“First” matters: A qualitative examination of a strategy for controlling the agenda when answering questions in the 2016 U.S. republican primary election debates

References

• Bavelas, J. B., Black, A., Chovil, N., & Mullett, J. (1990). Equivocal communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Beach, W. A. (1993). Transitional regularities for ‘casual’ “Okay” usages. Journal of Pragmatics, 19, 325–352. doi: 10.1016/0378-2166(93)90092-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beach, W. A., Easter, D. W., Good, J. S., & Pigeron, E. (2005). Disclosing and responding to cancer “fears” during oncology interviews. Social Science & Medicine, 60, 893–910. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.06.031
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beach, W. A., & Metzger, T. R. (1997). Claiming insufficient knowledge. Human Communication Research, 23(4), 562–588. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1997.tb00410.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bechtolt, W. E. Jr., Hilyard, J., & Bybee, C. R. (1977). Agenda control in the 1976 debates: A content analysis. Journalism Quarterly, 54, 674–689. doi: 10.1177/107769907705400402
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beck, C. S. (1996). “I’ve got some points I’d like to make here”: The achievement of social face through turn management during the 1992 vice presidential debate. Political Communication, 13, 165–180. doi: 10.1080/10584609.1996.9963105
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benoit, W. L. (2017). The functional theory of political campaign discourse. In R. E. Denton Jr. (Ed.), Political campaign communication (pp. 3–32). London: Rowman & Littlefield.
   Google Scholar
• Benoit, W. L., & Hansen, G. J. (2004). Presidential debate watching, issue knowledge, character evaluation, and vote choice. Human Communication Research, 30, 121–144. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2004.tb00727.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benoit, W. L., & Harthcock, A. (1999). Functions of the great debates: Acclaims, attacks, and defenses in the 1960 presidential debates. Communication Monographs, 66, 341–357. doi: 10.1080/03637759909376484
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benoit, W. L., & Wells, W. T. (1996). Candidates in conflict: Persuasive attack and defense in the 1992 presidential debates. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bilmes, J. (1999). Questions, answers, and the organization of talk in the 1992 vice presidential debate: Fundamental considerations. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 32, 213–242. doi: 10.1207/S15327973RL320301
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bilmes, J. (2001). Tactics and styles in the 1992 vice presidential debate: Question placement. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 34, 151–181. doi: 10.1207/S15327973RLSI34-2_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Birdsell, D. S. (2017). Political campaign debates. In K. Kenski, & K. H. Jamieson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political communication, (pp. 165–178). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bitzer, L., & Rueter, T. (1980). Carter vs. Ford: The counterfeit debates of 1976. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
   Google Scholar
• Blais, A., & Perrella, A. M. (2008). Systemic effects of televised candidates’ debates. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 13(4), 451–464. doi: 10.1177/1940161208323548
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Bolden, G. B. (2006). Little words that matter: Discourse markers “so” and “oh” and the doing of other-attentiveness in social interaction. Journal of Communication, 56, 661–688. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00314.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bolden, G. B., & Robinson, J. D. (2011). Soliciting accounts with why-interrogatives in conversation. Journal of Communication, 61, 94–119. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01528.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boyd, E., & Heritage, J. (2006). Taking the history: Questioning during comprehensive history taking. In J. Heritage, & D. Maynard (Eds.), Communication in medical care: Interactions between primary care physicians and patients (pp. 151–184). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Boydstun, A. E., Glazier, R. A., & Pietryka, M. T. (2013). Playing to the crowd: Agenda control in presidential debates. Political Communication, 30, 254–277. doi: 10.1080/10584609.2012.737423
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bull, P. (1998). Equivocation theory and news interviews. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 17(1), 36–51. doi: 10.1177/0261927X980171002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bull, P. (2008). “Slipperiness, evasion, and ambiguity”: Equivocation and facework in noncommittal political discourse. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 27, 333–344. doi: 10.1177/0261927X08322475
