Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-13T03:13:19.612Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Political Knowledge and Exposure to the 2012 US Presidential Debates: Does Debate Format Matter?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2014

Jason Turcotte and
R. Kirby Goidel
Jason Turcotte
Affiliation:
Louisiana State University
R. Kirby Goidel
Affiliation:
Louisiana State University
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Extant literature shows a positive link between presidential debates and political knowledge, with findings strongest for low-information voters. Considering presidential debates continue to retain a mass audience, they fulfill an invaluable civic function. Less clear is whether knowledge effects hold across debate formats and agenda topics. Using an experimental method that exposes a sample of undergraduate students to the 2012 US presidential debates, this article explores variance in knowledge effects across formats and topics. We find citizens can learn about issues and candidates but debate format and agenda topics may mediate the effects. We discuss the broader democratic implications of these findings and directions for future debate research.

Information

Type
Features
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 47 , Issue 2 , April 2014, pp. 449 - 453
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2014 

Mediated presidential debates serve as one of few remaining campaign events with a mass audience. Extant research indicates exposure to debates improves voter knowledge. Less clear is whether these findings hold across debate formats and agenda topics. To date, scholars seldom account for format and agenda topics when testing debate effects. To address this, we propose the following research questions: (1) Do knowledge effects vary according to the particular debate subjects are exposed to? (2) Is variance in knowledge linked to differences in debate format or agenda topics?

Using an experimental method during the 2012 US presidential debates, we test whether debate exposure improves knowledge across debate formats and agenda topics. The findings indicate that citizens learn about issues and candidates but effects are conditional, meaning format and agenda topics may influence voter learning.

INFORMING THE ELECTORATE: THE ROLE OF DEBATES IN DEMOCRATIC PROCESS

Studies have found that exposure to televised presidential debates improves voter knowledge—even among less politically sophisticated viewers (Druckman Reference Druckman2003; Lang and Lang Reference Lang and Lang1978). Scholars have consistently cited a positive relationship between debate exposure and issue-specific political knowledge (Benoit, Hansen, and Verser 2003; Holbrook Reference Holbrook1999; Miller and MacKuen Reference Miller and MacKuen1979). These effects hold for primary and general election debates and across viewer demographics (Benoit and Hansen Reference Benoit and Hansen2004; Holbrook Reference Holbrook1999).

Although isolating the effects of a single campaign event over time poses methodological challenges, knowledge effects, nonetheless, occur at the peak of the campaign cycle—weeks or days before the election. Exposure also results in indirect knowledge effects; debate viewing increases consumption of campaign news (Cho and Choy Reference Cho and Choy2011). Debates mitigate the effects of a widening knowledge gap, meaning low information voters have the most to gain from exposure (Holbrook 2002; Lanoue Reference Lanoue1992; McLeod, Bybee, and Durall Reference McLeod, Bybee and Durall1982). Debates also bring clarity and reinforcement to vote choice (Cho and Ha Reference Cho and Ha2012; Lanoue Reference Lanoue1992; Schrott and Lanoue Reference Schrott and Lanoue2013). Debates are further legitimized by the strong link between knowledge and efficacy (Benoit, McKinney, and Stephenson Reference Benoit, McKinney and Stephenson2002; Dolan and Holbrook Reference Dolan and Holbrook2001; Lewis-Beck et al. Reference Lewis-Beck, Jacoby, Norpoth and Weisberg2008). What’s more, debates may hold even greater value in today’s competitive media environment as shifting news values increase the infotainment focus of campaign news coverage (Cohen Reference Cohen2008; Prior Reference Prior2005).

WHY FORMAT MAY AFFECT KNOWLEDGE

US presidential debates are shaped by differences in agenda topics (i.e., domestic policy vs. foreign policy) and format. Town hall formats solicit questions directly from the audience and set a mixed policy agenda. Designed to make the process more inclusive, the town hall format transfers responsibility for the debate agenda from the press to the public. This agenda-setting transfer yields observable differences in debate content.

