Agenda Control in the 2008 Presidential Debates

American Politics Research

Volumn 41, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 863-899

  Boydstun, Amber E ^a   Glazier, Rebecca A ^b   Phillips, Claire ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

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

Author keywords

agenda setting; debate; framing; President; tone

Indexed keywords

EID: 84883189330     PISSN: 1532673X     EISSN: 15523373     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1532673X12472364     Document Type: Article

References (69)

1. Ansolabehere S.,Iyengar S.Going negative: How political advertisements shrink and demobilize the electorate. New York, NY: Free Press; 1997:.
2. BaumgartnerF. R.JonesB. D. (2006). Policy agendas project topic codebook (updated by AdlerE. ScottWilkersonJohn). Retrieved from http://www.policyagendas.org/page/topic-codebook.
3. Baumgartner F. R.,Jones B. D.Agendas and instability in American politics. 2009). Agendas and instability in American politics (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 2009:.
4. Beck C. S."I've got some points I'd like to make here": The achievement of social face through turn management during the 1992 vice presidential debate.Political Communication. 1996;13:165-180.
5. Benoit W. L.,McKinney M. S.,Holbert R. L.Beyond learning and persona: Extending the scope of presidential debate effects.Communication Monographs. 2001;68:259-273.
6. Benoit W. L.,Hansen G. J.,Verser R. M.A meta-analysis of the effects of viewing U.S. presidential debates.Communication Monographs. 2003;70:335-350.
7. Berg J.,Dickhaut J.,McCabe K.Trust, reciprocity, and social history.Games and Economic Behavior. 1995;10 (1): 122-142.
8. Boydstun A. E.,Glazier R. A.,Pietryka M. T.Playing to the crowd: Agenda control in presidential debates.Political Communication. In Press;:.
9. Brader T.Striking a responsive chord: How political ads motivate and persuade voters by appealing to emotions.American Journal of Political Science. 2005;49:388-405.
10. Brown P.,Levinson S. C.Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press; 1987:.
11. Carlin D. B.,McKinney M. S.The 1992 presidential debates in focus. Westport, CT: Praeger; 1994:.
12. Chong D.,Druckman J. N.Framing theory.Annual Review of Political Science. 2007;10:103-126.
13. Dailey W. O.,Hinck E. A.,Hinck S. S.Politeness in presidential debates: Shaping political face in campaign debates from 1960 to 2004. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield; 2008:.
14. Damore D. F.The dynamics of issue ownership in presidential campaigns.Political Research Quarterly. 2004;57:391-397.
15. Damore D. F.Issue convergence in presidential campaigns.Political Behavior. 2005;27 (1): 71-97.
16. Davis T. F.,Womack K.Mapping the ethical turn: A reader in ethics, culture, and literary theory. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press; 2001:.
17. Druckman J. N.Priming the vote: Campaign effects in a U.S. Senate election.Political Psychology. 2004;25:577-594.
18. Druckman J. N.,Holmes J. W.Does presidential rhetoric matter? Priming and presidential approval.Presidential Studies Quarterly. 2004;34:755-778.
19. Druckman J. N.,Jacobs L. R.,Ostermeier E.Candidate strategies to prime issues and image.The Journal of Politics. 2004;66:1180-1202.
20. Erbring L.,Goldenberg E. N.,Miller A. H.Front-page news and real-world cues: A new look at agenda-setting by the media.American Journal of Political Science. 1980;24:16-49.
21. Fehr E.,Simon G.Fairness and retaliation: The economics of reciprocity.The Journal of Economic Perspectives. 2000;14:159-181.
22. Freedman P.,Goldstein K.Measuring media exposure and the effects of negative campaign ads.American Journal of Political Science. 1999;43:1189-1208.
23. Geer J. G.The effects of presidential debates on the electorate's preferences for candidates.American Politics Research. 1988;16:486-501.
24. Gitlin T.The whole world is watching: Mass media in the making & unmaking of the new left. 2003). The whole world is watching: Mass media in the making & unmaking of the new left (2nd ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press.Berkeley: University of California Press; 2003:.
25. Gouldner A. W.The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement.American Sociological Review. 1960;25:161-178.
26. Harris S.Being politically impolite: Extending politeness theory to adversarial political discourse.Discourse & Society. 2001;12:451-472.
27. Hester J. B.,Gibson R.The agenda-setting function of national versus local media: A time-series analysis for the issue of same-sex marriage.Mass Communication and Society. 2007;10:299-317.
28. Holbrook T. M.Do campaigns matter?. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 1996:.
29. Holbrook T. M.Political learning from presidential debates.Political Behavior. 1999;21 (1): 67-89.
30. Iyengar S.Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1994:.
31. Iyengar S.,Kinder D. R.News that matter: Television and American opinion. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1987:.
32. Jacobson G. C.The 2008 Presidential and Congressional elections: Anti-Bush referendum and prospects for the democratic majority.Political Science Quarterly. 2009;124:1-30.
33. Jacoby W. G. Paper presented at the American Political Science Association Annual Conference; 1998Boston, MA; 1998.