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlin, D. B., Morris, E., & Smith, S. (2001). The influence of format and questions on candidates’ strategic argument choices in the 2000 presidential debates. American Behavioral Scientist, 44(12), 2196–2218. doi: 10.1177/00027640121958276
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clayman, S. E. (2001). Answers and evasions. Language and Society, 30, 403–442. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4169122.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clayman, S. E. (2002). Tribune of the people: Maintaining the legitimacy of aggressive journalism. Media, Culture & Society, 24, 197–216. doi: 10.1177/016344370202400203
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clayman, S. E. (2010). Address terms in the service of other actions: The case of news interview talk. Discourse & Communication, 4, 161–183. doi: 10.1177/1750481310364330
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clayman, S. E. (2013a). Conversation analysis in the news interview. In J. Sidnell, & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 630–656). West Sussex: Blackwell Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Clayman, S. E. (2016). The nexus of politicians, issue positions, and the sociopolitical landscape. In J. D. Robinson (Ed.), Accountability in social interaction (pp. 141–174). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Clayman, S. E., & Heritage, J. (2002a). The news interview: Journalists and public figures on the air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Clayman, S. E., & Heritage, J. (2002b). Questioning presidents: Journalistic deference and adversarialness in the press conferences of U.S. Presidents Eisenhower and Reagan. Journal of Communication, 52, 749–775. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02572.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clayman, S. E., Heritage, J., Elliott, M. N., & McDonald, L. L. (2007). When does the watchdog bark? Conditions of aggressive questioning in presidential news conferences. American Sociological Review, 72, 23–41. doi: 10.1177/000312240707200102
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clayman, S. E., & Romaniuk, T. (2011). Questioning candidates. In M. Ekström, & M. Patrona (Eds.), Talking politics in broadcast media: Cross-cultural perspectives on political interviewing, journalism and accountability (pp. 1–11). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Clementson, D. E. (2016). Why do we think politicians are so evasive? Insight from theories of equivocation and deception, with a content analysis of U.S. Presidential debates, 1996-2012. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 35, 247–267. doi: 10.1177/0261927X15600732
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clementson, D. E. (2017). Effects of dodging questions: How politicians escape deception detection and how they get caught. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 3(7), 1–21.
   Google Scholar
• Clementson, D., & Eveland, W. P. (2016). When politicians dodge questions: An analysis of presidential press conferences and debates. Mass Communication and Society, 19, 411–429. doi: 10.1080/15205436.2015.1120876
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Smedt, E., & Vandenbrande, K. (2011). Political television formats as strategic resources in achieving journalists’ roles. In M. Ekström, & M. Patrona (Eds.), Talking politics in broadcast media: Cross-cultural perspectives on political interviewing, journalism and accountability (pp. 75–92). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129(1), 74. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.74
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drew, P. (1992). Contested evidence in courtroom cross-examination: The case of a trial for rape. In P. Drew, & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 470–520). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (eds.). (1992). Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ekström, M. (2009). Announced refusal to answer: A study of norms and accountability in broadcast political interviews. Discourse Studies, 11, 681–702. doi: 10.1177/1461445609347232
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Gastil, J. (1992). Undemocratic discourse: A review of theory and research on political discourse. Discourse and Society, 3, 469–500. doi: 10.1177/0957926592003004003
   Google Scholar
• Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New Brunswick, NJ: Aldine Transaction.
   Google Scholar
• Greatbatch, D. (1986). Some standard uses of supplementary questions in news interviews. In J. Wilson, & B. Crow (Eds.), Belfast working papers in language and linguistics Vol. 8 (pp. 86–123). Jordanstown: University of Ulster.
