Political campaign debates

Handbook of Political Communication Research

Volumn , Issue , 2004, Pages 203-234

  McKinney, Mitchell S ^a   Carlin, Diana B ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85087194726     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (146)

1. Auer, J. J. (1962). The counterfeit debates. In S. Kraus (Ed.), The great debates: Background, perspective, effects (pp. 142-150). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
2. Auer, J. J. (1981). Great myths about the great debates. Speaker and Gavel, 18, 14-21.
3. Baker, K. L., & Norpoth, H. (1981). Candidates on television: The 1972 electoral debates in West Germany. Public Opinion Quarterly, 45, 329-345.
4. Bechtolt, W. E., Hilyard, J., & Bybee, C. R. (1977). Agenda control in the 1976 debates: A content analysis. Journalism Quarterly, 54, 674-681, 689.
5. Beck, C. S. (1996). "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, 13, 165-180.
6. Becker, S. L., & Kraus, S. (1977). The study of campaign '76: An overview. Communication Monographs, 45, 265-267.
7. Beiler, D. (2000). The body politic registers a protest. In M. A. Bailey, R. A. Faucheux, P. S. Herrnson, & C. Wilcox (Eds.), Campaigns & elections: Contemporary case studies. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
8. Benoit, W. L., & Harthcock, A. (1999). Functions of the great debates: Acclaims, attacks, and defenses in the 1960 presidential debates. Communication Monographs, 66, 341-357.
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. Benoit, W. L., McKinney, M. S., & Stephenson, M. T. (2002). Effects of watching primary debates in the 2000 U.S. presidential campaign. Journal of Communication, 52, 316-331.
11. Benoit, W. L., Pier, P. M., Brazeal, L. M., McHale, J. P., Klyukovski, A., & Airne, D. (2002). The primary decision: A functional analysis ofdebates in presidential primaries. Westport, CT: Preager.
12. Benoit, W. L., Webber, D. J., & Berman, J. (1998). Effects of presidential debate watching and ideology on attitudes and knowledge. Argumentation and Advocacy, 34, 163-172.
13. Benoit, W. L., & Wells, W. T. (1996). Candidates in conflict: Persuasive attack and defense in the 1992 presidential debates. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
14. Berke, R. L. (2000, January 19). Debates seen as influential, even if few are tuning in. New York Times, p. A1.
15. Best, S. J., & Hubbard, C. (1999). Maximizing "minimal effects": The impact of early primary season debates on voter preferences. American Politics Quarterly, 27, 450-467.
16. Best, S. J., & Hubbard, C. (2000). The role of televised debates in the presidential nominating process. In W. G. Mayer (Ed.), In pursuit of the White House 2000: How we choose our presidential nominees (pp. 255-284). New York: Chatham House.
17. Bishop, G. F., Oldendick, R. W., & Tuchfarber, A. J. (1978). Debate watching and the acquisition of political knowledge. Journal of Communication, 28, 99-113.
18. Bishop, G. F., Oldendick, R. W., & Tuchfarber, A. J. (1980). The presidential debates as a device for increasing the "rationality" of electoral behavior. In G. F. Bishop, R. G. Meadow, & M. Jackson-Beeck (Eds.), The presidential debates: Media, electoral, and policy perspectives (pp. 179-196). New York: Praeger.
19. Bilmes, J. (1999). Questions, answers, and the organization of talk in the 1992 vice presidential debate: Fundamental considerations. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 32, 213-242.
20. Bilmes, J. (2001). Tactics and styles in the 1992 vice presidential debate: Question placement. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 34, 151-181.
21. Bitzer, L., & Rueter, T. (1980). Carter vs Ford: The counterfeit debates of 1976. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
22. Blais, A., & Boyer, M. M. (1996). Assessing the impact of televised debates: The case of the 1988 Canadian election. British Journal of Political Science, 26, 143-164.
23. Bowes, J. E., & Strentz, H. (1978). Candidate images: Stereotyping and the 1976 debates. In B. Ruben (Ed.), Communication yearbook, 2 (pp. 391-406). New Brunswick, NJ: International Communication Association.
24. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. New York: Cambridge University Press.
