Playing to the Crowd: Agenda Control in Presidential Debates

Political Communication

Volumn 30, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 254-277

  Boydstun, Amber E ^a   Glazier, Rebecca A ^b   Pietryka, Matthew T ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT LITTLE ROCK   (United States)

Author keywords

agenda setting; debates; framing; salience; tone

Indexed keywords

EID: 84877303120     PISSN: 10584609     EISSN: 10917675     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10584609.2012.737423     Document Type: Article

References (72)

1. Abramowitz, A. I. 1978. The impact of a presidential debate on voter rationality. American Journal of Political Science, 22: 680 - 690.
2. Ansolabehere, S. and Iyengar, S. 1994. Riding the wave and claiming ownership over issues: The joint effects of advertising and news coverage in campaigns. Public Opinion Quarterly, 58: 335 - 357.
3. Associated Press. 2004. Confidence in economy at its highest since. New York Times, June: C8 30June
4. Bartels, L. M. 2006. " Priming and persuasion in presidential campaigns ". In Capturing campaign effects, Edited by: Brady, H. E. and Johnston, R. 78 - 112. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
5. Baumgartner, F. R.Jones, B. D.2006Policy Agendas Project topic codebook. Retrieved from http://www.policyagendas.org/page/topic-codebook (http://http://www.policyagendas.org/page/topic-codebook)
6. Baumgartner, F. R. and Jones, B. D. 2009. Agendas and instability in American politics, 2nd, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. ed
7. Behr, R. L. and Iyengar, S. 1985. Television news, real-world cues, and changes in the public agenda. Public Opinion Quarterly, 49: 38 - 57.
8. Bennett, W. L. and Manheim, J. B. 2001. " The big spin: Strategic communication and the transformation of pluralist democracy ". In Mediated politics: Communication in the future of democracy, Edited by: Bennett, W. L. and Entman, R. M. 279 - 298. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. InEds.
9. Benoit, W. L. and Hansen, G. J. 2004. Presidential debate watching, issue knowledge, character evaluation, and vote choice. Human Communication Research, 30: 121 - 144.
10. Benoit, W. L., Hansen, G. J. and Verser, R. M. 2003. A meta-analysis of the effects of viewing U.S. presidential debates. Communication Monographs, 70: 335 - 350.
11. Blais, A. and Perrella, A. M. L. 2008. Systemic effects of televised candidates' debates. International Journal of Press/Politics, 13: 451 - 464.
12. Brader, T. 2006. Campaigning for hearts and minds: How emotional appeals in political ads work, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
13. Chaffee, S. H. 1978. Presidential debates-Are they helpful to voters?. Communication Monographs, 45: 330 - 346.
14. Chong, D. and Druckman, J. N. 2007. Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10: 103 - 126.
15. Damore, D. F. 2005. Issue convergence in presidential campaigns. Political Behavior, 27: 71 - 97.
16. De Boef, S. and Kellstedt, P. M. 2004. The political (and economic) origins of consumer confidence. American Journal of Political Science, 48: 633 - 649.
17. Druckman, J. N. 2003. The power of television images: The first Kennedy-Nixon debate revisited. Journal of Politics, 65: 559 - 571.
18. Druckman, J. N., Kifer, M. J. and Parkin, M. 2009. Campaign communications in U.S. congressional elections. American Political Science Review, 103: 343 - 366.
19. Erbring, L., Goldenberg, E. N. and Miller, A. H. 1980. Front-page news and real-world cues: A new look at agenda setting by the media. American Journal of Political Science, 24: 16 - 49.
20. Geer, J. G. 1988. The effects of presidential debates on the electorate's preferences for candidates. American Politics Research, 16: 486 - 501.
21. Geer, J. G. 2006. In defense of negativity: Attack ads in presidential campaigns, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
22. Gelman, A. and King, G. 1993. Why are American presidential election campaign polls so variable when votes are so predictable?. British Journal of Political Science, 23: 409 - 451.
23. Holbrook, T. M. 1996. Do campaigns matter?, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
24. Holbrook, T. M. 1999. Political learning from presidential debates. Political Behavior, 21: 67 - 89.
25. Holbrook, A. L., Berent, M. K., Krosnick, J. A., Visser, P. S. and Boninger, D. S. 2005. Attitude importance and the accumulation of attitude-relevant knowledge in memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88: 749 - 769.
26. Iyengar, S., Hahn, K. S., Krosnick, J. A. and Walker, J. 2008. Selective exposure to campaign communication: The role of anticipated agreement and issue public membership. Journal of Politics, 70: 186 - 200.
27. Iyengar, S. and Kinder, D. R. 1987. News that matters: Television and American opinion, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
28. Iyengar, S., Valentino, N. A., Ansolabehere, S. and Simon, A. F. 1997. Running as a woman: Gender stereotyping in political campaigns.Women, media, and politics, Edited by: Norris, P. 77 - 98. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. InEd.)pp
29. Jacoby, W. G. September 1998. Presidential campaign effects on citizens', September, Boston, MA: candidate preferences. Paper presented at the American Political Science Association annual conference.
30. Jamieson, K. H. and Birdsell, D. S. 1990. Presidential debates: The challenge of creating an informed electorate, Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
31. Jamieson, K. H. and Kenski, K. 2004. " Why the National Annenberg Election Survey? ". In Capturing campaign dynamics: The National Annenberg Election Survey, Edited by: Romer, D., Kenski, K., Waldman, P., Adasiewicz, C. and Jamieson, K. H. 1 - 11. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. InEds.pp