   Google Scholar
• Harris, S. (1991). Evasive action: How politicians respond to questions in political interviews. In P. Scannell (Ed.), Broadcast talk (pp. 76–99). London: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Hart, R. P., Jarvis, S. E., Jennings, W. P., & Smith-Howell, D. (2005). Political keywords: Using language that uses us. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hepburn, A., & Bolden, G. B. (2013). The conversation analytic approach to transcription. In J. Sidnell, & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 57–76). West Sussex: Blackwell Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (2003). Designing questions and setting agendas in the news interview. In P. J. Glenn, C. D. LeBaron, & J. Mandelbaum (Eds.), Studies in language and social interaction (pp. 57–90). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (2015). Well-prefaced turns in English conversation: A conversation analytic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 88, 88–104. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.08.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heritage, J., & Clayman, S. E. (2013). The changing tenor of questioning over time: Tracking a question form across US presidential news conferences, 1953–2000. Journalism Practice, 7, 481–501. doi: 10.1080/17512786.2013.802485
   Google Scholar
• Hutchby, I. (2011). Non-neutrality and argument in the hybrid political interview. Discourse Studies, 13, 349–356. doi: 10.1177/1461445611400665
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hutchby, I. (2016). Hybridisation, personalisation and tribuneship in the political interview. Journalism, 18, 101–118. doi: 10.1177/1464884916657528
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iyengar, S., & Simon, A. F. (2000). New perspectives and evidence on political communication and campaign effects. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 149–169. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.149
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jamieson, K. H., & Birdsell, D. S. (1988). Presidential debates: The challenge of creating an informed electorate. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jefferson, G. (2017). Colligation as a device for minimizing repair or disagreement. In P. Drew, & J. R. Bergmann (Eds.), Repairing the broken surface of talk: Managing problems “in” speaking, hearing, “and” understanding “in” conversation, (pp. 331–364). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kinder, D. R. (1998). Attitude and action in the realm of politics. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology 4th edition (pp. 778–867). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lerner, G. H. (1993). Collectivities in action: Establishing the relevance of conjoined participation in conversation. Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 13, 213–246. doi: 10.1515/text.1.1993.13.2.213
   Google Scholar
• Levine, T. R. (2014). Truth-Default Theory (TDT): A theory of human deception and deception detection. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33(4), 378–392. doi: 10.1177/0261927X14535916
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCombs, M. (2014). Setting the agenda: Mass media and public opinion. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• McKinney, M. S., & Warner, B. R. (2013). Do presidential debates matter? Examining a decade of campaign debate effects. Argumentation and Advocacy, 49, 238–258. doi: 10.1080/00028533.2013.11821800
   Google Scholar
• Mitchell, A., Gottfried, J., Kiley, J., & Matsa, K. E. (2014). Political polarization & media habits. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-media-habits/.
   Google Scholar
• Montgomery, M. (2011). The accountability interview, politics and change in UK public service broadcasting. In M. Ekström, & M. Patrona (Eds.), Talking politics in broadcast media: Cross-cultural perspectives on political interviewing, journalism and accountability (pp. 33–55). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Murphy, C. (2016). Report: Presidential primary debate audiences. Retrieved from https://www.ndn.org/blog/2016/05/report-presidential-primary-debate-audiences.
   Google Scholar
• Park, Y. Y. (1997). A cross-linguistic study of the use of contrastive connectives in English, Korean and Japanese conversation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California, Los Angeles.
