20

Political TV Advertising and Debates

William L. Benoit and Jayne R. Henson

Importance of TV Spots and Debates in Contemporary Society

For more than a century US political candidates have campaigned actively for the office of president. Indeed, in 2008 Barack Obama became the first candidate to decline federal financing for the general election campaign. He did so because accepting the federal funds meant he would be limited to spending $84.1 million on his campaign (FEC, 2010). Declining federal financing meant he could spend as much as he could raise; he spent $760.1 million, $427.6 million on media (Center for Responsive Politics, 2010). Others had declined to accept federal campaign funds for the presidential primary (e.g., George W. Bush and John Kerry in 2004; Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Mitt Romney in 2008; Lawrence & Schouten, 2007).

Initially, it was considered unseemly for a presidential candidate to campaign on his (all candidates were male at this point in time) own behalf. Of course, some would say presidential campaigns today remain unseemly. The first candidate to give a speech advocating his own candidacy was William Henry Harrison in 1840. In 1924, the major political nominating conventions were broadcast on radio. The first presidential primary debate, between two Republicans – Governor Thomas Dewey and Governor Harold Stassen – was broadcast on radio in 1948 (Kane, 1987). Harry Truman gave the first paid campaign speech, broadcast on television in 1948 (Jamieson, 1996). The 1952 election saw the first presidential TV spots aired in support of Republican Dwight Eisenhower and Republican Adlai Stevenson (Benoit, 1999) and ads ran in the primary as well as the general election campaigns. The first general election debate, of course, pitted Richard M. Nixon against John F. Kennedy in four one-hour debates in 1960; today millions of people watch the presidential (and, when they occur, the vice presidential) debates (Commission on Presidential Debates, 2010). Candidates employ a variety of means for reaching the electorate, including speeches, direct mail advertising, yard signs, campaign buttons, interviews, and, in recent years, candidate web pages, Facebook, and MySpace pages. Arguably, however, the two most important media in presidential campaigns are television spots and debates.

US Presidential Television Spots

Kaid declares that television advertising in political campaigns is the “dominant form” of communication between the candidate and the voter (2004, p. 157). During the 2004 primary campaign, for example, Democrats aired 16,683 and Republicans broadcast 12,042 political television advertisements, 95% of which were aired on local television stations (Czaja, Bausch, & Parrelli, 2007). With each successive year, candidates are spending more on campaign messages. In 2004, advertising media cost approximately $1.17 billion dollars. Spending that included all marketing costs totaled approximately $2.74 billion dollars, an increase of 126% from 2000 (Quinn & Kivijarv, 2005). In the first six months of the 2008 presidential primary season, candidates spent nearly $200 million just on TV advertisements (TNS Media Intelligence, 2008). As indicated above, in 2008 Barack Obama spent more on his general election campaign overall, and his television advertising in particular, than any other presidential candidate in history. Clearly, candidates believe that political advertising is essential to their electoral success.

Scholars have produced considerable research investigating political TV spots; for example, books on this topic include: Ansolabehere and Iyengar (1995), Benoit (1999), Diamond and Bates (1992), Dover (2006), Geer (2006), Goldstein and Strach (2004), Jamieson (1996), Johnson-Cartee and Copeland (1991, 1997), Kahn and Kenney (1999), Kaid and Johnston (2001), Kern (1989), Lau and Pomper (2004), Maisel and West (2004), Nelson and Boynton (1997), Nesbit (1988), Schultz (2004), Thurber, Nelson, and Dulio (2000), and West (2009), Research has investigated the functions and topics of presidential advertising (e.g., Benoit, 1999; or Kaid & Johnston, 2001). Patterns of issue ownership – the notion that each major political party is viewed by most voters as best able to deal with certain issues – (Petrocik, 1996) in presidential (Petrocik, Benoit, & Hansen, 2003/2004) advertising have also received scholarly attention. Some research has investigated presidential advertising in other countries besides the United States (see, e.g., Kaid, 1995; Lee & Benoit, 2004; or Wen, Benoit, & Yu, 2004). Loudan (2010a) has compiled a useful bibliography of work on political advertising.

Television advertisements have specific advantages for candidates and citizens. Candidates are able to spend considerable amounts of money on advertising (Benoit, 2007), which allows creation of multiple ads, which can be aired repeatedly. Candidates have the ability to choose when and where these advertisements are aired, and thus can reach a more carefully targeted segment of the electorate. Unlike news coverage of the candidates and their campaign messages, the media do not filter television spots (although the media may replay ads and comment on them after they are aired). Additionally, advertisements are entirely scripted, which allows candidates to control the entire message. The campaign comes to citizens in their own home (or wherever they watch television); they do not have to seek out information (in most cases) to learn about candidates in an election. This factor is particularly important for citizens who have little interest in politics and rarely seek out information about the candidates and the campaign. These messages are also short (most are 30–60 seconds, although Obama ran a 30-minute spot in 2008) and require very little effort on the part of the citizen to process.

