scientist, 49, 213-228.
40. Krauss, S. (Ed.). (1977). The great debates: Carter v. Ford, 1976. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
41. Lang, G., & Lang, K. (1978). The formation of public opinion: Direct and mediated effects of the first debate. In G. Bishop, R. Meadow, & M. Jackson-Beeck (Eds.), The presidential debates (pp. 61-80). New York: Praeger.
42. Lazarus, R.S. (1991). Emotion & adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press.
43. Lodge, M., & Taber, C.S. (2005). The automaticity of affect for political leaders, groups, and issues: An experimental test of the hot cognition hypothesis. Political Psychology, 26, 455-482.
44. MacKinnon, D.P., Lockwood, C., & Hoffman, J. (1998, June). A new method to test for mediation. Paper presented to the Society for Prevention Research, Park City, UT.
45. MacKinnon, D.P., Lockwood, C.M., Hoffman, J.M., West, S.G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7, 83-104.
46. Maurer, M., & Reinemann, C. (2006). Learning versus knowing: Effects of misinformation in televised debates. Communication Research, 33, 489-506.
47. McKinney, M.S., & Carlin, D.B. (2004). Political campaign debates. In L. L. Kaid (Ed.), Handbook of political communication research (pp. 203-236). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
48. McLeod, D.M., Kosicki, G.M., & McLeod, J.M. (2002). Resurveying the boundaries of political communication effects. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (2 nd ed., pp. 215-268). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
49. Morris, J.P., Squires, N.K., Taber, C.S., & Lodge, M. (2003). Activation of political attitudes: A psychological examination of the hot cognition hypothesis. Political Psychology, 24, 727-745.
50. Mulder, R.D. (1978). The political effects of the Carter-Ford debate: An experimental analysis. Sociological Focus, 11, 33-45.
51. Nadeau, R., & Blais, A. (1993). Accepting the election outcome: The effect of participation on losers' consent. British Journal of Political Science, 23, 553-563.
52. Nelson, D.C. (1979). Ethnicity and socioeconomic status as sources of participation: The case for ethnic political culture. American Political Science Review, 73, 1024-1038.
53. Oatley, K. (1992). Best laid schemes: The psychology of emotions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
54. Olson, K.M. (2005). Analyzing televised political debates in the 2004 election cycle. Argumentation & Advocacy, 41, 191-195.
55. Pomper, G. (1967). The concept of elections in political theory. Review of Politics, 29, 478-491.
56. Pomper, G.M. (2001). The 2000 election: Why Gore lost. Political Science Quarterly, 116, 201-223.
57. Price, V., & Romantan, A. (2004). Confidence in institutions before, during, and after "Indecision 2000." Journal of Politics, 66, 939-956.
58. Racine Group. (2002). White paper on televised political campaign debates. Argumentation and Advocacy, 38, 199-218.
59. Reber, B.H., & Benoit, W.L. (2001). Presidential debate stories accentuate the negative. Newspaper Research Journal, 22, 30-43.
60. Regan, D.T., & Kildruff, M. (1988). Optimism about elections: Dissonance reduction at the ballot box. Political Psychology, 9, 101-107.
61. Reinemann, C., & Maurer, M. (2005). Unifying or polarizing? Short-term effects and postdebate consequences of different rhetorical strategies in televised debates. Journal of Communication, 56, 775-794.
62. Reynolds, J.F. (1993). A symbiotic relationship: Vote fraud and electoral reform in the gilded age. Social Science History, 17, 227-251.
63. Romer, D., Kenski, K., Winneg, K., Adasiewicz, C., & Jamieson, K.H. (2006). Capturing campaign dynamics 2000 & 2004: The National Annenberg Election Survey. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
64. Rosenthal, R. (1991). Replication in behavioral research. In J. W. Neuliep (Ed.), Replication in the social sciences (pp. 1-30). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
65. Scheufele, D.A., Kim, E., & Brossard, D. (2007). My friend's enemy: How split-screen debate coverage influences evaluation of presidential debates. Communication Research, 34, 3-24.
66. 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 v. Ford, 1976 (pp. 223-261). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
67. Sigelman, L., & Sigelman, C.K. (1984). Judgments of the Carter-Reagan Debate: The eyes of the beholders. Public Opinion Quarterly, 48, 624-628.
68. Stricker, G. (1964). The operation of cognitive dissonance on pre- and postelection attitudes. Journal of Social Psychology, 63, 111-119.
69. Strube, M.J. (2000). Reliability and generalizability theory. In L. G. Grimm & P. R. Yarnold (Eds.), Reading and understanding more multivariate statistics (pp. 23-66). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
70. Taber, C.S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 755-769.
71. Wall, V., Golden, J.L., & James, H. (1988). Perceptions of the 1984 presidential debates and a select 1988 presidential primary debate. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 18, 541-563.
72. Weatherford, M.S. (1992). Measuring political legitimacy. American Political Science Review, 86, 149-166.
73. Zhu, J., Milavasky, J.R., & Biswas, R. (1994). Do televised debates affect image perception more than issue knowledge ? Human Communication Research, 20, 302-333.
74. Zippel, B. (1980). Change in attitude of party switchers before and after an election. Psychological Reports, 46, 919-923.