34. Jacoby W. G.Issue framing and public opinion on government spending.American Journal of Political Science. 2000;44:750-767.
35. Electing the president 2008: The insiders' view. Jamieson K. H., ed. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press; (2009:.
36. Jamieson K. H.,Birdsell D. S.Presidential debates: The challenge of creating an informed electorate. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 1990:.
37. Jones B. D.,Baumgartner F. R.The politics of attention: How government prioritizes problems. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 2005:.
38. Kenski K.,Jamieson K. H.Presidential and vice presidential debates in 2008: A profile of audience composition.American Behavioral Scientist. 2011;33 (5): 307-324.
39. Kernell S.Going public: New strategies of presidential leadership. Washington, DC: CQ Press; 1993:.
40. Kingdon J. W.Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. 1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). New York, NY: HarperCollins.New York, NY: HarperCollins; 1995:.
41. Kiousis S.,McCombs M.Agenda-setting effects and attitude strength.Communication Research. 2004;31 (1): 36-57.
42. Lau R. R.,Pomper G. M.Effectiveness of negative campaigning in the U.S. Senate elections.American Journal of Political Science. 2002;46:47-66.
43. Lau R. R.,Sigelman L.,Heldman C.,Babbitt P.The effects of negative political advertisements: A meta-analytic assessment.The American Political Science Review. 1999;93:851-875.
44. Lemert J. B.Do televised presidential debates help inform voters?.Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media. 1993;37 (1): 83-94.
45. López-Escobar E.,Llamas J. P.,McCombs M.Agenda setting and community consensus: First and second level effects.International Journal of Public Opinion Research. 1998;10:335-348.
46. McCombs M. E.Setting the agenda: The mass media and public opinion. Cambridge, UK: Polity; 2004:.
47. McCombs M. E.,Shaw D. L.The agenda-setting function of mass media.Public Opinion Quarterly. 1972;36:176-187.
48. McCombs M. E.,Shaw D. L.The evolution of agenda-setting research: Twenty-five years in the marketplace of ideas.Journal of Communication. 1993;43 (2): 58-67.
49. Miller J. M.,Krosnik J. A.News media impact on the ingredients of presidential evaluations: Politically knowledgeable citizens are guided by a trusted source.American Journal of Political Science. 2000;44:301-315.
50. Nelson T. E.,Clawson R. A.,Oxley Z.Media framing of a civil liberties controvery and its effect on tolerance.American Political Science Review. 1997;91:567-584.
51. Nicholson S. P.Voting the agenda: Candidates, elections, and ballot propositions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2005:.
52. Petrocik J. R.Issue ownership in presidential elections with a 1980 case study.American Journal of Political Science. 1996;40:825-850.
53. Petrocik J. R.,Benoit W. L.,Hansen G. J.Issue ownership and presidential campaigning, 1952-2000.Political Science Quarterly. 2003;118:599-626.
54. Pope J. C.,Woon J.Measuring changes in American party reputations 1939-2004.Political Research Quarterly. 2009;62:653-661.
55. Riker W. H.The strategy of rhetoric: Campaigning for the American Constitution. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 1996:.
56. Roberts M.,McCombs M.Agenda setting and political advertising: Origins of the news agenda.Political Communication. 1994;11:249-262.
57. Schattschneider E. E.The semi-sovereign people: A realist's view of democracy in America. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston; 1960:.
58. Schoenbach K.,Semetko H. A.Agenda-setting, agenda-reinforcing or agenda-deflating? A study of the 1990 German National Election.Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. 1992;69:837-846.
59. Sellers P. J.Strategy and background in Congressional campaigns.The American Political Science Review. 1998;92:159-171.
60. Shah D. V.,Watts M. D.,Domke D.,Fan D. P.News framing and cueing of issue regimes: Explaining Clinton's public approval in spite of scandal.Public Opinion Quarterly. 2002;66:339-370.
61. Sheafer T.How to evaluate it: The role of story-evaluative tone in agenda setting and priming.Journal of Communication. 2007;57 (1): 21-39.
62. Sides J.The origins of campaign agendas.British Journal of Political Science. 2006;36:407-436.
63. Sides J.The consequences of campaign agendas.American Politics Research. 2007;35:465-488.
64. Skaperdas S.,Grofman B.Modeling negative campaigning.The American Political Science Review. 1995;89:49-61.
65. Stimson J. A.Tides of consent: How public opinion shapes American politics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 2004:.
66. Stuckey M. E.,Antczak F. J.The battle of issues and images: Establishing interpretive dominance.Communication Quarterly. 1994;42 (2): 120-132.
67. Vavreck L.The message matters: The economy and presidential campaigns. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2009:.
68. Walgrave S.,De Swert K.Where does issue ownership come from? From the party or from the media? Issue-party identifications in Belgium, 1991-2005.The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics. 2007;12 (1): 37-67.
69. Walgrave S.,Lefevere J.,Tresch A.The associative dimension of issue ownership.Public Opinion Quarterly. 2012;76:771-782.