US Presidential Debates

Due to the extensive viewership, press attention, and extended discussion of issues in the campaign, scholars have paid considerable attention to political debates. For example, an estimated total of 53 million viewers watched the first presidential general election debate of 2008. 63 million were estimated to have watched the second debate, the largest number since the second presidential debate of 1992, with 69.9 million viewers (Moraes, 2008). Scholars have lavished considerable attention on presidential debates (books include, in chronological order, Kraus, 1962, 1979, 2000; Bishop Meadow & Jackson-Beeck, 1980; Bitzer & Rueter, 1980; Martel, 1983; Swerdlow, 1987; Jamieson & Birdsell, 1988; Lanoue & Schrott, 1991; Hellweg, Pfau, & Brydon, 1992; Hinck, 1993; Carlin & McKinney, 1994; Friedenberg, 1994b, 1997; Benoit & Wells, 1996; Schroeder, 2000; and Benoit et al., 2002). The Racine Group (2002) examined the literature on political election debates and concluded that, “few deny that viewers find them useful and almost no one doubts that they play an important role in national campaigns” (p. 201). Loudan also has compiled a useful bibliography on political debates (2010b).

Televised presidential debates have several advantages for candidates and citizens. Debates are beneficial for candidates because they provide an extended amount of time for candidates to share their messages relative to television spots. Both candidates and citizens benefit from the extra time spent clarifying issue positions. Debates also provide free airtime for candidates to spread their messages, which is particularly important for candidates with smaller budgets and fewer television advertisements. Of course, even candidates with huge budgets can participate in debates. Candidates are able to reach millions of viewers nationwide that they might otherwise not be able to target.

Today, in the United States, participation in presidential campaign debates has become an expected part of the campaign (although the number of debates in which a candidate participates has varied from one in 1980 to four in 1960). As noted above, the first general election debate occurred in 1960. In 1964, President Lyndon Johnson declined to debate. Nixon, perhaps in part because of his loss in 1960, did not debate in 1968 or 1972. However, in 1976, President Gerald Ford decided to debate Jimmy Carter and the United States has had debates in every campaign since – as well as vice presidential debates in most years.

Debates also have advantages for citizens such as providing a somewhat more candid view of candidates other than from the media. Benoit, Hansen, and Verser (2003) argue that debates are unique in their influence over voters because they allow face-to-face communication between candidates. This format also allows for a direct comparison of issue positions and policy proposals. Unlike television spots, speeches, web pages, and direct mail brochures, debates offer a relatively unscripted performance of the candidate (Benoit, 2007). Candidates have less control over the content of the debate; even with prior knowledge of questions they are less certain what other candidates will communicate. Thus, debates provide a more candid view of candidates. Additionally, candidates do not have control over the production elements of this medium. For example, Scheufele, Kim, and Brossard (2007) argue that split screen shots – one candidate shown speaking and the other reacting in real time – allow viewers to see unintended nonverbal communication by the candidates.

The Nature of TV Spots and Debates

Benoit's (2007) functional theory of political campaign discourse has been applied to political advertisements and debates. This theory posits that political campaign messages are intended to persuade voters that one candidate is preferable to another. This goal can be facilitated by the three functions of political campaign messages: acclaims (positive statements about one's self), attacks (negative statements about one's opponent), and defenses (refutations of attacks). These functions can be enacted on two topics: policy (governmental action, past and future, and problems amenable to governmental action) and character (the candidates' traits or personalities).

Functions and Topics of Political Advertising

Research (Benoit, 2007) on US campaigns (1952–2004) found that presidential primary advertisements used acclaims (72%) more than attacks (27%) and rarely used defenses (1%). The same relative proportion of functions occurred in general election presidential TV spots: acclaims (59%), attacks (40%), and defenses (1%). In both campaign phases policy was discussed more than character (primary: 54% to 46%; general: 62% to 38%). Roughly similar results have been found for non-presidential advertising (e.g., gubernatorial, senate, house) and for TV spots in other countries (Benoit, 2007).

We note that the emphasis on both acclaims and policy may seem high; however, news coverage emphasizes both attacks and character more than the candidates do in their advertisements (see Benoit, Stein, & Hansen, 2005). Generally similar results for function and topic have been observed for political leaders' debates in other countries (Benoit, 2007).

Functions and Topics of Political Debates

Research (Benoit, 2007) on US presidential debates has found comparable results (although defenses are consistently more common in debates). Presidential primary debates (through 2004) used 64% acclaims, 31% attacks, and 4% defenses. General election debates (1960, 1976–2004) used 57% acclaims, 33% attacks, and 8% defenses. Again, candidates in these messages tend to discuss policy more than character (primary: 68% to 32%; general: 75% to 25%).

Thus, in both forms of communication – TV spots and debates – positive statements about the candidate who is the source of a message are the most common function, although attacks on the opponent occur with some frequency as well. Responding to attacks (using defenses) is relatively rare and more common in debates than advertisements. Candidates generally focus on policy rather than character in their campaign discourse.

Campaign Media Effects

Today, the United States population is over 309 million (Census Bureau, 2010). It is clearly impossible for presidential candidates to meet even a tiny fraction of the voters; so it is vital for candidates to use the media to reach voters (this is true of campaigns for other offices besides president, of course). For example, Herrnson (2004) observed that

Candidates may use the media to reach voters; however, the media have an opportunity to filter and comment on the candidates' messages. TV spots and debates allow candidates the opportunity to reach many voters without the gatekeeping of the media.