25. Bryski, B. G. (1978). An analysis of evidence in the first Ford-Carter debate. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 6, 19-30.
26. Burgoon, M., & Miller, G. R. (1985). An expectancy interpretation of language and persuasion. In H. Giles & R. N. St. Clair (Eds.), Recent advances in language, communication, and social psychology (pp. 199-229). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
27. Bystrom, D. G., Roper, C., Gobetz, R., Massey, T., & Beall, C. (1991). The effects of a televised gubernatorial debate. Political Communication Review, 16, 57-80.
28. Carlin, D. P. (1989). A defense of the "debate" in presidential debates. Argumentation and Advocacy, 25, 208-213.
29. Carlin, D. P. (1992). Presidential debates as focal points for campaign arguments. Political Communication, 9, 251-265.
30. Carlin, D. B. (1994). A rationale for a focus group study. In D. B. Carlin & M. S. McKinney (Eds.), The 1992 presidential debates in focus (pp. 3-19). Westport, CT: Praeger.
31. Carlin, D. B. (1999). Constructing the 1996 debates: Determining the settings, formats, and participants. In L. L. Kaid & D. G. Bystrom (Eds.), The electronic election: Perspectives on the 1996 campaign communication (pp. 133-148). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
32. Carlin, D. B. (2000). Watching the debates: A guide for viewers. In S. Coleman (Ed.), Televised election debates: International perspectives (pp. 157-177). New York: St. Martin's Press.
33. Carlin, D. B., & Bicak, P. J. (1993). Toward a theory of vice presidential debate purposes: An analysis of the 1992 vice presidential debate. Argumentation and Advocacy, 30, 119-130.
34. Carlin, D. P., Howard, C., Stanfield, S., & Reynolds, L. (1991). The effects of presidential debate formats on clash: A comparative analysis. Argumentation and Advocacy, 27, 126-136.
35. Carlin, D. B., & McKinney, M. S. (Eds.). (1994). The 1992 presidential debates in focus. Westport, CT: Praeger.
36. Carlin, D. B., Morris, E., & Smith, S. (2001). The influence of format and questions on candidates' argument choices in the 2000 presidential debates. American Behavioral Scientist, 44, 2196-2218.
37. Carter, R. F. (1962). Some effects of the debates. In S. Kraus (Ed.), The great debates (pp. 253-270). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
38. Chaffee, S. H. (1978). Presidential debates: Are they helpful to voters? Communication Monographs, 45, 330-346.
39. Chaffee, S. H. (1979). Approaches of U.S. scholars to the study of televised political debates. Political Communication Review, 5, 19-33.
40. Chaffee, S. H., & Choe, S. Y. (1980). Time of decision and media use during the Ford-Carter campaign. Public Opinion Quarterly, 44, 53-69.
41. Chaffee, S. H., & Dennis, J. (1979). Presidential debates: An empirical assessment. In A. Ranney (Ed.), The past and future of presidential debates (pp. 75-106). Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.
42. Coleman, S. (Ed.). (2000). Televised election debates: International perspectives. New York: St. Martin's Press.
43. Commission on Presidential Debates. (1960). Transcript of the first 1960 presidential debate. http:// www.debates.org.
44. Cushman, D. P., & Kincaid, D. L. (1987). Introduction and initial insights. In D. L. Kincaid (Ed.), Communication theory: Eastern and Western perspectives (pp. 1-10). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
45. Davis, L. K. (1978). Camera-eye contact by the candidates in the presidential debates of 1976. Journalism Quarterly, 55, 431-437, 455.
46. deBok, H. (1978). The influence of the Ford-Carter debates on the Dutch television audience. Journalism Quarterly, 55, 583-585.
47. Dennis, J., Chaffee, S. H., & Choe, S. Y. (1979). Impact on partisan, image, and issue voting. In S. Kraus (Ed.), The great debates: Carter vs. Ford, 1976 (pp. 314-330). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
48. Drew, D., & Weaver, D. (1991). Voter learning in the 1988 presidential election: Did the debates and the media matter? Journalism Quarterly, 68, 27-38.