   Google Scholar
• Patrona, M. (2011). Neutralism revisited: When journalists set new rules in political news discourse. In M. Ekström, & M. Patrona (Eds.), Talking politics in broadcast media: Cross-cultural perspectives on political interviewing, journalism and accountability (pp. 33–55). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Piirainen-Marsh, A. (2005). Managing adversarial questioning in broadcast interviews. Journal of Politeness Research, 1, 193–217. doi: 10.1515/jplr.2005.1.2.193
   Google Scholar
• Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shaped. In M. J. Atkinson, & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 57–101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review, 68(6), 939–967. doi: 10.2307/1519752
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reynolds, E., & Rendle-Short, J. (2011). Cues to deception in context: Response latency/gaps in denials and blame shifting. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50(3), 431–449. doi: 10.1348/014466610X520104
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberts, F., & Robinson, J. D. (2004). Inter-observer agreement regarding “first-stage” conversation-analytic transcripts. Human Communication Research, 30, 376–410. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2004.tb00737.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robinson, J. D. (2007). The role of numbers and statistics within conversation analysis. Communication Methods and Measures, 1(1), 65–75. doi: 10.1080/19312450709336663
   Google Scholar
• Robinson, J. D. (ed.). (2016). Accountability in social interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson, J. D., & Bolden, G. B. (2010). Preference organization of sequence-initiating actions: The case of explicit account solicitations. Discourse Studies, 12, 501–533. doi: 10.1177/1461445610371051
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rogers, T., & Norton, M. I. (2011). The artful dodger: Answering the wrong question the right way. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17, 139–147.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Romaniuk, T. (2013). Pursuing answers to questions in broadcast journalism. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 46, 144–164. doi: 10.1080/08351813.2013.780339
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roth, A. L. (2005). “Pop quizzes” on the campaign trail journalists, candidates, and the limits of questioning. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 10, 28–46. doi: 10.1177/1081180X05276804
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sacks, H. (1972). An initial investigation of the usability of conversational data for doing sociology. In D. Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in social interaction (pp. 31–74). New York, NY: The Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, H. (1987). On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In G. Button, & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organization (pp. 54–69). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation (volume I & II). Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735. doi: 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist, 70(6), 1075–1095. doi: 10.1525/aa.1968.70.6.02a00030
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1982). Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of “uh huh” and other things that come between sentences. In D. Tanner (Ed.), Analyzing discourse: Text and talk (pp. 71–93). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1987). Between micro and micro: Contexts and other connections. In J. Alexander, B. Giesen, R. Munch, & N. Smelser (Eds.), The micro-macro link (pp. 207–234). Los Angeles: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1996a). Some practices for referring to persons in talk-in-interaction: A partial sketch of a systematics. In B. Fox (Ed.), Studies in anaphora (pp. 437–485). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1996b). Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 52–133). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (2016). Increments. In J. D. Robinson (Ed.), Accountability in social interaction (pp. 238–263). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A., & Lerner, G. H. (2009). Beginning to respond: Well-prefaced responses to wh-questions. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 42(2), 91–115. doi: 10.1080/08351810902864511
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8, 289–327. doi: 10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289
   Google Scholar
• Scheufele, D. A., & Tewksbury, D. (2007). Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of Communication, 57, 9–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schiffrin, D. (1980). Meta-talk: Organizational and evaluative brackets in discourse. Sociological Inquiry, 50(3-4), 199–236. doi:10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00021.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schiffrin, D. (1985). Conversational coherence: The role of well. Language, 61, 640–667. doi: 10.2307/414389
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sheafer, T. (2006). How to evaluate it: The role of story-evaluative tone in agenda setting and priming. Journal of Communication, 57, 21–39.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sidnell, J. (2007). ‘Look’ prefaced turns in first and second position: Launching, interceding and redirecting action. Discourse Studies, 9(3), 387–408. doi: 10.1177/1461445607076204
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sidnell, J., & Stivers, T. (Eds.). (2013). The handbook of conversation analysis. West Sussex: Blackwell Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Stivers, T., & Hayashi, M. (2010). Transformative answers: One way to resist a question’s constraints. Language in Society, 39(1), 1–25. doi:10.1017/S0047404509990637.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stivers, T., & Robinson, J. D. (2006). A preference for progressivity in interaction. Language in Society, 35, 367–392. doi: 10.1017/S0047404506060179
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stromer-Galley, J., & Bryant, L. (2011). Agenda control in the 2008 CNN/YouTube debates. Communication Quarterly, 59(5), 529–546. doi: 10.1080/01463373.2011.614212
   Google Scholar
• The American Presidency Project. (1999–2017). http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu.
   Google Scholar
• Winneg, K., & Jamieson, K. H. (2017). Learning from the 2016 U.S. General election presidential debates. American Behavioral Scientist, 61, 362–378. doi: 10.1177/0002764217702770
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Youtube. (n.d.). http://www.youtube.com.
   Google Scholar