Social influence in televised election debates: A potential distortion of democracy

PLoS ONE

Volumn 6, Issue 3, 2011, Pages

  Davis, Colin J ^a   Bowers, Jeffrey S ^b   Memon, Amina ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMMUNICATION SKILL; ELECTION; PERCEPTION; POLITICAL SYSTEM; QUESTIONNAIRE; SOCIAL ADAPTATION; SOCIAL ASPECT; SOCIAL ATTITUDE; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; SOCIAL DESIRABILITY; TELECOMMUNICATION; TELEVISION; UNITED KINGDOM; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PERSUASIVE COMMUNICATION; POLITICS; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SPEECH; STATISTICAL MODEL;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; DEMOCRACY; FEMALE; HUMANS; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; MALE; PERSUASIVE COMMUNICATION; POLITICS; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SPEECH; TELEVISION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 79953324570     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0018154     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Chakrabarti R, (2010) TV election debates around the world. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8586835.stm).
2. Schrott PR, (1990) Electoral consequences of "winning" televised campaign debates. Publ Opin Q 54: 567-585.
3. Finkel SE, Schrott PR, (1995) Campaign effects on voter choice in the German election of 1990. Brit J Pol Sci 25: 349-377.
4. Blais A, Boyer M, (1996) Assessing the impact of televised debates: The case of the 1988 Canadian election. Brit J Pol Sci 26: 143-64.
5. Blais A, Nadeau R, Gidengil E, Nevitte N, (1999) Campaign dynamics in the 1997 Canadian election. Can Publ Pol - Analyse de Politiques 25: 197-205.
6. Fournier P, Nadeau R, Blais A, Gidengil E, Nevitte N, (2004) Time-of-voting decision and susceptibility to campaign effects. Electoral Studies 23: 661-681.
7. Senior P, (2008) Electoral impact of televised leaders' debates on Australian federal elections. Aust J Pol Sci 43: 443-464.
8. Yawn M, Ellsworth K, Beatty B, Kahn KF, (1988) How a presidential primary debate changed attitudes of audience members. Pol Behav 20: 155-181.
9. Benoit WL, McKinney MS, Stephenson MT, (2002) Effects of watching primary debates in the 2000 US Presidential campaign. J Comm 52: 316-331.
10. Schill, Kirk R, (2009) Applied dial testing: Using real-time response to improve media coverage of debates. In: Maier J, Maier M, Maurer M, Reinemann C, Meyer V, editors. Real-time response measurement in the social sciences Sonderdruck Peter Lang pp. 155-173.
11. Cooke D, (2007) Worm wriggles to top of ratings. (October 22nd, 2007, The Age, accessed at http://www.theage.com.au/news/federalelection2007news/worm-tops-ratings/2007/10/22/1192940948751.html).
12. Sherif M, (1936) The psychology of social norms New York Harper Collins.
13. Asch SE, (1955) Opinions and social pressure. Sci Am 193: 31-35 (November).
14. Deutsch M, Gerard HB, (1955) A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgement. J Abnormal Soc Psychol 51: 629-636.
15. Festinger L, (1957) A theory of cognitive dissonance Stanford Stanford University Press.
16. Nosanchuk TA, Lightstone J, (1974) Canned laughter and public and private conformity. J Pers Soc Psychol 29: 153-156.
17. Hoffman HG, Granhag PA, See STK, Loftus EF, (2001) Social influences on reality-monitoring decisions. Mem & Cog 29: 394-404.
18. Gabbert F, Memon A, Allan K, (2003) Memory conformity: Can eyewitnesses influence each other's memories for an event? Appl Cog Psychol 17: 533-543.
19. Weaver JB, Huck I, Brosius H-B, (2009) Biasing public opinion: Computerized continuous response measurement displays impact viewers' perceptions of media messages. Comput Hum Behav 25: 50-55.
20. Fein S, Goethals GR, Kugler MB, (2007) Social influence on political judgments: The case of presidential debates. Pol Psychol 28: 165-192.
21. Di Vesta FJ, (1959) Effects of confidence and motivation on susceptibility to informational social influence. J Abnormal Soc Psychol 59: 204-209.
22. Krosnick JA, Berent MK, Boninger DS, (1994) Pockets of responsibility in the American electorate: Findings of a research program on attitude importance. Pol Comm 11: 391-411.
23. Petty RE, Cacioppo JT, (1986) The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 19: 123-205.
24. Nagelkerke NJD, (1991) A note on a general definition of the coefficient of determination. Biometrika 78: 691-692.
25. Penny T, Vina G, (2010) Cameron bolsters bid to oust brown in debate poll win. Business Week (April 30, retrieved from http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-30/cameron-bolsters-bid-to-oust-brown-in-debate-poll-win-update3-.html).
26. ICM/ComRes telephone poll of a random sample of 1,019 voters on May 2nd 2010.
27. Tormala ZL, Petty RE, (2002) What doesn't kill me makes me stronger: The effects of resisting persuasion on attitude certainty. J Pers Soc Psychol 83: 1298-1313.
28. Murphy ST, Zajonc RB, (1993) Affect, cognition, and awareness: Affective priming with optimal and suboptimal stimulus exposures. J Pers Soc Psychol 64: 723-729.
29. Berger J, Meredith M, Wheeler SC, (2008) Contextual priming: Where people vote affects how they vote. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105: 8846-8849.
30. Davies D, (2008) Don't scrap the squiggle! Retrieved fromhttp://crookedtimber.org/2008/10/17/dont-scrap-the-squiggle/.
31. Details of the methodologies used by ITV, BBC, and CNN can be found in Ref. 10 and at the following websites: http://www.itv.com/utils/cached/whatisthis.html, http://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/News/The_Second_Leaders_Debate.PDF.
32. The Sun (1992) "It's the Sun wot won it" (frontpage headline, 11 April).