Dialed In: Continuous Response Measures in Televised Political Debates and Their Effect on Viewers

References

• Andolina, M., Keeter, S., Zukin, C., & Jenkins, K. (2003). A guide to the index of civic and political engagement. The Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement. Retrieved from http://civicyouth.org/PopUps/IndexGuide.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Ansolabehere, S., & Iyengar, S. (1994). Of horseshoes and horse races: Experimental studies of the impact of poll results on electoral behavior. Political Communication, 11, 413–430.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benoit, W., & Hansen, G. (2004). Presidential debate watching, issue knowledge, character evaluation, and vote choice. Human Communication Research, 30, 121–144.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benoit, W., Hansen, G., & Verser, R. (2010). A meta-analysis of the effects of viewing U.S. Presidential debates. Communication Monographs, 70, 335–350.
   Google Scholar
• Benoit, W., McKinney, M., & Holbert R. (2010). Beyond learning and persona: Extending the scope of Presidential debate effects. Communication Monographs, 68, 259–273.
   Google Scholar
• Berlin, L., & Prieto-Mendoza, A. (2014). Evidential embellishment in political debates during U.S. campaigns. Intercultural Pragmatics, 11, 389–409.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biocca, F., David, P., & West, M. (1994). Continuous response measurement (CRM): A computerized tool for research on the cognitive processing of communication messages. In A. Lang (Ed.), Measuring psychological responses to media (pp. 15–64). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Boyd, S. (2008, October 15). What are those squiggly lines on CNN telling you? The American Prospect. Retrieved from http://prospect.org/article/what-are-those-squiggly-lines-cnn-telling-you
   Google Scholar
• Carlin, D. (1992). Presidential debates as focal points for campaign arguments. Political Communication, 9, 251–265.
   Google Scholar
• Ceci, S. J., & Kain, E. L. (1982). Jumping on the bandwagon with the underdog: The impact of attitude polls on polling behavior. Public Opinion Quarterly, 46, 228–242.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chaffee, S. (1978). Presidential debates: Are they helpful to voters? Communication Monographs, 45, 330–346.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cho, J., Shah, D. V., Nah, S., & Brossard, D. (2009). “Split screens” and “spin rooms:” Debate modality, post-debate coverage, and the new videomalaise. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 53, 242–261.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis, C. J., Bowers, J. S., & Memon, A. (2011). Social influence in televised election debates: A potential distortion of democracy. PloS one, 6, e18154.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Druckman, J. (2005). Media matter: How newspapers and television news cover campaigns and influence voters. Political Communication, 22, 463–481.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Druckman, J. N. (2003). The Power of television images: The first Kennedy‐Nixon debate revisited. Journal of Politics, 65, 559–571.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eveland Jr., W. P., McLeod, D. M., & Nathanson, A. I. (1994). Reporters vs. undecided voters: An analysis of the questions asked during the 1992 presidential debates. Communication Quarterly, 42, 390–406.
   Google Scholar
• Fein, S., Goethals, G. R., & Kugler, M. B. (2007). Social influence on political judgments: The case of presidential debates. Political Psychology, 28, 165–192.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fleitas, D. W. (1971). Bandwagon and underdog effects in minimal-information elections. American Political Science Review, 65, 434–438.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hellweg, S. A. (1993). Introduction. Argumentation and Advocacy, 30, 59–61.
   Google Scholar
• Hellweg, S. A., Pfau, M., & Brydon, S. R. (1992). Televised presidential debates: Advocacy in contemporary America. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Jamieson, K. (1987). Television, presidential campaigns, and debates. In J. L. Swerdlow (Ed.), Presidential debates 1988 and beyond (pp. 27–33). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.
