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.

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

[2]  William L. Benoit.  The Primary Decision: A Functional Analysis of Debates in Presidential Primaries , 2001 .

[3]  Roderick P. Hart.  Campaign Talk: Why Elections Are Good for Us , 2000 .

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

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

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

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

[8]  Peter R. Monge,et al.  Emergent communication networks. , 1987 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[16]  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 .

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

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

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

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

[21]  James B. Lemert.  News Verdicts, the Debates, and Presidential Campaigns: , 1991 .

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

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

[24]  Marya L. Doerfel.  What Constitutes Semantic Network Analysis? A Comparison of Research and Methodologies' , 2003 .

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

[26]  Sharon E. Jarvis.  The Talk of the Party: Political Labels, Symbolic Capital, and American Life , 2005 .

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

[28]  James A. Danowski,et al.  Computer-Mediated Communication: A Network-Based Content Analysis Using a CBBS Conference , 1982 .

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

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

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

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

[33]  Peter R. Monge,et al.  Emergence of Communication Networks , 1999 .

[34]  Edward L. Fink,et al.  The measurement of communication processes : Galileo theory and method , 1982 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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