The Impact of Televised Debates in the U.S. And Germany: How Important is Emotion in Modern Campaigns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".