49. Eaton, A. H. (1912). The Oregon system: The story of direct legislation in Oregon. Chicago: A. C. McClurg.
50. Edelsky, C., & Adams, K. (1990). Creating inequality: Breaking the rules in debates. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 9, 171-190.
51. Ellsworth, J. T. (1965). Rationality and campaigning: A content analysis of the 1960 presidential campaign debates. Western Political Quarterly, 18, 794-802.
52. Eveland, W. P., McLeod, D. M., & Nathanson, A. I. (1994). Reporters vs. undecided voters: An analysis of the questions asked during the 1992 presidential debates. Communication Quarterly, 42, 390-406.
53. Faucheux, R. A. (2002). What voters think about political debates: Key findings from a nationwide voter poll. Campaign and Elections, 23, 22-24, 26-44.
54. Gallup, G. (1987). The impact of presidential debates on the vote and turnout. In J. L. Swerdlow (Ed.), Presidential debates and beyond (pp. 34-42). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.
55. Geer, J. G. (1988). The effects of presidential debates on the electorate's preferences for candidates. American Politics Quarterly, 16, 486-501.
56. Hardy-Short, D. (1986). An insider's view of the constraints affecting Geraldine Ferraro's preparation for the 1984 presidential debates. Speaker and Gavel, 24, 8-22.
57. Hart, R. P. (2000). Campaign talk: Why elections are good for us. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
58. Hart, R. P., & Jarvis, S. E. (1997). Political debate: Forms, styles, and media. American Behavioral Scientist, 40, 1095-1122.
59. Hellweg, S. A. (1993). Introduction. Argumentation and Advocacy, 30, 59-61.
60. Hellweg, S. A., Pfau, M., & Brydon, S. R. (1992). Televised presidential debates: Advocacy in contemporary America. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
61. Hellweg, S., & Phillips, S. (1981). A verbal and visual analysis of the 1980 Houston Republican presidential primary debate. Southern Speech Communication Journal, 47, 23-38.
62. Hinck, E. A., & Hinck, S. S. (2002). Politeness strategies in the 1992 vice presidential and presidential debates. Argumentation and Advocacy, 38, 234-250.
63. Holbrook, T. M. (1994). The behavioral consequences of vice-presidential debates: Does the undercard have any punch? American Politics Quarterly, 22, 469-482.
64. Holbrook, T. M. (1996). Do campaigns matter? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
65. Holbrook, T. M. (1999). Political leanings from presidential debates. Political Behavior, 21, 67-89.
66. Hollihan, T. A. (2001). Uncivil wars: Political campaigns in a media age. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's.
67. Jackson-Beeck, M., & Meadow, R. G. (1979). The triple agenda of presidential debates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 5, 173-180.
68. Jamieson, K. H., & Birdsell, D. S. (1988). Presidential debate: The challenges of creating an informed electorate. New York: Oxford University Press.
69. Joslyn, R. A. (1990). Election campaigns as occasions for civic education. In D. L. Swanson & D. Nimmo (Eds.), New directions in political communication (pp. 86-119). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
70. Kaid, L., & Holtz-Bacha, C. (Eds.). (1995). Political advertising in western democracies: Parties and candidates on television. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
71. Kaid, L. L., McKinney, M. S., & Tedesco, J. C. (2000). Civic dialogue in the 1996 presidential campaign: Candidate, media, and public voices. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
72. Kang, W. T., & Hoon, J. (1999). The 1997 presidential election in South Korea. Electoral Studies, 18, 2-13.
73. Katz, E., & Feldman, J. J. (1962). The debates in the light of research: A survey of surveys. In S. Kraus (Ed.), The great debates: Kennedy vs. Nixon, 1960 (pp. 173-223). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
74. Katz, E., Gurevitch, M., & Haas, H. (1973). On the use of mass media for important things. American Sociological Review, 38, 161-184.
75. Kay, J., & Borchers, T. A. (1994). "Children in a sandbox": Reaction to the vice presidential debate. In D. B. Carlin & M. S. McKinney (Eds.), The 1992 presidential debates in focus (pp. 99-108). New York: Praeger.