It is important to keep in mind that a given message does not reach every potential voter. Some voters choose not to watch debates; this choice is facilitated by the fact that many networks do not carry debates and because other media (DVDs, the Internet) are now available to citizens. The fact that presidential candidates can target where (in which media market) their advertisements are broadcast means some voters can not be exposed to a given campaign message. Furthermore, Stroud (2007) notes that “A substantial proportion of the public [...] consumes media sharing their political predispositions” (p. 358); some voters may elect not to use a given medium. Additionally, different voters can interpret a given message in divergent ways, which means the effect of a message can be mediated by voters' beliefs, values, and attitudes (including, of course, political ideology). Oliver and Krakowiak (2009) observe that “Effects of media on viewers are obviously not uniform – some individuals may be strongly influenced whereas others are impervious. [...] Individual characteristics may also heighten or intensify media influences, or may even provide a necessary condition for media influences to occur” (p. 525). Clearly, we must not expect that political advertisements will affect all viewers equally.

Minimal Effects Theory

The People's Choice (Lazarsfeld, Berelson, & Gaudet, 1948) is the classic source for the concept of “minimal effects” arising in the study of the effects of presidential campaigns on voters. Lazarsfeld et al. (1948; see also Berelson, Lazarsfeld, & McPhee, 1954) investigated a group of voters during the 1940 presidential election. The authors contended that campaigns have two main effects on voters: “activation,” or “bringing their latent political attitudes to the surface,” and “reinforcement,” or “telling them what they wanted to see and hear” (p. 94). Only a few voters experienced another effect, “conversion,” which was a change in preference from one candidate to another.

Another classic work was written by Klapper (1960), who argued that mass media are more likely to reinforce attitudes than to convert people from one candidate to another: “persuasive mass communication functions far more frequently as an agent of reinforcement than as an agent of change” (p. 15; echoing Lazarsfeld et al., 1948). Klapper suggested that these effects were largely due to selective exposure (people tend to consume messages which agree with their attitudes), selection perception (people tend to interpret using their existing attitudes), and selective retention in memory (information which agrees with a person's attitudes should have more impact than discrepant information). Voters with less interest in the campaign tend to have less knowledge about the candidates. Thus, the voters who are most susceptible to persuasion (those with less knowledge) are less likely to pay attention to the campaign. Campbell (2000) wrote about the “minimal effects conundrum”: “Those who are most attentive to campaign information are the least open to persuasion by it and those who are most open to persuasion by campaign information are the least likely to be attentive to it” (p. 12, emphasis omitted). Zaller (1997) discusses this idea in greater detail:

It is possible that those who are moderately aware could be less committed to their political attitudes; it may not be simply a lack of astuteness that makes such people more persuadable. Thus, early work on mass media generally and political campaigns in particular tended to minimize the effects of messages on voters and concluded that changing attitudes was much less common than activating or reinforcing attitudes.

In the 1990s, Finkel (1993) renewed the argument that the most likely effects of campaigns are reinforcement and activation of existing attitudes. He noted that “the potential does exist for campaigns to move individuals away from their vote dispositions” (p. 18, emphasis original), and he reported that conversion (changing vote preference) does occur in some voters. However, these effects tended to occur for both candidates with little net change in the campaign he studied (e.g., some voters who initially favored Reagan shifted to Mondale and others moved in the opposite direction).

A relatively new approach was developed by Campbell (2000), who advanced the theory of the “predictable campaign.” He notes that several factors tend to reduce the potential impact of election campaigns. First, many voters are relatively stable partisans (who will probably vote for their own party's nominee). Second, some voters make their vote choice early in the campaign. The state of the economy, which is known by voters before the campaign, is another factor in election outcome. Incumbency also exists prior to the campaign and (particularly in the House of Representatives) can be a significant advantage for candidates. Campbell argues that these considerations have a tendency to reduce the importance of the campaign. Campbell then observes that:

The effect of highly competitive campaigns for the White House is a “leveling effect”: “Campaigns should generally have the effect of narrowing the difference between candidates” (p. 23). However, this does not rule out the possibility that a campaign could benefit one candidate over another.

Campbell (2001), looking for shifts in support that occurred during campaigns (postconvention polls to election day) argues that two campaigns, 1948 and 1960, were decisive, meaning that the candidate leading after the conventions lost the election after the general election campaign. He also indicated that three other campaigns (1976, 1980, and 2000) may have been decisive. He also concluded that there were significant shifts in support during nine other elections (1952, 1956, 1964, 1968, 1972, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996), “but not enough or in the direction to have changed what appeared to be the electorate's precampaign preference” (p. 446). So, his analysis provides evidence that voting preference can shift during the campaign, and that these shifts may be enough in some years to change the outcome of the election.

Zaller (1996) suggests that two reasons can explain why previous research has had a difficult time finding large media effects on the vote:

Holbert and Benoit (2009) develop a theory of political campaign media connectedness, which considers multiple media simultaneously and argues for examination of both direct and indirect effects of political campaign messages (direct effects of a message in one medium and indirect effects of one medium via another medium). Although competing campaigns may mask the true effects, we lean toward Zaller's (1996) conclusion: “The true magnitude of the persuasive effect of mass communication is closer to ‘massive’ than to ‘small to negligible’ and that the frequency of such effects is ‘often’” (p. 18). Thus, we believe media effects on politics can be important so it behooves us to investigate the effects of political TV spots and debates.