Analyses of presidential debates demonstrate a press debate agenda unreflective of the public agenda (Benoit and Hansen Reference Benoit and Hansen2001; Jackson-Beeck and Meadow Reference Jackson-Beeck and Meadow1979). These findings are unsurprising considering that profit-driven pressures depress policy content in campaign coverage (Dunaway Reference Dunaway2008). When the public has access to candidates, they address a wider scope of policy issues (Just et al. Reference Just, Crigler, Alger, Cook, Kern and West1996; Kaid, McKinney, and Tedesco Reference Kaid, Mitchell and Tedesco2000). Furthermore, knowledge effects are found only for issues actually set in the debate agenda (Zhu, Milavsky, and Biswas 1994).

The general election presidential debates follow one of three agenda topics: domestic policy, foreign policy, and the mixed agenda (via town hall format). These topics are of interest because voter knowledge of domestic policy issues far exceeds that of foreign policy matters (Almond Reference Almond1960; Bennett Reference Bennett1996). Considering these distinctions between domestic policy, foreign policy, and mixed-agenda debates, we propose the following research questions: (1) Do knowledge effects vary according to the particular debate subjects are exposed to? (2) Is variance in knowledge linked to differences in format or agenda topics?

METHOD

Using an experimental method, we explore these questions in the context of the 2012 US presidential elections. Our convenience sample (N=81) of undergraduate students from1 a large southern university uniquely captures a group of voters—young voters (M = 19.1) and primarily female (69%) voters—who are less politically knowledgeable and engaged than other segments of the electorate (Delli Caprini and Keeter 1996). The sample leans conservative, scoring a mean of 3.69 on a 5-point ideology scale; 53% identified Republican, 12% Democrat, and 35% independent. Participants were assigned to one of three treatment groups: (1) the October 3 domestic policy debate (D1); (2) the October 16 mixed agenda/town hall debate (D2); and (3) the October 22 foreign policy debate (D3).

Subjects in all treatment groups watched the debates in their entirety, live on the same network: NBC. The controlled environment simulates a typical debate viewing experience. Participants were arranged in a group setting, provided with food, and allowed to engage in (silent mode) text messaging. Participants were prohibited from discussing the debate or questionnaires. Participants received identical pretest and posttest questionnaires measuring political knowledge specific to the 2012 presidential campaign; the knowledge indexes included questions pertaining to policy issues and candidate stances. Pretest questionnaires were administered immediately before the debate went live. Participants remained at the experiment location from the start of the pretest questionnaire through the full debate and posttest questionnaire; participants did not have access to any other news media leading up to the posttest questionnaire and were not exposed to any pre- or postdebate coverage.2

Thus, overall knowledge effects of debate exposure appear to be a product of foreign policy learning and exposure to the foreign policy debate.

Campaign knowledge (α = .66) is measured as a 10-item index inclusive of five domestic policy and five foreign policy questions. Domestic policy questions were taken from the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press 2012 Campaign Knowledge survey; foreign policy questions were adapted from a Washington Post article outlining key platforms of both candidates. The 10-point index highlights key policy distinctions between Obama and Romney (see Appendix). For a more nuanced analysis, we parse out separate domestic (α = .61) and foreign policy indexes (α = .41) from the full index because previous literature suggests Americans know far less about foreign policy issues (Aldrich, Sullivan, and Borgida Reference Aldrich, Sullivan and Borgida1989; Delli Carpini and Keeter 1996). To enhance the precision of our inferences and provide greater confidence that our findings do not result from unbalanced samples, we also include a regression model accounting for a number of covariates (see table 4). 3

RESULTS

Difference in Means

Consistent with prior research, debate exposure did improve aggregate levels of political knowledge (see table 1); however we find inconsistent effects when we examine the data more closely. Posttest domestic policy knowledge levels (M = 3.77, SD = 1.27) marginally declined from the pretest measure (M = 3.79, SD = 1.33), although the effect was not statistically significant. Posttest foreign policy knowledge gains (M = 2.14, SD = 1.19) from the pretest measure (M = 1.45, SD = 1.19), in contrast, were sizable and statistically different. Thus, knowledge effects from exposure are found for foreign policy issues, t(80) = + 5.53, p < .01.