76. Kendall, K. E. (1997). Presidential debates through media eyes. American Behavioral Scientist, 40, 1193-1207.
77. Kendall, K. E. (2000). Communication in the presidential primaries: Candidates and the media, 1912-2000. Westport, CT: Praeger.
78. Kennamer, J. D. (1987). Debate viewing and debate discussion as predictors of campaign cognition. Journalism Quarterly, 64, 114-118.
79. Kennamer, J. D., & Chaffee, S. H. (1982). Communication of political information during early presidential primaries: Cognition, affect, and uncertainty. In M. Burgoon (Ed.), Communication yearbook 5 (pp. 627-650). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
80. Kraus, S. (1996). Winners of the first 1960 televised debate between Kennedy and Nixon. Journal of Communication, 46, 78-96.
81. Kraus, S. (2000). Televised presidential debates and public policy (2nd ed). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
82. Kraus, S., & Davis, D. K. (1981). Political debates. In D. D. Nimmo & K. R. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of political communication (pp. 273-296). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
83. Lamoureux, E. R., Entrekin, H. S., & McKinney, M. S. (1994). Debating the debates. In D. B. Carlin & M. S. McKinney (Eds.), The 1992 presidential debates in focus (pp. 55-67). Westport, CT: Praeger.
84. Lanoue, D. J., & Schrott, P. R. (1989). The effects of primary season debates on public opinion. Political Behavior, 11, 289-306.
85. Lanoue, D. J., & Schrott, P. R. (1991). The joint press conference: The history, impact, and prospects of American presidential debates. New York: Greenwood.
86. Lemert, J. B. (1993). Do televised presidential debates help inform voters? Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 37, 83-94.
87. Lemert, J. B., Elliot, W. R., Bernstein, J. M., Rosenberg, W. L., & Nestvold, K. J. (1991). News verdicts, the debates, and presidential campaigns. New York: Preager.
88. Lemert, J. B., Elliott, W. R., Nestvold, K. J., & Rarick, G. R. (1983). Effects of viewing a presidential primary debate: An experiment. Communication Research, 10, 155-173.
89. Lemert, J. B., Elliott, W. R., Rosenberg, W. L., & Bernstein, J. M. (1995). The politics of disenchantment: Bush, Clinton, Perot, and the press. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
90. Lemert, J. B., Wanta, W., & Lee, T. (1999). Winning by staying ahead: 1996 debate performance verdicts. In L. L. Kaid & D. G. Bystrom (Eds.), The electronic election: Perspectives on the 1996 campaign communication (pp. 179-189). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
91. Levasseur, D., & Dean, K. W. (1996). The use of evidence in presidential debates: A study of evidence levels and types from 1960 to 1988. Argumentation and Advocacy, 32, 129-142.
92. Lichtenstein, A. (1982). Differences in impact between local and national political candidates' debates. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 46, 291-298.
93. Lowery, D. T., Bridges, J. A., & Barefield, P. A. (1990). The effects of network TV "instant analysis and querulous criticism" following the first Bush-Dukakis debate. Journalism Quarterly, 67, 814-825.
94. Mancini, P., & Swanson, D. L. (1996). Politics, media, and modern democracy: Introduction. In D. L. Swanson & P. Mancini (Eds.), Politics, media, and modern democracy: An international study of innovations in electoral campaigning and their consequences (pp. 1-26). Westport, CT: Preager.
95. Matsaganis, M., & Weingarten, C. (2001). The 2000 U.S. presidential debate versus the 2000 Greek prime minister debate. American Behavioral Scientist, 44, 2398-2409.
96. McCombs, M., & Shaw, D. (1972). The agenda-setting function of the media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176-187.
97. McLeod, J. M., Bybee, C. R., & Durall, J. A. (1979). Equivalence of informed participation: The 1976 presidential debates as a source of influence. In G. C. Wilhoit & H. deBock (Eds.), Mass communication review yearbook 2 (pp. 469-493). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
98. McLeod, J. M., Durrall, J., Ziemke, D., & Bybee, C. (1979). Reactions of young and older voters: Expanding the context of effects. In S. Kraus (Ed.), The great debates: Carter vs. Ford, 1976 (pp. 348-367). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
99. McKinney, M. S. (1994). Design and implementation of the focus group study. In D. B. Carlin & M. S. McKinney (Eds.), The 1992 presidential debates in focus (pp. 21-35). New York: Praeger.