Effects of Television Spots

Because presidential (and other) candidates rely so heavily on television advertising, extensive research has been conducted on this medium. Effects studies of this campaign medium concern various topics such as issue knowledge and candidate issue positions, truth in advertising and negative ads.

Benoit, Leshner, and Chattopadhyay (2007) conducted a meta-analysis of political advertisements, comparing student and non-student populations when possible, assessing the effects of spots on issue learning, perceptions of character, attitude towards candidate, agenda setting, and interest in the campaign. Finally, they also assessed effects on turnout and vote choice. (We also report information about the data on which their conclusions are based to help appreciate the strength of these claims.) They found viewing political advertisements significantly affects issue learning: 13 sets of data with an n of 4,873 yielded a mean effect size of .21 (Benoit et al., 2007). They reported that students learn more from ads than other viewers, but both groups showed significant issue learning. Six data sets (n = 2,061) examined the effects of watching ads on perceptions of candidate character. The weighted effect size was significant at. 19. Seven studies with an n of 1,113 found that ad viewing has significant effects on attitudes toward candidates (r = .17). Again, studies using students as participants had larger effect sizes than other studies, but the effect for both groups was significant. Three studies with a combined n of 351 found significant agenda-setting effects (watching ads increased the importance to voters of the issues addressed in the ads); the effect size was .19. Research also investigated whether viewing televised political spots increased interest in the campaign. Nine studies (n = 4,561) yielded a significant effect size: .22. Twelve data sets with a combined n of 8,266 found a small but significant effect size for increased turnout of .07. Three studies (n = 1,067) found significant effects of ad watching on vote choice with an effect size of .19. There can be no doubt that watching political advertisements can have significant effects on viewers.

Perhaps one of the largest areas of polispot research concerns positive and negative advertising. Research on negative advertising is somewhat questionable. For example, some research on negative advertising utilizes coding schemes that often code the whole ad as negative or positive (Kaid & Johnston, 2001). Benoit (2007) argues that many ads include both positive (acclaims) and negative (attacks) statements in ads; many ads also discuss both policy and character. Coding each theme in a campaign message – as opposed to using the entire ad as the coding unit – provides a more accurate measurement of ad content. Some scholars, such as Ansolabahere and Iyengar (1999) have found that negative advertising results in the demobilization effect and that negative ads can induce political cynicism (Ansolabere & Iyengar, 1994). Ansolabere and Iyengar (1999) argue that citizens dislike negative ads, called mudslinging, and this in turn causes them to think negatively about candidates producing the ads, as well as candidates being attacked in the ads. For these reasons, they argue that citizens feel less inclined to go to the polls and participate in the political process.

However, meta-analyses on advertising effects do not show significant decreases in voting intention from viewing negative advertisements. Meta-analyses on phenomena that have amassed a large number of studies are often preferable when available, because this analysis compiles individual results of studies and averages results for clearer picture of the phenomena (Rosenthal, 1984). With the exception of two election cycles, political advertising has been significantly more positive than negative (Benoit, 1999). Two meta-analyses demonstrate that negative advertising is not significantly more powerful than positive advertising (Allen & Burrel, 2002; Lau, Sigelman, Heldman, & Babbitt, 1999). Lau, Sigelman, and Rovner (2007) in a subsequent meta-analysis found that negative advertising might even produce a slight mobilizing effect, although not statistically significant. However, they argue that negative campaigns do have statistically significant negative effects on political efficacy and government trust.

Benoit (2007) argues that negative advertising may produce a voter trade-off. Some individuals may be disinclined to vote after viewing negative ads (with negative advertising decreasing turnout for those voters), but others could be more inclined to vote after viewing negative ads, voting against mud-slingers to punish them (increasing turnout for that group of voters; see Martin, 2004). One way that scholars have attempted to wrestle with the continued replication and contradictory findings is refinement of experimental stimuli. For example, Dardis, Shen, and Edwards (2008) tested exposure to issue and image attack ads and length of exposure. They found that greater lengths of exposure to issue ads decreased self-efficacy (which is thought to be positively related to voting). Another approach in light of this controversy, is to study the mechanisms behind negative advertisements and the appeal for parties and politicians. Obviously, despite several meta-analyses and numerous continued studies, it seems unlikely that scholars will resolve the debate regarding a global evaluation of the effects of negative advertisements. However, scholars are making attempts to refine research in this area and dig deeper in the causal mechanisms behind our reaction to these campaign strategies. There can be no question that presidential television advertising warrants further scholar inquiry.

Effects of Debates

Effects-based research on political debates is diverse. This section will provide a brief synopsis of various studies and conclude with a discussion of the meta-analysis that has combined similar research in this area.

Due to the importance and the unique nature of debates, many scholars continue to investigate candidate trustworthiness, persona, and persuasiveness in this message form. The first study to explore issue information acquisition during primary debates (Pfau, 1988) used a pre/postdesign and found significant results for candidate issue-position learning. A unique approach was employed by Pfau and Kang (1991), who assessed the effects of relational communication in debates using an experimental design. Dependent variables consisted of general attitudes toward a candidate, likelihood for voting, competence, sociability, and character. The authors found that dimensions of relational communication measured in survey responses were significant predictors in evaluations of candidate attitude and likelihood to vote for a certain candidate. One study that combines these variables of trustworthiness and persuasiveness is by An and Pfau (2004). The authors used inoculation treatments (which refute arguments that will appear in a subsequent attack) predebate viewing to assess whether treatments would increase resistance to counterattitudinal messages (thus decreasing the effectiveness of those attacks) in debates. Findings from their study suggest that inoculation helps prevent decreases in candidate favorability by respondents.