Table 1

Knowledge Difference of Means (full sample)

Note: * p < .05 ** p < .01.

Looking across individual debates (see table 2), we find no significant effects for the October 3 domestic policy debate (D1). For the October 16 mixed agenda/town hall debate (D2) we see no effect on domestic policy knowledge but find modest gains in foreign policy knowledge t(25) = + 2.78, p < .05. Further evidence that overall knowledge effects are driven by gains in foreign policy learning rather than domestic issues, we find more substantial overall knowledge effects for the October 22 foreign policy debate (D3), t(22) = + 5.62, p < .01. Interestingly, exposure to the foreign policy debate also yielded an up-tick in domestic policy knowledge, t(22) = + 2.29, p < .05; however, overall knowledge effects were primarily limited to the foreign policy index, t(23) = + 6.31, p < .01.4

Table 2

Knowledge Difference of Means by Debate Type

Note: * p < .05 ** p < .01.

Regression Models

The first model examined the full knowledge index, demonstrating that exposure to the October 22 foreign policy debate (D3) was a strong predictor of overall campaign knowledge acquisition, β = .29, p < .05. However, we find no significant effects resulting from exposure to the first two debates. Thus, overall knowledge effects of debate exposure appear to be a product of foreign policy learning and exposure to the foreign policy debate. In parsing out the Domestic Policy Index and the Foreign Policy Index, we find that none of the general election debates increased domestic policy learning. Once again, however, we find that exposure to the October 22 foreign policy debate (D3) is a strong predictor of foreign policy knowledge acquisition, β = .39, p < .01 (see table 3).

Table 3

Political Knowledge OLS Regression Models

Note: * p < .05 ** p < .01.

Table 4

Political Knowledge OLS Regression Models (w/Covariates)

Note: * p < .05 ** p < .01.

Inclusive of a number of covariates, our final three regression models reinforce our findings (see table 4). We find that the foreign policy debate (D3) performs as a strong predictor of overall knowledge acquisition, β = .36, p < .01. Because no effects are found for the domestic policy index, we find that knowledge gains are largely confined to foreign policy issues resulting from foreign policy debate exposure, β = .44, p < .01.

DISCUSSION

While citizens learn from presidential debates, these findings suggest effects are conditional rather than uniform. Thus, the democratic benefits of debates are perhaps overstated or confined to specific topics or formats. Future research should place greater emphasis on identifying conditions that foster learning outcomes. Two of the three 2012 general election debates were ineffective in improving learning. Moreover, little domestic policy learning transpired across debates. Although this null finding may result from a small sample size, future research should continue testing this relationship considering that citizens place a high value on economic and social issues (Carlin et al. Reference Carlin, Vigil, Buehler and McDonald2008; Patterson Reference Patterson1980; Hillygus and Henderson 2010).5

For those scholars disheartened by levels of public knowledge on foreign policy issues, our results offer some optimism. While Americans are largely disinterested in public affairs programming, particularly foreign affairs, they learn about these issues when exposed to debates focused on a foreign policy agenda. Our findings on foreign policy learning are both substantive and significant. These results are worth heeding attention to for two reasons: (1) the infrequency in which debates are reserved for foreign policy and (2) the ongoing discourse on whether to hold foreign policy debates.6 We find that foreign policy debates are not only beneficial but perhaps more so than domestic policy debates.

