Home  About us  Contact
 

Presidential Debates (presidential + debate)

Distribution by Scientific Domains
Humanities and Social Sciences75%

Selected Abstracts

The United States of Mathematics Presidential Debate by Colin Adams, Thomas Garrity, moderated by Edward Burger

INTERNATIONAL STATISTICAL REVIEW, Issue 1 2010
Terry Speed
No abstract is available for this article. [source]

Social Influence on Political Judgments: The Case of Presidential Debates

POLITICAL PSYCHOLOGY, Issue 2 2007
Steven Fein
Four experiments investigated the extent to which judgments of candidate performance in presidential debates could be influenced by the mere knowledge of others' reactions. In Experiments 1 and 2 participants watched an intact version of a debate or an edited version in which either "soundbite" one-liners or the audience reaction to those soundbites were removed. In Experiment 3 participants saw what was supposedly the reaction of their fellow participants on screen during the debate. Participants in Experiment 4 were exposed to the reactions of live confederates as they watched the last debate of an active presidential campaign. In all studies, audience reactions produced large shifts in participants' judgments of performance. The results illustrate the power of social context to strongly influence individuals' judgments of even large amounts of relevant, important information, and they support the categorization of presidential debates as ambiguous stimuli, fertile ground for informational social influence. [source]

Voter Decision Making in Election 2000: Campaign Effects, Partisan Activation, and the Clinton Legacy

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, Issue 4 2003
D. Sunshine Hillygus
How do citizens respond to campaign events? We explore this question with a unique repeated measures survey design, fielded during the 2000 presidential campaign. We model transitions in support for the major party candidates following the party conventions and presidential debates. In the aggregate, Gore support increases following the conventions (but not the debates), while Bush support increases with the debates (but not the conventions). But there is considerable microlevel variation in the data: responsiveness to campaign events is greatest among Independents, undecided voters, and "mismatched partisans," but exactly how these groups respond differs for each event. Moreover, attitudes toward then President Clinton mediate the effect of the campaign events on voter preferences. Two primary conclusions follow: (1) rich data sets are required to observe the effects of campaign events; (2) the influence of campaign events on vote choice is conditional on previous preferences, partisan dispositions, and political context. [source]