Semantic networks and competition: Election year winners and losers in U.S. televised presidential debates, 1960–2004

Drawing on network theory, this study considers the content of U.S. presidential debates and how candidates' language differentiates them. Semantic network analyses of all U.S. presidential debates (1960–2004) were conducted. Results reveal that regardless of party affiliation, election winners were more central in their semantic networks than losers. Although the study does not argue causation between debating and electoral outcomes, results show a consistent pattern: Candidates who develop coherent, central, semantically structured messages in debates seem to be victorious on election day. An argument is made for employing semantic networks in studying debates and political discourse. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

[1]  Roderick P. Hart,et al.  Political Debate , 1997 .

[2]  P. Bonacich.  Power and Centrality: A Family of Measures , 1987, American Journal of Sociology.

[3]  Leah A. Lievrouw,et al.  Triangulation as a research strategy for identifying invisible colleges among biomedical scientists , 1987 .

[4]  Steven R. Corman,et al.  Studying Complex Discursive Systems: Centering Resonance Analysis of Communication. , 2002 .

[5]  S. Hellweg,et al.  Televised Presidential Primary Debates: A New National Forum for Political Debating. , 1986 .

[6]  William L. Benoit,et al.  Functions of the great debates: Acclaims, attacks, and defenses in the 1960 presidential debates , 1999 .

[7]  Jian-hua Zhu,et al.  Do Televised Debates Affect Image Perception More Than Issue Knowledge?A Study of the First 1992 Presidential Debate , 1994 .

[8]  D. Carlin.  Presidential debates as focal points for campaign arguments , 1992 .

[9]  Kathleen M. Carley,et al.  Semantic Connectivity: An Approach for Analyzing Symbols in Semantic Networks , 1993 .

[10]  William L. Benoit.  Beyond genre theory: The genesis of rhetorical action , 2000 .

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

[12]  Ronald E. Rice,et al.  Is It Really Just Like a Fancy Answering Machine? Comparing Semantic Networks of Different Types of Voice Mail Users , 1993 .

[13]  George A. Barnett,et al.  The Structure of Communication: A Network Analysis of the International Communication Association. , 1992 .

[14]  William L. Benoit.  Topic of presidential campaign discourse and election outcome , 2003 .

[15]  John T. Morello.  The “look” and language of clash: Visual structuring of argument in the 1988 Bush‐Dukakis debates , 1992 .

[16]  Kathleen M. Carley,et al.  Extracting, Representing, and Analyzing Mental Models , 1992 .

[17]  Steven H. Chaffee,et al.  Presidential debates—are they helpful to voters? , 1978 .

[18]  John R. Petrocik.  Issue Ownership in Presidential Elections, with a 1980 Case Study , 1996 .

[19]  Argument and visual structuring in the 1984 Mondale‐Reagan debates: The medium's influence on the perception of clash , 1988 .

[20]  George A. Barnett,et al.  Cultural Differences in Organizational Communication: a Semantic Network Analysis 1 , 1994 .

[21]  P. Bonacich.  Factoring and weighting approaches to status scores and clique identification , 1972 .

[22]  Visual Structuring of the 1976 and 1984 Nationally Televised Presidential Debates. , 1988 .

[23]  Marya L. Doerfel,et al.  Candidate-Issue Positioning in the Context of Presidential Debates , 2003 .

[24]  Marya L. Doerfel,et al.  A Semantic Network Analysis of the International Communication Association , 1999 .

[25]  Marya L. Doerfel,et al.  Network dynamics of interorganizational cooperation: the Croatian civil society movement , 2004 .

[26]  Kathleen M. Carley.  Coding Choices for Textual Analysis: A Comparison of Content Analysis and Map Analysis , 1993 .

[27]  L. Freeman.  Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification , 1978 .

[28]  Joseph Woelfel.  Artificial Neurol Networks in Policy Research: A Current Assessment , 1993 .

[29]  William L. Benoit,et al.  Issue Ownership in Primary and General Presidential Debates , 2004 .

[30]  M. Leon.  Revealing Character and Addressing Voters' Needs in the 1992 Presidential Debates: A Content Analysis. , 1993 .

[31]  William L. Benoit,et al.  The Role of Significant Policy Issues in the 2000 Presidential Primaries , 2001 .

[32]  David Weaver,et al.  Voter Learning in the 1988 Presidential Election: Did the Debates and the Media Matter? , 1991 .

[33]  William L. Benoit.  Election outcome and topic of political campaign attacks , 2004 .