The Impact of Televised Debates in the U.S. And Germany: How Important is Emotion in Modern Campaigns
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Beginning in the middle of the last century, presidential debates in the U.S. have attracted significant interest from academics as well as the general public. But the United States is not the only country that televises debates during their general election campaigns. Germany, for example, saw its first debate in 1972, and with a few exceptions, has had at least one debate in every national election since. There is already a considerable amount of literature suggesting that debate performances have the ability to influence candidate evaluations. However, researchers generally assert that the most common impact of political debates is to reinforce partisan preferences. Scholars have shown that pre-debate supporters and strong partisans are highly likely to believe that their preferred candidate is also the debate “winner”. But reinforcement is not the only possible effect of presidential debates on their audience. Another potential effect is known as activation. Many voters hold only weak attachments to the political parties. Further, they may not pay close attention during the political campaign, except for a few highly publicized events. For such weak partisans, debates may enhance or strengthen their tentative attachment to the party and its leader. Thus, they do more than simply reinforce preferences—they activate loyalties and turn indifferent citizens into committed supporters. A final potential impact of debates is the so-called persuasion effect, in which voters are actually drawn to a candidate they would otherwise not have voted for as a result of watching the debates. Early research, particularly on American presidential debates, cast significant doubt on the ability of these events to influence voting decisions. More recent evidence, however, has shown that, under certain circumstances, debates can, in fact, alter election results. Moreover, such an impact has been documented in several countries, including, among others, the U.S., Germany, and Canada. What is largely missing from the debate literature is comparative and cross-national research. Our paper is an attempt to fill that gap. In our manuscript, we will analyze two countries that hold debates regularly, the U.S. and Germany. Using American National Election Survey (ANES) panel data, we will document changes in voters' attitudes toward the candidates, and establish a strong connection between voters' changed opinions and debate watching. We will then conduct similar analyses of German debates, using the German Longitudinal Election Survey, to compare and contrast debate effects between the two countries. We will argue that, in general, the impact of debates is independent of political systems, and that the effects of debates in Germany and the United States are surprisingly similar. Further, we will argue that these effects stem not just from the informational content of the debates, but more importantly from the emotional reactions voters have to the candidates, their rhetoric, and their personal presentations.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».