Unifying or Polarizing? Short-Term Effects and Postdebate Consequences of Different Rhetorical Strategies in Televised Debates

Despite a large body of research, little is known about the ways in which viewers react to different kinds of statements during televised debates nor about the degree to which these short-term reactions influence postdebate opinions. Taking the second televised debate in the 2002 German national election as an example, we address both of these questions. We identify the most unifying and polarizing statements and connect immediate reactions during the debate to postdebate verdicts on an individual level of analysis. Our results show that commonplaces and acclaims met unanimous support among audience members with different political predispositions. Attacks and statements in which the candidates presented factual evidence or specified their political plans tended to polarize supporters of the respective candidates. Moreover, short-term reactions had an independent impact on postdebate verdicts even when political predispositions and expectations were controlled.

[1]  M. Lee Williams.  The effect of deliberate vagueness on receiver recall and agreement , 1980 .

[2]  Joohn C. Reinard.  The Empirical Study of the Persuasive Effects of Evidence The Status After Fifty Years of Research , 1988 .

[3]  Winning presidential debates: An analysis of criteria influencing audience response , 1984 .

[4]  Thomas M. Holbrook.  Do Campaigns Matter , 1996 .

[5]  P. J. Conover,et al.  Candidate Perception in an Ambiguous World: Campaigns, Cues, and Inference Processes , 1989 .

[6]  Chris M. Smith,et al.  The Role of Humor in Political Argument: How “Strategery” and “Lockboxes” Changed a Political Campaign , 2002 .

[7]  K. Burke.  A Rhetoric of Motives , 1969 .

[8]  M. Slater,et al.  Value-Affirmative and Value-Protective Processing of Alcohol Education Messages That Include Statistical Evidence or Anecdotes , 1996 .

[9]  Mike Yawn,et al.  Debate-induced Opinion Change , 2000 .

[10]  William L. Benoit,et al.  Rhetorical theory as message reception: A cognitive response approach to rhetorical theory and criticism , 2003 .

[11]  Jürgen Maier,et al.  Chancellor-candidates in the 2002 televised debates , 2004 .

[12]  William L. Benoit,et al.  A meta-analysis of the effects of viewing U.S. presidential debates , 2003 .

[13]  Stephen Coleman.  Televised Election Debates: International Perspectives , 1999 .

[14]  D. Levasseur,et al.  The Use of Evidence in Presidential Debates: A Study of Evidence Levels and Types from 1960 to 1988. , 1996 .

[15]  M. Maurer,et al.  Reliabilität und Validität von RTR-Messungen , 2005 .

[16]  L. Festinger,et al.  A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance , 2017 .

[17]  Donal E. Carlston,et al.  Negativity and extremity biases in impression formation: A review of explanations. , 1989 .

[18]  Kim B. Walker,et al.  The role of importance, novelty, and plausibility in producing belief change , 1987 .

[19]  Michael Pfau.  The Influence of Intraparty Political Debates on Candidate Preference , 1987 .

[20]  Ann Gordon,et al.  Values and Persuasion During the First Bush-Gore Presidential Debate , 2004 .

[21]  K. Jamieson,et al.  Rhetorical Convergence and Issue Knowledge in the 2000 Presidential Election , 2003 .

[22]  J. Tedesco,et al.  The Third 1992 Presidential Debate: Channel and Commentary Effects , 1993 .

[23]  LeAnn M. Brazeal,et al.  A Functional Analysis of the 1988 Bush-Dukakis Presidential Debates , 2002 .

[24]  D. Shaw.  A Study of Presidential Campaign Event Effects from 1952 to 1992 , 1999, The Journal of Politics.

[25]  J. Wilke,et al.  Die Bundestagswahl 2002: Ein Sonderfall? , 2003 .

[26]  Steven E. Clayman,et al.  Defining Moments, Presidential Debates, and the Dynamics of Quotability , 1995 .

[27]  The Influence of Format and Questions on Candidates' Strategic Argument Choices in the 2000 Presidential Debates , 2001 .