32. Jones, B. D. and Baumgartner, F. R. 2005. The politics of attention: How government prioritizes problems, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
33. Jost, J. T. 2006. The end of the end of ideology. American Psychologist, 61: 651 - 670.
34. Kifner, J. 2004. Marines in Falluja face rebels who are increasingly trained and armed. New York Times, April: 12 25p
35. Kingdon, J. W. 1995. Agendas, alternatives, and public policies, New York, NY: HarperCollins. 2nd ed
36. Kraus, S. 2000. Televised presidential debates and public policy, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
37. Krosnick, J. A. 1990. Government policy and citizen passion: A study of issue public in contemporary America. Political Behavior, 12: 59 - 92.
38. Kuhn, C. M. 1997. "There's a footnote to history!" Memory and the history of Martin Luther King's October 1960 arrest and its aftermath. Journal of American History, 84: 583 - 595.
39. Lakoff, G. 2006. Whose freedom?: The battle over America's most important idea, New York, NY: Picador.
40. Lanoue, D. J. 1991. The "turning point": Viewers' reactions to the second 1988 presidential debate. American Politics Research, 19: 80 - 95.
41. Lanoue, D. J. 1992. One that made a difference: Cognitive consistency, political knowledge, and the 1980 presidential debate. Public Opinion Quarterly, 56: 168 - 184.
42. Lanoue, D. J. and Schrott, P. R. 1989. Voters' reactions to televised presidential debates: Measurement of the source and magnitude of opinion change. Political Psychology, 10: 275 - 285.
43. Lau, R. R. and Pomper, G. M. 2002. Effectiveness of negative campaigning in the U.S. Senate elections. American Journal of Political Science, 46: 47 - 66.
44. Lau, R. R. and Redlawsk, D. P. 2006. How voters decide: Information processing during election campaigns, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
45. Lau, R. R., Sigelman, L. and Rovner, I. B. 2007. The effects of negative political campaigns: A meta-analytic reassessment. Journal of Politics, 69: 1176 - 1209.
46. Lemert, J. B. 1993. Do televised presidential debates help inform voters?. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 37: 83 - 94.
47. Lewis-Beck, M. S., Norpoth, H. and Jacoby, W. G. 2008. The American voter revisited, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
48. Marcus, G. E. and Mackuen, M. 1993. Anxiety, enthusiasm, and the vote: The emotional underpinnings of learning and involvement during presidential campaigns. American Political Science Review, 87: 672 - 685.
49. McCombs, M. E. 2004. Setting the agenda: The mass media and public opinion, Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
50. McCombs, M. E. and Shaw, D. L. 1972. The agenda setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36: 176 - 187.
51. McLeod, J. R. 1999. The sociodrama of presidential politics: Rhetoric, ritual, and power in the era of teledemocracy. American Anthropologist, 101: 359 - 373.
52. Miller, J. M. and Krosnik, J. A. 2000. News media impact on the ingredients of presidential evaluations: Politically knowledgeable citizens are guided by a trusted source. American. Journal of Political Science, 44: 301 - 315.
53. Nelson, T. E., Clawson, R. and Oxley, Z. 1997. Media framing of a civil liberties controvery and its effect on tolerance. American Political Science Review, 91: 567 - 584.
54. Page, B. I. and Shapiro, R. Y. 1992. The rational public: Fifty years of trends in Americans' policy preferences, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
55. Petrocik, J. 1996. Issue ownership in presidential elections with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science, 40: 825 - 850.
56. Petrocik, J. R., Benoit, W. L. and Hansen, G. J. 2003. Issue ownership and presidential campaigning, 1952-2000. Political Science Quarterly, 118: 599 - 626.
57. Rahn, W. M. 1993. The role of partisan stereotypes in information processing about political candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 37: 472 - 496.
58. Riker, W. H. 1996. The strategy of rhetoric: Campaigning for the American Constitution, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
59. Scheufele, D. A. and Tewksbury, D. 2007. Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of Communication, 57: 9 - 20.
60. Schroeder, A. 2008. Presidential debates: Fifty years of high-risk TV, New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
61. Sears, D. O. 1986. College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of a narrow data base on social psychology's view of human nature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51: 515 - 530.
62. Sellers, P. J. 1998. Strategy and background in congressional campaigns. American Political Science Review, 92: 159 - 171.
63. Sides, J. 2006. The origins of campaign agendas. British Journal of Political Science, 36: 407 - 436.
64. Simon, A. 2002. The winning message: Candidate behavior, campaign discourse, and democracy, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
65. Skaperdas, S. and Grofman, B. 1995. Modeling negative campaigning. American Political Science Review, 89: 49 - 61.
66. Soroka, S. N. 2003. Media, public opinion, and foreign policy. International Journal of Press/Politics, 8: 27 - 48.
67. Stelter, B. October 2008. " Ratings up, but not No. 1 ". In New York, October, Times Sec. A, 24. 9
68. Stimson, J. A. 2004. Tides of consent: How public opinion shapes American politics, New York: NY: Cambridge University Press.
69. Vavreck, L. 2009. The message matters: The economy and presidential campaigns, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
70. Walgrave, S., Lefevere, J. and Tresch, A. 2012. The associative dimension of issue ownership. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76: 771 - 782.
71. Wolfsfeld, G. 2004. Media and the path to peace, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
72. Wolfsfeld, G. 2011. Making sense of media and politics, New York, NY: Routledge.