100. McKinney, M. S. (in press). Engaging citizens through presidential debates: Does the format matter? In M. S. McKinney, L. L. Kaid, D. G. Bystrom, & D. B. Carlin (Eds.), Communicating politics: Engaging the public in democratic life. New York: Peter Lang.
101. McKinney, M. S., Dudash, E. A., & Hodgkinson, G. (2003). Viewer reactions to the 2000 presidential debates: Learning issue and image information. In L. L. Kaid, J. C. Tedesco, D. G. Bystrom, & M. M. McKinney (Eds.), The millennium election: Communication in the 2000 campaign (pp. 43-58). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
102. McKinney, M. S., Kaid, L. L., & Robertson, T. A. (2001). The front-runner, contenders, and also-rans: Effects of watching a 2000 Republican primary debate. American Behavioral Scientist, 44, 2232-2251.
103. McKinney, M. S., & Lamoureux, E. R. (1999). Citizen response to the 1996 presidential debates: Focusing on the focus groups. In L. L. Kaid & D. G. Bystrom (Eds.), The electronic election: Perspectives on the 1996 campaign communication (pp. 163-177). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
104. McKinney, M. S., Spiker, J. A., & Kaid, L. L. (1998). DebateWatch '96 and citizen engagement: Building democracy through citizen communication. In T. J. Johnson, C. E. Hayes, & S. P. Hayes (Eds.), Engaging the public: How government and the media can reinvigorate American democracy (pp. 185-193). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
105. 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: Lawrence Erlbaum.
106. McKinnon, L. M., Tedesco, J. C., & Kaid, L. L. (1993). The third 1992 presidential debate: Channel and commentary effects. Argumentation and Advocacy, 30, 106-118.
107. Messaris, P., Eckman, B., & Grumpert, G. (1979). Editing structure in the televised versions of the 1976 presidential debates. Journal of Broadcasting, 23, 359-369.
108. Miller, A. H., & MacKuen, M. (1979). Informing the electorate: A national study. In S. Kraus (Ed.), The great debates: Carter vs. Ford, 1976 (pp. 269-297). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
109. Morello, J. T. (1988a). Visual structuring of the 1976 and 1984 nationally televised presidential debates: Implications. Central States Speech Journal, 39, 233-243.
110. Morello, J. T. (1988b). Argument and visual structuring in the 1984 Mondale-Reagan debates: The medium's influence on the perception of clash. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 52, 277-290.
111. Morello, J. T. (1992). The "look" and language of clash: Visual structuring of argument in the 1988 Bush-Duakakis debates. Southern Communication Journal, 57, 205-218.
112. O'Keefe, G., & Mendelsohn, H. (1979). Media influences and their anticipation. In S. Kraus (Ed.), The great debates: Carter vs. Ford, 1976 (pp. 405-417). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
113. Patterson, M. L., Churchill, M. E., Burger, G. K., & Powell, J. L. (1992). Verbal and nonverbal modality effects on impressions of political candidates: Analysis form the 1984 presidential debates. Communication Monographs, 59, 231-242.
114. Patterson, T. E. (2002). The vanishing voter: Public involvement in an age of uncertainty. New York: Knopf.
115. Pfau, M. (1983). Criteria and format to optimize political debates: An analysis of South Dakota's "Election '80" series. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 19, 205-214.
116. Pfau, M. (1984). A comparative assessment of intra-party political debate formats. Political Communication Review, 8, 1-23.
117. Pfau, M. (1987). The influence of intraparty debates on candidate preference. Communication Research, 14, 687-697.
118. Pfau, M. (1988). Intra-party political debates and issue learning. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 16, 99-112.
119. Pfau, M. (2003). The changing nature of presidential debate influence in the new age of mass media communication. Paper presented at the 9th Annual Conference on Presidential Rhetoric, Texas A & M University.
120. Pfau, M., Cho, J., & Chong, K. (2001). Impact of communication forms in presidential campaigns: Influences on candidate perceptions and democratic process. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 6, 88-105.
