A Gendered Influence in Campaign Debates? Analysis of Mixed‐gender United States Senate and Gubernatorial Debates

Abstract

Throughout the literature much of the research on political campaign debates has focused on presidential debates and has largely ignored non‐presidential debates, particularly those featuring candidates competing in mixed‐gender races. The purpose of this study is to draw attention to these non‐presidential debates and particularly those in which gender may play a pivotal role. Through our analysis of four debates—two gubernatorial and two U.S. Senate debates—we advance the notion of debatestyle as a useful analytic scheme to examine the verbal content of female and male candidate debate dialogue. While few differences in female and male debatestyles ultimately emerged, results of the current study indicate that female and male political candidates, when engaged in debate, adopt a strategy of gendered adaptiveness that offers important contributions to both research on political debates as well as research on gender and politics.

Keywords:

• Campaign Debates
• Debatestyle
• Gender and Politics

Notes

[1] The character traits included in the code‐book/code‐sheet, which have been used consistently in previous studies (Bystrom, 1995; Bystrom et al., 2004; Kaid & Davidson, 1986; Kaid & Johnston, 2001) examining candidate self‐presentation through content analysis, are as follows: honesty/integrity, toughness/strength, past performance, success/failure, aggressive/fighter, co‐operation with others, competency, leadership, experience in politics, Washington or political outsider, sensitive/understanding, knowledgeable, qualified for office, action‐oriented proponent, trustworthy, and of the people (commonality).

[2] The following issues, which have also been used and updated through previous studies (Bystrom, 1995; Bystrom et al., 2004; Kaid & Davidson, 1986; Kaid & Johnston, 2001), were included in the code‐book/code‐sheet: taxes, state budget/deficit, unemployment/lack of jobs, job growth, cost of living, recession/depression, immigration, economy in general, education/schools, crime/prisons, health care (not including health care for senior citizens)/patient’s bill of rights, senior citizen issues (Social Security, Medicare, prescription drugs for senior citizens only), poverty/hunger/homelessness, welfare/welfare reform, environment/pollution, drugs/drug abuse, dissatisfaction with government, ethics/moral decline, women’s issues (choice, equal rights, women’s health), gun control, defense (military), international issues (foreign relations, fear of war, arms control), Homeland Security, and youth violence (includes school violence, juvenile delinquency).

[3] The “incumbent” strategies (Trent & Friedenberg, 2004) as coded for in the code‐book/code‐sheet include: incumbency stands for legitimacy, expression of competency gained from the office, using endorsements by party and other important political leaders, emphasizing own accomplishments, and use of an “above the trenches” posture. The “challenger” strategies (Trent & Friedenberg, 2004) coded for include: attacking the record of the opponent, taking an offensive position on the issues, calling for changes, emphasizing optimism/hope for the future, reinforcing/promoting traditional values, and representing the philosophical center of the party.

[4] The categorization of strategies as “feminine” and “masculine” is grounded in the work of Campbell (1989) and her identification of a “feminine style,” as well as research in gender and communication (Wood, 1994) and gender and politics (Bystrom, 1995; Dow & Tonn, 1993). The “feminine” strategies included: use of a personal tone, addressing viewers as peers, identifying with the experiences of others, inviting viewer participation, discussing family relationships, inviting the audience to trust their experiences/perceptions in making political judgments, and using personal experiences/anecdotes. The “masculine” strategies included: use of statistics, emphasizing one’s own accomplishments, and use of expert authorities or sources.

[5] The authors would like to thank Ben Pinaire, Tiffanie Schneider, Brett Skaugstad, and Jacob Williams, University of Kansas, for their work and attention to detail.

[6] The formula used to compute reliability is a formula given by North et al. (1963). It is given for two coders and can be modified for any number of coders.

where C_1,2 = number of category assignments both coders agree on, and C₁ + C₂ = total category assignments made by both coders.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Mary Christine Banwart

Mary Christine Banwart is in the Department of Communication Studies at the University of Kansas.

Mitchell S. McKinney

Mitchell S. McKinney is in the Department of Communication at the University of Missouri. This study received, and was supported by, the 2003 Central States Communication Association Federation Prize. The authors of this project contributed equally to its completion; therefore, the names listed above are in alphabetical order.