Subsequent studies continue to tout the importance of debates for several participatory variables. McKinney and Chattopadhyay (2007) found that debate viewing increased political information efficacy, a factor influencing political participation. When independents and “undecideds” watch debates they learn issue and character information, leading to greater confidence in their ability to cast votes. Additionally, viewers have the opportunity to see all candidates for a given party, and studies report that equal issue-knowledge acquisition occurs for most candidates, not just the viewer's preferred candidate (McKinney & Carlin, 2004). Debates also have the potential to agenda-set by increasing the salience of issue stances and character traits (Benoit, McKinney, & Holbert, 2001).

Meta-analysis has been used to cumulate research on the effects of televised political debates. One variable concerns whether debate viewers learn about the candidates' issue positions after watching a debate. In general election debates, 18 measurements of this variable were cumulated from 13 studies with an n of 7,202 (Benoit, Hansen, & Verser, 2003); the weighted effect size was .256. Those exposed to televised political debates experienced significant increases in issue knowledge. Six sets of data from two studies (n = 3,153) found that debates increase the salience of issues to voters, with a weighted effect size of .187. General debates also had a significant effect on voters' issue preference – for example, does the voter support NAFTA or oppose it – (4 studies, n = 625, effect size of .136). Watching televised debates has an agenda-setting effect – making the particular issues discussed in debates more important to viewers. Three studies with an n of 216 yielded a weighted effect size of .291. Ten studies with 17 measurements found that viewing debates affected perceptions of the candidates' character (n = 5,426; effect size = .266). Tests investigating perceptions of candidate competence were not significant. Finally, effects of watching televised debates on vote choice were significant (25 data points from 14 studies, n = 8,876, mean effect size = .146). A few studies have also investigated the effects of watching primary campaign debates. Two studies with five unique data points (n = 187, weighted effect size .833) found that viewing primary debates significantly increased issue knowledge. Debates in this campaign phase influenced character perceptions (2 studies with 3 data points, n = 169, effect size = .799). Furthermore, vote preference was related to debate viewing with an effect size of .541 (n = 386, 4 studies with 5 sets of data). So, the weight of research supports the conclusion that debates had substantial effects on those who chose to view them, with effect sizes ranging from .136 to .291 in the general election and .541 to .833 in the primary campaign. Although we have fewer studies (with a smaller n) of primary than general debates, it appears that viewing televised primary debates has a much larger effect. Presumably voters have more information and more strongly held attitudes by the time the general election debates are held.

Conclusion

Arguably, televised political spots and debates are the two most important campaign media today. Millions of dollars are spent on political advertising and millions of voters watch campaign debates. The Internet is increasing in importance over time (see Chapter 23), but it does not yet rival these more traditional campaign media in influence. With a population of over 300 million, candidates in the United States (as well as in individual states and other countries) must use the mass media. Both of these campaign media allow candidates to reach millions of potential voters. Meta-analyses of the research on these media demonstrate that political advertisements and debates have significant effects on voters – many with impressive effect sizes. Viewing political television advertisements increases issue knowledge, influences attitudes toward candidates, affects agenda setting, increases political interest, increases turnout, and affects vote choice: negative ads are not significantly more persuasive than positive ads. Watching televised campaign debates increases issue knowledge, increases issue salience, increases issue preference, affects agenda setting, influences perceptions of the candidates' character; effects are much larger for primary than general election debates. Furthermore, Holbert and Benoit (2009) have argued that it is important for future research on political campaigns to examine multiple media and investigate indirect as well as direct effects. Contemporary political campaigns (especially, but not exclusively, at the presidential level) match powerful candidates and campaigns. However, the idea that campaigns have “minimal effects” is simply wrong (see the recent exchange on this topic: Bennett & Iyengar, 2008, 2010; Holbert, Garrett, & Gleason, 2010). Clearly, more work remains to be done on the important effects of campaign media.

REFERENCES

Allen, M., & Burrell, N. (2002). The negativity effect in political advertising: A meta-analysis. In J. P. Dillard & M. Pfau (Eds.), The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 83–96). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

An, C., & Pfau, M. (2004). The efficacy of inoculation in televised political debates, Journal of Communication, 54, 421–436.

Ansolabehere, S., & Iyengar, S. (1994). Riding the wave and claiming ownership over issues: The joint effects of advertising and news coverage in campaigns. Public Opinion Quarterly, 58, 335–357.

Ansolabehere, S., & Iyengar, S. (1995). Going negative: How attack ads shrink and polarize the electorate. New York, NY: Free Press.

Ansolabehere, S. D., & Iyengar, S. (1999). Replicating experiments using aggregate and survey data: The case of negative advertising and turnout, American Political Science Review, 93, 901–910.

Bennett, W. L., & Iyengar, S. (2008). A new era of minimal effects? The changing foundations of political communication. Journal of Communication, 58, 707–731.

Bennett, W. L., & Iyengar, S. (2010). The shifting foundations of political communication: Responding to a defense of the media effects paradigm, Journal of Communication, 60, 35–39.

Benoit, W. L. (1999). Seeing spots: A functional analysis of presidential television advertisements, 1952–1996. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Benoit, W. L. (2007). Communication in political campaigns. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Benoit, W. L., Hansen, G. J., & Verser, R. M. (2003). A meta-analysis of the effects of viewing US presidential debates. Communication Monographs, 70(4), 335–351.

Benoit, W. L., Leshner, G. M., & Chattopadhyay, S. (2007). A meta-analysis of political advertising. Human Communication, 10, 507–522.

Benoit, W. L., McKinney, M. S., & Holbert, R. L. (2001). Beyond learning and persona: Extending the scope of presidential debate effects. Communication Monographs, 68(3), 259–273.

Benoit, W. L., Pier, P. M., Brazeal, L., McHale, J. P., Klyukovski, A., & Airne, D. (2002). The primary decision: A functional analysis of debates in presidential primaries. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Benoit, W. L., Stein, K. A., & Hansen, G. J. (2005). The New York Times coverage of presidential campaigns, 1952–2000. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 82, 356–376.

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.

Berelson, B. R., Lazarsfeld, P. F., & McPhee, W. N. (1954). Voting: A study of opinion formation in a presidential campaign. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Bishop, G. F., Meadow, R. G., & Jackson-Beeck, M. (Eds.). (1980). The presidential debates: Media, electoral, and policy perspectives. New York, NY: Praeger.

Bitzer, L., & Rueter, T. (1980). Carter versus Ford: The counterfeit debates of 1976. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

Campbell, J. E. (2000). The American campaign: US presidential campaigns and the national vote. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press.

Campbell, J. E. (2001). When have presidential campaigns decided election outcomes? American Politics Research, 29, 437–460.

Carlin, D. B., & McKinney, M. S. (Eds.). (1994). The 1992 presidential debates in focus. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Census Bureau. (2010). US & World population clocks. Retrieved April 26, 2010, from http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html

Center for Responsive Politics, (2010). Barack Obama: Expenditures breakdown. Retrieved February 18, 2010, from http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/expend.php?cycle=2008&cid=n00009638

Commission on Presidential Debates. (2010). Debate history. Retrieved April 21, 2010, from http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=debate-history

Czaja, L., Bausch, S., & Parrelli, S. (2007, July 2). Obama dominates online “buzz” and generates the most website hits of any candidate; traditional media, particularly TV ad volume, started early and is increasing in frequency. News Release. Retrieved October 7, 2008, from http://www.observer.com/pdf/political_spending.pdf

Dardis, F. E., Shen, F., & Edwards, H. H. (2008). Effects of negative political advertising on individuals' cynicism and self-efficacy: The impact of ad type and message exposures. Mass Communication and Society, 11, 24–42.

DeMoraes, L. (2008, October 9). A big turnout for debate 2. Washington Post, p. C01.

Diamond, E., & Bates, S. (1993). The spot: The rise of political advertising on television (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Dover, E. D. (2006). Images, issues, and attacks: Television advertising by incumbents and challengers in presidential elections. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Finkel, S. E. (1993). Reexamining the “minimal effects” model in recent presidential campaigns. Journal of Politics, 55, 1–21.

Friedenberg, R. V. (Ed.). (1994). Rhetorical studies of national political debates, 1960–1992 (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Praeger.

Friedenberg, R. V. (Ed.). (1997). Rhetorical studies of national political debates – 1996. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Federal Election Commission. (2010). Presidential spending limits for 2008. Retrieved February 18, 2010, from http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/pubfund_limits_2008.shtml

Geer, J. G. (2006). In defense of negativity: Attack ads in presidential campaigns. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Goldstein, K. M., & Strach, P. (2004). The medium and the message: Television advertising and American elections. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Hellweg, S. A., Pfau, M., & Brydon, S. R. (1992). Televised presidential debates: Advocacy in contemporary America. New York, NY: Praeger.

Herrnson, P. A. (2004). Congressional elections: Campaigning at home and in Washington (4th ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press.

Hinck, E. A. (1993). Enacting the presidency: Political argument, presidential debates, and presidential character. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Holbert, R. L., & Benoit, W. L. (2009). A theory of political campaign media connectedness. Communication Monographs, 76, 303–332.

Holbert, R. L., Garrett, R. K., & Gleason, L. S. (2010). A new era of minimal effects? A response to Bennett and Iyengar. Journal of Communication, 60, 15–34.

Jamieson, K. H. (1996). Packaging the presidency: A history and criticism of presidential campaign advertising (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Jamieson, K. H., & Birdsell, D. S. (1988). Presidential debates: The challenge of creating an informed electorate. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Johnson-Cartee, K. S., & Copeland, G. (1991). Negative political advertising: Coming of age. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Johnson-Cartee, K. S., & Copeland, G. (1997). Manipulation of the American voter: Political campaign commercials. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Kahn, K. F., & Kenney, P. J. (1999). The spectacle of US Senate campaigns. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Kaid, L. L. (2004). Political advertising. In L. L. Kaid (Ed.), Handbook of political communication (pp. 155–202). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kaid, L. L., & Holtz-Bacha, C. (Eds.). (1995). Political advertising in Western democracies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kaid, L. L., & Johnston, A. (2001). Videostyle in presidential campaigns: Style and content of televised political advertising. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Kane, T. (1987). The Dewey-Stassen primary debate of 1948: An examination of format for presidential debates. In J. Wenzel (Ed.), Argument and critical practices (pp. 249–253). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.

Kern, M. (1989). 30-second politics: Political advertising in the eighties. New York, NY: Praeger.

Klapper, J. T. (1960). The effects of mass communication: An analysis of research on the effectiveness and limitations of mass media in influencing the opinions, values, and behavior of their audiences. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Kraus, S. (Ed.). (1962). The great debates: Kennedy vs. Nixon, 1960. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Kraus, S. (Ed.). (1979). The great debates: Carter versus Ford 1976. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Kraus, S. (2000). Televised presidential debates and public policy (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lanoue, D.J., & Schrott, P. R. (1991). The joint press conference: The history, impact, and prospects of American presidential debates. New York, NY: Greenwood Press.

Lau, R. R., & Pomper, G. M. (2004). Negative campaigning: An analysis of US Senate elections. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Lau, R. R., Sigelman, L., Heldman, C., & Babbitt, P. (1999). The effects of negative political advertisements: A meta-analytic assessment. American Political Science Review, 93, 851–875.

Lau, R. R., Sigelman, L., & Rovner, I. B. (2007). The effects of negative political campaigns: A meta-analytic reassessment. The Journal of Politics, 69, 1176–1209.

Lawrence, J., & Schouten, F. (2007, Feb. 6). Edwards latest to decline public funds for presidential campaign. USA Today. Retrieved April 21, 2010, from http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-02-05-edwards-money_x.htm

Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1948). The people's choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Lee, C., & Benoit, W. L. (2004). A functional analysis of presidential television spots: A comparison of Korean and American ads. Communication Quarterly, 52, 68–79.

Loudan, A. (2010a). Political spot advertising: Selected bibliography. Retrieved February 18, 2010, from http://www.wfu.edu/~louden/Political%20Communication/Bibs/SPOTBIB.html

Loudan, A. (2010b). Presidential political debates: Selected bibliography. Retrieved February 18, 2010, from http://www.wfu.edu/~louden/Political%20Communication/Bibs/DEBATES.html

Maisel, L. S., & West, D. M. (Eds.). (2004). Running on empty? Political discourse in congressional elections. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Martel, M. (1983). Political campaign debates: Issues, strategies, and tactics. New York, NY: Longman.

Martin, P. S. (2004). Inside the black box of negative campaign effects: Three reasons why negative campaigns mobilize. Political Psychology, 25, 545–562.

McKinney, M. S., & Carlin, D. B. (2004). Political campaign debates. In L. L. Kaid (Eds.), Handbook of political communication research (pp. 203–326). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

McKinney, M. S., & Chattopadhyay, S. (2007). Political engagement through debates: Young citizens' reactions to the 2004 presidential debates. American Behavioral Scientist, 50, 1169–1182.

Nelson, J. S., & Boynton, G. R. (1997). Video rhetorics: Televised advertising in American politics. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Oliver, M. B., & Krakowiak, K. M. (2009). Individual differences in media effects. In J. Bryant & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 517–531). New York, NY: Routledge.

Petrocik, J. R. (1996). Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 825–850.

Petrocik, J. R., Benoit, W. L., & Hansen, G. J. (2003/2004). Issue ownership and presidential campaigning, 1952–2000. Political Science Quarterly, 118, 599–626.

Pfau, M. (1988). Intra-party political debate and issue learning. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 16, 99–112.

Pfau, M., & Kang, J. G. (1991). The impact of messages on candidate influence in televised political debates. Communication Studies, 42, 114–128.

Quinn, P., & Kivijarv, L. (2005). US political media buying 2004. International Journal of Advertising, 24, 131–140.

Racine Group. (2002). White paper on televised political campaign debates. Argumentation and Advocacy, 38, 199–218.

Rosenthal, R. (1984). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Scheufele, D. A., Kim, E., & Brossard, D. (2007). How split-screen debate coverage influences evaluation of presidential debates. Communication Research, 34, 3–24.

Schroeder, A. (2000). Presidential debates: Forty years of high-risk TV. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Schultz, D. A. (2004). Lights, camera, campaign! Media, politics, and political advertising. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Stroud, N. J. (2007). Media use and political predispositions: Revisiting the concept of selective exposure. Political Behavior, 30, 341–366.

Swerdlow, J. L. (Ed.). (1987). Presidential debates 1988 and beyond. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.

Thurber, J. A., Nelson, C. J., & Dulio, D. A. (2000). Crowded airwaves: Campaign advertising in elections. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

TNS Media Intelligence/CMAG. (2008, June). Nearly $200 million spent on presidential campaign TV ads to date. TNS Media Intelligence/CMAG with analysis by the Wisconsin Advertising Project.

Wen, W.-C., Benoit, W. L., & Yu, T. -H. (2004). A functional analysis of the 2000 Taiwanese and US presidential spots. Asian Journal of Communication, 14, 140–155.

West, D. M. (2009). Air wars: Television advertising in election campaigns, 1952–2008 (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.

Zaller, J. (1996). The myth of massive media impact revived: New support for a discredited idea. In D. C. Mutz, P. M. Sniderman, & R. A. Brody (Eds.), Political persuasion and attitude change (pp. 17–78). Ann Arbor. MI: University of Michigan Press.

Zaller, J. R. (1997). A model of communication effects at the outbreak of the Gulf War. In S. Iyengar & R. Reeves (Eds.), Does the media govern? Politicians, voters, and reporters in America (pp. 296–311). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

FURTHER READING

Benoit, W. L., & Hansen, G. J. (2001). Presidential debate questions and the public agenda. Communication Quarterly, 49, 130–141.

Benoit, W., & Stephenson, M. (2004). Effects of watching a presidential primary debate. Contemporary Argumentation and Debate, 25, 1–25.

Bishop, G. F., Oldendick, R., & Tuchfarber, A. (1978). Debate watching and the acquisition of political knowledge. Journal of Communication, 28, 99–113.

Cho, J. (2009). Disentangling media effects from debate effects: The presentation of mode of televised debates and viewer decision making. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 86(2), 383–400.

Cho, J., Shah, D., McLeod, J., McLeod, D., Scholl, R., & Gotlieb, M. (2009). Campaigns, reflection, and deliberation: Advancing an O-S-R-O-R model of communication effects. Communication Theory, 19(1), 66–88.

Coleman, S. (2000). Meaningful political debate in the age of the soundbite. In S. Coleman (Ed.), Televised election debates: International perspectives (pp. 1–24). New York, NY: St. Martin's Press.

Cooper, C. A., & Knotts, H. G. (2004). Packaging the governors: Television advertising in the 2000 elections. In D. A. Schultz (Ed.), Lights, camera, campaign! Media, politics, and political advertising (pp. 101–120). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Franz, M., Freedman, P., Goldstein, K., & Ridout, T. (2008). Understanding the effect of political advertising on voter turnout: A response to Krasno and Green. Journal of Politics, 70(1), 262–268.

Franz, M., & Ridout, T. (2007). Does political advertising persuade? Political Behavior, 29(4), 465–491.

Franz, M., & Ridout, T. (2010). Political advertising and persuasion in the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections. American Politics Research, 38(2), 303–329.

Goldstein, K., & Ridout, T. (2004). Measuring the effects of televised political advertising in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science, 7(1), 205–206.

Holbert, R. L. (2005). Debate viewing as mediator and partisan reinforcement in the relationship between news use and vote choice. Journal of Communication, 55, 85–102.

Holbert, R. L., Benoit, W. L., Hansen, G. J., & Wen, W. (2002). The role of political ad recall, news use, political discussion, and debate viewing in campaign issue knowledge and salience. Communication Monographs, 69, 296–310.

Hong, C., & Riffe, D. (2008). Attention, perception, and perceived effects: Negative political advertising in a battleground state of the 2004 presidential election. Mass Communication and Society, 11(2), 177–196.

Huber, G., & Arceneaux, K. (2007). Identifying the persuasive effects of presidential advertising. American Journal of Political Science, 51, 957–977.

Johnston, R., Hagen, M. G., & Jamieson, K. H. (2004). The 2000 presidential election and the foundations of party politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Kahn, K. F., & Geer, J. G. (1994). Creating impressions: An experimental investigation of political advertising on television. Political Behavior, 16, 93–116.

Kaid, L. L., & Holtz-Bacha, C. (2006). The SAGE handbook of political advertising. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Krasno, J., & Green, D. (2008). Do televised presidential ads increase voter turnout? Evidence from a natural experiment. Journal of Politics, 70, 245–261.

Kraus, S. (Ed.) (1962). The great debates: Background, perspectives, effects. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Lau, R., & Rovner, I. (2009). Negative campaigning. Annual Review of Political Science, 12(1), 285–306.

Levine, M. A. (1995). Presidential campaigns and elections: Issues and images in the media age. Ithaca, IL: Peacock Publishers.

McKinney, M., & Rill, L. (2009). Not your parents' presidential debates: Examining the effects of the CNN/YouTube debates on young citizens' civic engagement. Communication Studies, 60(4), 392–406.

Norton, M., & Goethals, G. (2004). Spin (and pitch) doctors: Campaign strategies in televised political debates. Political Behavior, 26(3), 227–248.

Pinkleton, B., Um, N., & Austin, E. (2002). An exploration of the effects of negative political advertising on political decision making. Journal of Advertising, 31(1), 13–25.

Reinemann, C., & Maurer, M. (2005). Unifying or polarizing? Short-term effects and postdebate consequences of different rhetorical strategies in televised debates. Journal of Communication, 55(4), 775–794.

Stevens, D. (2005). Separate and unequal effects: Information, political sophistication and negative advertising in American elections. Political Research Quarterly, 58(3), 413–425.

Stevens, D. (2008). Measuring exposure to political advertising in surveys. Political Behavior, 30, 47–72.

Stevens, D. (2009). Elements of negativity: Volume and proportion in exposure to negative advertising. Political Behavior, 31(3), 429–454.

Tuman, J. S. (2008). Political communication in American campaigns. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Yoon, K., Pinkleton, B., & Ko, W. (2005). Effects of negative political advertising on voting intention: An exploration of the roles of involvement and source credibility in the development of voter cynicism. Journal of Marketing Communications, 11(2), 95–112.

Zarevsky, D. (1992). Spectator politics and the revival of public argument. Communication Monographs, 59, 411–414.