121. Pfau, M., & Eveland, W. P. (1994). Debates versus other communication sources: The pattern of information and influence. In D. B. Carlin & M. S. McKinney (Eds.), The 1992 presidential debates in focus (pp. 155-173). Westport, CT: Praeger.
122. Pfau, M., & Kang, J. G. (1991). The impact of relational messages on candidate influence in televised political debates. Communication Studies, 42, 114-128.
123. Riley, P., & Hollihan, T. A. (1981). The 1980 presidential debates: A content analysis of the issues and arguments. Speaker and Gavel, 18, 47-59.
124. Rosenberg, W. L., & Elliot, W. R. (1987). Effect of debate exposure on evaluation of 1984 vice-presidential candidates. Journalism Quarterly, 63, 55-64, 262.
125. Rothkopf, E. Z., Dixon, P., & Billington, M. J. (1986). Effects of enhanced spatial context on television message retention. Communication Research, 13, 55-69.
126. Rowland, R. (1986). The substance of the 1980 Carter-Reagan debate. Southern Speech Communication Journal, 51, 142-165.
127. Samovar, L. A. (1965). Ambiguity and unequivocation in the Kennedy-Nixon debates: A rhetorical analysis. Western Speech, 29, 211-218.
128. Schroeder, A. (2000). Presidential debates: Forty years of high-risk TV. New York: Columbia University Press.
129. Schrott, P. R. (1984). The content and consequences of the 1980 televised debates in West Germany and the United States. Unpublished manuscript, State University of New York, Stony Brook.
130. Schrott, P. R. (1990). Electoral consequences of "winning" televised campaign debates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 54, 567-585.
131. 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 vs. Ford, 1976 (pp. 223-261). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
132. 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.
133. Swanson, L. L., & Swanson, D. L. (1978). The agenda-setting function of the first Ford-Carter debate. Communication Monographs, 45, 347-353.
134. Tannenbaum, P., Greenberg, B., & Silverman, F. (1962). Candidate images. In S. Kraus (Ed.), The great debates: Background, perspective, effects (pp. 271-288). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
135. The Racine Group. (2002). White paper on televised political campaign debates. Argumentation and Adovcacy, 38, 199-218.
136. Tiemens, R. K. (1978). Televisions portrayal of the 1976 presidential debates: An analysis of visual content. Communication Monographs, 45, 362-370.
137. Tiemens, R. K., Hellweg, S. A., Kipper, P., & Phillips, S. L. (1985). An integrative verbal and visual analysis of the Carter-Ford debate. Communication Quarterly, 33, 34-42.
138. Tonn, M. B. (1994). Flirting with Perot: Voter ambivalence about the third candidate. In D. B. Carlin & M. S. McKinney (Eds.), The 1992 presidential debates in focus (pp. 109-123). Westport, CT: Praeger.
139. Trent, J. S., & Friedenberg, R. V. (2000). Political campaign communication: Principles and practices (4th ed). Westport, CT: Preager.
140. Vancil, D. L., & Pendell, S. D. (1987). The myth of viewer-listener disagreement in the first Kennedy-Nixon debate. Central States Speech Journal, 38, 16-27.
141. Wald, K., & Lupfer, M. (1978). The presidential debate as a civics lesson. Public Opinion Quarterly, 42, 342-353.
142. Wall, V., Golden, J., & James, H. (1988). Perceptions of the 1984 presidential debates and a select 1988 presidential primary debate. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 18, 541-563.
143. Weaver, D., & Drew, D. (1995). Voter learning in the 1992 presidential election: Did the "nontraditional" media and debates matter? Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 72, 45-72.
144. Yawn, M., Ellsworth, K., Beatty, B., & Kahn, K. F. (1988). How a presidential primary debate changed attitudes of audience members. Political Behavior, 20, 155-181.
145. Zarefsky, D. (1999, April). Looking forward, looking back: Presidential debates, 1960-2000. Paper presented at the meeting of the Central States Communication Association, St. Louis, MO.
146. Zhu, J., Milavsky, J. R., & Biswas, R. (1994). Do televised debates affect image perception more than issue knowledge? A study of the first 1992 presidential debate. Human Communication Research, 20, 302-333.