Televised debates are now an expected component of the American presidential election campaign. A meta-analysis was used to cumulate the research on the effects of watching presidential debates. General campaign debates increase issue knowledge and issue salience (the number of issues a voter uses to evaluate candidates) and can change preference for candidates' issue stands. Debates can have an agenda-setting effect. Debates can alter perceptions of the candidates' personality, but they do not exert a significant effect on perceptions of the candidates' competence (leadership ability). Debates can affect vote preference. Primary debates increase issue knowledge, influence perceptions of candidates' character, and can alter voter preferences (the effect sizes for these variables are larger in primary than general debates). The effect sizes for the dependent variables with significant effects were heterogeneous (except for effects of debates other than the first on vote preference). No support was found fo...

A meta-analysis of the effects of viewing U.S. presidential debates

Hugh Grant was arrested in Hollywood for lewd behavior with a prostitute. He appeared on “The Tonight Show,”; “Larry King Live,”; “The Today Show,”; “Live with Regis and Kathie Lee,”; and “The Late Show”; both to defend his image and to promote his new film, “Nine Months.”; Grant used mortification, bolstering, attacking one's accuser, and, to a lesser extent, denial to help restore his reputation. This essay uses this case as a springboard to contrast entertainment image repair with political and corporate image repair, arguing that important situational differences can be identified.

Hugh Grant's image restoration discourse: An actor apologizes

This study applies the functional theory of political campaign rhetoric to investigate the classic 1960 Nixon‐Kennedy debates. All three kinds of utterances appeared in these debates (acclaims were most common at 49%, attacks followed at 39%, and defenses comprised 12% of their themes). The candidate from the incumbent party, Vice President Nixon, acclaimed more, whereas the challenger, Senator Kennedy, attacked, more. The candidate who was the target of the most attack, Nixon, produced the most defense. Both candidates directed more of their remarks to policy than character. Past deeds were a major component of Nixon's acclaims and Kennedy's attacks. General goals and ideals were more frequently the basis of acclaims than attacks. The most common form of defense in these debates was denial.

Functions of the great debates: Acclaims, attacks, and defenses in the 1960 presidential debates

Queen Elizabeth's image repair discourse: Insensitive royal or compassionate queen?

This study employs NES (National Election Survey) data from several presidential elections to investigate the effects of presidential debate watching on voters' issue knowledge, character evaluation, and vote choice Debates can instill issue knowledge; however, voters are less likely to learn about incumbent presidents seeking re-election after a four-year term in office than about other candidates Debates are also capable of changing voters' impressions of the candidates' character Finally, at times debates help viewers make a vote choice; they are more likely to strengthen existing preferences (increasing confidence in their vote choice) than alter vote preferences

Presidential Debate Watching, Issue Knowledge, Character Evaluation, and Vote Choice

This text provides a perspective for understanding presidential debates by analyzing the debates in 1992 among candidates Bill Clinton, George Bush and Ross Perot. It argues that candidates are able either to undermine or to preserve the vital issues of personal credibility and policy matters.

William T. Wells

Papers

Candidates in Conflict: Persuasive Attack and Defense in the 1992 Presidential Debates