Taylor & Francis Group
Browse
rcmm_a_1641731_sm3780.docx (24.14 kB)

Reconsidering partisanship as a constraint on the persuasive effects of debates

Download (24.14 kB)
journal contribution
posted on 2019-08-12, 18:32 authored by Benjamin R. Warner, Mitchell S. McKinney, Josh C. Bramlett, Freddie J. Jennings, Michelle Elizabeth Funk

This study tests persuasive effects of 30 debate performances drawn from samples (n = 5780) of 22 states over four election cycles (2004–2016). We test partisanship of the candidate, type of debate (presidential or vice-presidential), gender of the candidate, whether it was the first debate of the cycle, and whether it was a town-hall debate as possible moderators. Results reveal that viewers are likely to perceive their inparty candidate more favorably after viewing a debate, particularly for vice-presidential candidates, Democratic candidates, and female candidates. Debate viewing did not consistently influence evaluations of the outparty candidate. We conclude that debates can persuade and argue for a reconceptualization of partisan-motivated reasoning as a constraint on political persuasion.

Funding

The authors would like to thank the Reynolds Journalism Institute for financially supporting various iterations of this research.

History

Usage metrics

    Communication Monographs

    Licence

    Exports

    RefWorks
    BibTeX
    Ref. manager
    Endnote
    DataCite
    NLM
    DC