Because town hall debates are more reflective of public information needs, one may assume they are more informative; however, town hall moderators have adopted a more active role in setting the agenda by interjecting with their own questions. When press moderators weave their own questions into the town hall debates, less time is devoted to the public agenda. This is one possible explanation for the lack of knowledge effects found for the October 16 town hall debate (D2). Our results suggest that agenda topic is more influential in improving public knowledge than debate format.

An explanation for these foreign policy knowledge findings perhaps lies in ceiling limitations. We know Americans bring less foreign policy expertise to the table (Aldrich, Sullivan, and Borgida Reference Aldrich, Sullivan and Borgida1989; Delli Carpini and Keeter 1996). The media also devote more coverage to domestic issues than foreign policy (Wells and King Reference Wells and King1994). Citizens may learn more from foreign policy debates simply because they hold lower baselines of knowledge. Because our study is limited to a single election and a convenience sample, we should temper these findings. In providing treatment to live debates we enhance external validity at the cost of internal validity. Thus, replication is necessary before making more definitive inferences. Despite limitations, this study justifies increased research of debate formats and agendas.

Debate exposure increases knowledge—but only on policy matters raised in the debate (Zhu, Milavsky, and Biswas 1994). Foreign policy agendas possibly contain more policy discourse. Regardless, varying knowledge effects across debate topics are worth further examination because they serve an educational purpose beyond the scope of election news (Jamieson and Birdsell 1988). Presidential debates are a source of campaign information with tremendous civic potential. As format evolves, scholarship must keep pace. This study provides a preliminary step in demonstrating that learning from debates is conditional. The next phase of research should identify conditions of learning by parsing out effects across formats and agendas. The more media coverage emphasizes the horserace, strategy, and tactics of elections over more substantive topics, the more crucial debates are in informing voters on policy matters.

APPENDIX: Knowledge Measures

2012 Domestic issues measures

1. Which presidential candidate is pro-life, that is, supports restricting access to abortion in most cases? (Obama, Romney, Both, Neither).

2. Which presidential candidate has expressed a desire to repeal healthcare reform legislation? (Obama, Romney, Both, Neither).

3. Which presidential candidate supports allowing many illegal immigrants who were brought to the US as children to remain in the country? (Obama, Romney, Both, Neither).

4. Which presidential candidate opposes allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally? (Obama, Romney, Both, Neither).

5. Which presidential candidate supports raising taxes on income over $250,000? (Obama, Romney, Both, Neither).

2012 Foreign issues measures

1. Which presidential candidate has promised to increase spending on missile defense? (Obama, Romney, Both, Neither).

2. Which presidential candidate supports NATO’s plan to withdraw combat forces from Afghanistan by the end of 2014? (Obama, Romney, Both, Neither).

3. Which presidential candidate has called Palestinian statehood a priority? (Obama, Romney, Both, Neither).

4. Which presidential candidate has called Russia “our number one geopolitical foe”? (Obama, Romney, Both, Neither).

5. Which presidential candidate offended British officials when he suggested London was not prepared to host the 2012 Olympics? (Obama, Romney, Both, Neither).

Note: correct answers in bold type face.

Jason Turcotte is a doctoral candidate in the Manship School of Mass Communication at Louisiana State University. He can be reached at .

R. Kirby Goidel is a professor of political science and mass communication at Louisiana State University. He can be reached at .

Footnotes

1. The racial breakdown of the sample is as follows: 78% Caucasian, 10% African-American, 5% Latin American/Hispanic, 3% Asian and 3% mixed race.

2. One of the limitations here is that the delayed reaction to the debate may not be the same as the immediate reaction (see Lang and Lang Reference Lang and Lang1978). Alternatively, we avoid the measurement problems cited by Prior (Reference Prior2012) involved in self-reported measures of debate exposure.

3. Our covariates include a variable for general political knowledge using a four-item index (α = .45) adapted from Delli Carpini and Keeter (1993) as well as a covariate for pre-debate knowledge levels for each model’s respective knowledge index (e.g. full index, domestic policy, and foreign policy). Interest in politics, or motivation (Chaffee Reference Chaffee1978), ideology, race, and gender also served as covariates in our models. Political efficacy, campaign news consumption, and media trust were initially included but bore no statistically significant influence on campaign knowledge and were later omitted.

4. Diversions concerning education and the economy during the Oct. 22 foreign policy debate may explain the unexpected bump in domestic policy knowledge. See www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/22/romney-obama-spar-over-ed_n_2003999.html

5. According to the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 81% of Americans say the presidency should primarily focus on domestic issues, while 9% say the presidency should primarily focus on foreign policy. See http://www.people-press.org/2012/01/23/public-priorities-deficit-rising-terrorism-slipping/

6. For ongoing debate over holding presidential foreign policy debates, see http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/10/22/we-shouldnt-have-a-foreign-policy-debate/; http://themonkeycage.org/2012/10/22/why-the-foreign-policy-debate-matters/

References

REFERENCES

Aldrich, John H., Sullivan, John L., and Borgida, Eugene. 1989. “Foreign Affairs and Issue Voting: Do Presidential candidates ‘waltz before a blind audience?’” The American Political Science Review 83 (1): 123–41.Google Scholar
Almond, Gabriel A. 1960. The American People and Foreign Policy. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Bennett, Stephen E. 1996. “Know-nothings Revisited Again.” Political Behavior 18 (3): 219–33.Google Scholar
Benoit, William L., and Hansen, Glenn J.. 2001. “Presidential Debate Questions and the Public Agenda.” Communication Quarterly 49 (2): 130–41.Google Scholar
Benoit, William L., and Hansen, Glenn J.. 2004. “Presidential Debate Watching, Issue Knowledge, Character Evaluation, and Vote Choice.” Human Communication Research 30(1): 121-144.Benoit, William L., Glenn J. Hansen, and Rebecca M. Verser. 2003. “A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Viewing U.S. Presidential Debates.” Communication Monographs 70 (4): 335–50.Google Scholar
Benoit, William L., McKinney, Mitchell S., and Stephenson, Michael T.. 2002. “Effects of Watching 2000 Campaign Presidential Primary Debates.” Journal of Communication 52 (2): 316–31.Google Scholar
Carlin, Diana B., Vigil, Tammy, Buehler, Susan, and McDonald, Kelly. 2008. The Third Agenda in U.S. Presidential Debates: Debate Watch and Viewer Reactions, 1996-2004. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
Chaffee, Steven H. 1978. “Presidential Debaters – Are They Helpful to Voters?” Communication Monographs 45: 330–46.Google Scholar
Cho, Jaeho, and Choy, Syng Pom. 2011. “From Podium to Living Room: Elite Debates as an Emotional Catalyst for Citizen Communicative Engagements.” Communication Research 38 (6): 778–804.Google Scholar
Cho, Jaeho, and Ha, Yerheen. 2012. “On the Communicative Underpinnings of Campaign Effects: Presidential Debates, Citizen Communication, and Polarization in Evaluations of Candidates.” Political Communication 29: 184–204.Google Scholar
Cohen, Jeffrey E. 2008. The Presidency in the Era of 24-Hour News. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Delli Carpini, Michael X., and Keeter, Scott. 1993. “Measuring Political Knowledge: Putting First Things First.” American Journal of Political Science 37 (4): 1179–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delli Carpini, Michael X., and Keeter, Scott. 1996. What Americans Know About Politics and Why It Matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dolan, Kathleen A., and Holbrook, Thomas M.. 2001. “Knowing Versus Caring: The Role of Affect and Cognition in Political Perceptions.” Political Psychology 22 (1): 27–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, James N. 2003. “The Power of Television Images: The First Kennedy-Nixon Debate Revisited.” The Journal of Politics 65 (2): 559–571.Google Scholar
Dunaway, Johanna. 2008. “Markets, Ownership, and the Quality of Campaign News Coverage.” The Journal of Politics 70 (4): 1193–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hillygus, D. Sunshine, and Henderson, Michael. 2010. “Political Issues and the Dynamics of Vote Choice in 2008.” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties 20 (2): 241–69.Google Scholar
Holbrook, Thomas M. 1999. “Political Learning from Presidential Debates.” Political Behavior 21 (1): 67–89.Google Scholar
Holbrook, Thomas M. 2002. “Presidential Campaigns and the Knowledge Gap.” Political Communication 19 (4): 437–54.Google Scholar
Jackson-Beeck, Marilyn, and Meadow, Robert G.. 1979. “The Triple Agenda of Presidential Debates.” Public Opinion Quarterly 43 (2): 173–80.Google Scholar
Jamieson, Kathleen Hall, and Birdsell, David S.. 1988. Presidential Debates: The Challenge of Creating an Informed Electorate. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Just, Marion R., Crigler, Ann N., Alger, Dean E., Cook, Timothy E., Kern, Montague, and West, Darrell M.. 1996. Crosstalk: Citizens, Candidates, and the Media in a Presidential Campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kaid, Linda L., Mitchell, McKinney S., and Tedesco, John C.. 2000. Civic Dialogue in the 1996 Presidential Campaign: Candidates, Media, and Public Voices. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
Lang, Gladys E., and Lang, Kurt. 1978. “Immediate and Delayed Responses to a Carter-Ford Debate: Assessing Public Opinion.” The Public Opinion Quarterly 42 (3): 322–41.Google Scholar
Lanoue, David J. 1992. “One That Made a Difference: Cognitive Consistency, Political Knowledge, and the 1980 Presidential Debate.” Public Opinion Quarterly 56: 168–84.Google Scholar
Lewis-Beck, Michael S., Jacoby, William G., Norpoth, Helmut, and Weisberg, Herbert F.. 2008. The American Voter Revisited. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
McLeod, Jack M., Bybee, Carl R., and Durall, Jean A.. 1982. “Equivalence of Informed Political Participation: The 1976 Presidential Debates as a Source of Influence.” Communication Research 6 (4): 463–87.Google Scholar
Miller, Arthur H., and MacKuen, Michael. 1979. “Learning About the Candidates: The 1976 Presidential Debates.” The Public Opinion Quarterly 43 (3): 326–46.Google Scholar
Patterson, Thomas E. 1980. The Mass Media Election: How Americans Choose Their President. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Prior, Markus. 2005. “News vs. Entertainment: How Increasing Media Choice Widens Gaps in Political Knowledge and Turnout.” American Journal of Political Science 49 (3): 577–92.Google Scholar
Prior, Markus. 2012. “Who Watches Presidential Debates? Measurement Problems in Campaign Effects Research.” Public Opinion Quarterly 76 (2): 350–63.Google Scholar
Schrott, Peter R., and Lanoue, David J.. 2013. “The Power and Limitations of Televised Presidential Debates: Assessing the Real Impact of Candidate Performance on Public Opinion and Vote Choice.” Electoral Studies (forthcoming). Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/jelectstud.7013.03.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, Robert A., and King, Erika G.. 1994. “Prestige Newspaper Coverage of Foreign Affairs in the 1990 Congressional Campaigns.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 71 (3): 652–64.Google Scholar
Zhu, Jian-Hua, Milavsky, Ronald J., and Biswas, Rahul. 1994. “Do Televised Debates Affect Image Perception More Than Issue Knowledge? A Study of the First 1992 Presidential Debate.” Human Communication Research 20 (3): 302–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1Knowledge Difference of Means (full sample)

Figure 1

Table 2Knowledge Difference of Means by Debate Type

Figure 2

Table 3Political Knowledge OLS Regression Models

Figure 3

Table 4Political Knowledge OLS Regression Models (w/Covariates)