   Google Scholar
• Kelley, S. (1983). Interpreting elections. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lang, A. (2000). The limited capacity model of mediated message processing. Journal of Communication, 50, 46–70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levy, M. R. (1982). The Lazarsfeld‐Stanton program analyzer: An historical note. Journal of Communication, 32, 30–38.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marsh, C. (1985). Back on the bandwagon: The effect of opinion polls on public opinion. British Journal of Political Science, 15, 51–74.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayer, G. (2008). What exactly is a swing voter? Definition and measurement. In W. G. Mayer (Ed.), The swing voter in American politics (p. 1–31). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
   Google Scholar
• McAllister, I., & Studlar, D. T. (1991). Bandwagon, underdog, or projection? Opinion polls and electoral choice in Britain, 1979–1987. The Journal of Politics, 53, 720–741.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKinney, S., & Carlin, B. (2004). Political campaign debates. In L. L. Kaid (Ed.), Handbook of political communication research (p. 203–234). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Mehrabian, L. (1998). Effects of poll reports on voter preferences. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 2119–2130.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morwitz, V. G., & Pluzinski, C. (1996). Do polls reflect opinions or do opinions reflect polls? The impact of political polling on voters’ expectations, preferences, and behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 23, 53–67.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nagel, F., Maurer, M., & Reinemann, C. (2012). Is there a visual dominance in political communication? How verbal, visual, and vocal communication shape viewers’ impressions of political candidates. Journal of Communication, 62, 833–850.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neuman, W. R., Just, M. R., & Crigler, A. N. (1992). Common knowledge: News and the construction of political meaning. University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• O’Grady, G. (2014). The use of key in projecting face-threatening acts in televised political debates. Text & Talk, 34, 685–711.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123–205.
   Google Scholar
• Price, V., & Zaller, J. (1993). Who gets the news: Alternative measures of news reception and their implications for research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 57, 133–164.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roper, E. (1960, November). Polling post-mortem. Saturday Review, 10–13.
   Google Scholar
• Rothschild, D., & Malhotra, N. (2014). Are public opinion polls self-fulfilling prophecies? Research & Politics, 1, 1–10.
   Google Scholar
• Scheufele, D., Kim, E., & Brossard, D. (2007). My friend’s enemy: How split-screen debate coverage influences evaluation of presidential debates. Communication Research, 34, 3–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schill, D., & Kirk, R. (2014). Courting the swing voter: “Real time” insights into the 2008 and 2012 U.S. Presidential debates. American Behavioral Scientist, 58, 536–555.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schudson, M. (1995). The power of news. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sears, O., & Chaffee, H. (1979). Uses and effects of the 1976 debates: An overview of empirical studies. In S. Kraus (Ed.), The great debates: Carter vs. Ford, 1976 (p. 223–261). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Srivastava, J. (2013). Media multitasking performance: Role of message relevance and formatting cues in online environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 888–895.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stockemer, D. (2012). Students’ political engagement, a comprehensive study of University of Ottawa undergraduate students. Journal of Youth Studies. 15, 1028–1047.
   Google Scholar
• Sundar, S. S. (1999). Questions (and responses) for the record. Submitted to the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources of the Government Reform Committee United States House of Representatives for hearings on the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign, Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• Swanson, L. L., & Swanson, D. L. (1978). The agenda-setting functions of the first Ford-Carter debate. Communication Monographs, 45, 347–353.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tauber, C., & Seeber, G. H. (2014). “Body language” and words in conflict. The impact of candidates’ verbal and nonverbal performance in televised debates on viewers’ short term perceptions. Conference Papers—American Political Science Association, 1–20.
   Google Scholar
• Thalhimer, M., & Federman, J. (n.d.). The debate pulse: Rapid response, interactivepolling. Retrieved from http://www.museum.tv/debateweb/html/equalizer/print/essay_thalhimer.htm
   Google Scholar
• Vancil, D. L., & Pendell, S. D. (1987). The myth of viewer-listener disagreement in the first Kennedy-Nixon debate. Central States Speech Journal, 38, 16–27.
   Google Scholar
• Weaver, D., & Drew, D. (2001). Voter learning and interest in the 2000 Presidential election: Did the media matter? Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 78, 787–798.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weaver III, J. B., Huck, I., & Brosius, H. B. (2009). Biasing public opinion: Computerized continuous response measurement displays impact viewers’ perceptions of media messages. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 50–55.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar