American Behavioral Scientist 2011 Warner 232 52

http://abs.sagepub.com/American Behavioral Scientist

http://abs.sagepub.com/content/55/3/232The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0002764210392160

2011 55: 232 originally published online 13 January 2011American Behavioral ScientistTrosanovski

Benjamin R. Warner, Diana B. Carlin, Kelly Winfrey, James Schnoebelen and MarkoUp? 2008 Pre- and Post-Debate Viewer Perceptions of Candidate Image

Will the ''Real'' Candidates for President and Vice President Please Stand

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:American Behavioral ScientistAdditional services and information for

http://abs.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://abs.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://abs.sagepub.com/content/55/3/232.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Jan 13, 2011 OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Feb 18, 2011Version of Record >>

at University of Bucharest on April 19, 2013abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://abs.sagepub.com/

http://abs.sagepub.com/content/55/3/232

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://abs.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://abs.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://abs.sagepub.com/content/55/3/232.refs.html

http://abs.sagepub.com/content/55/3/232.full.pdf

http://abs.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/01/13/0002764210392160.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml


ABS392160 ABS55310.1177/0002764210392160Warner et al.American Behavioral Scientist

1University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA2Washburn University, Topeka, KS, USA

Corresponding Author:Benjamin R. Warner, University of Kansas, 1440 Jayhawk Blvd., Bailey Hall Room 102, Lawrence, KS 66045 Email: [email protected]

Will the “Real” Candidates for President and Vice President Please Stand Up? 2008 Pre- and Post-Debate Viewer Perceptions of Candidate Image

Benjamin R. Warner,1 Diana B. Carlin,1 Kelly Winfrey,1 James Schnoebelen,2 and Marko Trosanovski1

Abstract

This study of the 2008 first presidential and vice presidential debate builds on past research on viewers’ perceptions of candidate images. Going back to the Kennedy-Nixon debates in 1960, image research has been conducted in most presidential election cycles. Findings consistently show that viewers enter the debates with perceptions of candidates’ character and leadership qualities and that the debates tend to reinforce rather than change images unless the viewers are undecided or not well informed about a candidate. The results of the 2008 study confirmed trends from past research but also provided some surprises in that most changes in image perception were for senator Joe Biden, the longest-serving public official in the race. The study concludes that media often assume knowledge about candidates that might not exist and that in the 2008 match-ups, the debates did not provide the “game changer” that the McCain-Palin ticket needed to overcome a growing movement toward the Obama-Biden ticket that began shortly before the first debate.

Article

American Behavioral Scientist55(3) 232 –252

© 2011 SAGE PublicationsReprints and permission: http://www. sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0002764210392160http://abs.sagepub.com



Luiza

Evidenţiere

Warner et al. 233

Keywords

political debates, presidential debates, vice presidential debates, presidential qualities, presidential character and competence, attitude change

Perhaps the most common question raised after the completion of a political debate is, “Who won?” Pundits weigh in, spin doctors explain why their candidates can declare victory, and the public is polled. Although viewers may discuss the relative merits of each candidate’s performance or assert that their favored candidate was the victor, research indicates that determining a winner is not the primary reason the public watches debates. Research since 1992, especially focus group studies, indicates that viewers seek additional information about the candidates’ positions on the issues and want to learn more about candidates’ fitness for office (Carlin & McKinney, 1994; Carlin, Vigil, Buehler, & McDonald, 2009; McKinney & Carlin, 2004).

Since the Kennedy-Nixon debates in 1960, researchers have asked questions that address audience perceptions of personal and leadership qualities both before and after debates. Katz and Feldman (1962) “identified thirty-one independent studies of public response to the Kennedy-Nixon debates and there may well be more” (p. 173). Their analysis of the studies concluded that “the audience was busy analyzing the character of the contestants—their ‘presentations of self’” (Katz & Feldman, 1962, p. 195) and that the analyses helped the audience form “images of each candidate’s character and abilities” (Katz & Feldman, 1962, p. 203).

Because candidate debates are the closest thing to a job interview the public has to evaluate a candidate’s suitability for office, perceptions confirmed or formed through the debates are important in finalizing vote choice. Reinforcement is one of the most likely results of debate viewing (McKinney & Carlin, 2004, p. 210). However, for undecided viewers and for those whose support is soft, debates may make a difference (McKinney & Carlin, 2004, p. 211).

The 2008 debates presented an excellent opportunity to evaluate the impact of the debates on image formation in both the presidential and vice presidential debates. There were two candidates—John McCain and Joe Biden—with lengthy résumés and long-term exposure to the public. The other two candidates—Barack Obama and Sarah Palin—were relative newcomers to national politics as well as nontraditional candi-dates. Although Obama had been through a long primary campaign, his limited experi-ence continued to raise questions for some. Palin’s emergence in the final stages of the campaign left much room for discovery about both her personal character and her leadership skills. Unlike past election cycles, the vice presidential debates were given considerable media build-up, and viewership was the second largest for any debate since 1960, with nearly 70 million watching (“U.S. VP Debate,” 2008). Thus, this essay examines past research on candidate image, summarizes the context for the 2008 debates, presents the study’s results, and concludes with a discussion of the findings and their implications for future research.



Luiza

Evidenţiere

Luiza

Evidenţiere

234 American Behavioral Scientist 55(3)

Image Research

Kenneth L. Hacker’s (2004) edited volume, Presidential Candidate Images, provides a comprehensive overview of candidate image research through the 2000 election. Hacker summarized the common definitions of image to include “clusters of voter perceptions of candidates” (Hacker, 2004, p. 4). Hacker also noted that there is no agreement among scholars as to whether “voters compare candidates against an ideal presidential candidate image” . . . or whether “each candidate is evaluated against candidate-specific criteria” (Hacker, 2004, p. 238). When formal research is con-ducted, however, viewers are forced to use a variety of measures on which to judge image. Kaid (2004) identified the semantic differential as one of the more useful instruments for measuring perceptions that represent “positive or negative evaluations, or perhaps increases or decreases in the favorableness of a candidate’s image” (p. 232). Pre- and posttest structures are frequently used, as they were in many of the 1960 stud-ies to which Katz and Feldman (1962) referred. Such research designs account for the fact that “candidate images are not static concepts” but are influenced by communica-tion events (Kaid, 2004, p. 232). Zakahi (2004) concluded that images are affected by communication events, such as debates, but they are also affected by performance expectations and by the manner in which candidates conduct the debate about the debates. Thus, context is an important factor in how candidates are initially viewed during the debate.

Kaid’s (2004) analysis of image scales identified numerous terms that equate with personal characteristics, such as honesty, trust, and sincerity, and with competence, such as qualified, strong, and active. Sheckels and Bell (2003) examined image issues in the 2000 debates and concluded,

The debates did provide crucial information to voters about two specific dimen-sions, candidate character and candidate competence. Specifically, the debates provided voters who cared about character with confirming relevant information, and they pushed voters who cared about competence to focus more on character. (p. 59)

This research further confirms the close relationship between issues and image. This relationship is important in studying image via debates because debates are highly issue oriented.

Research by Benoit, Webber, and Berman (1998) compared evaluations of candi-date image given by debate viewers and nonviewers in the 1996 Bill Clinton–Bob Dole race. Their findings indicated that debate viewing can produce changes in image, that independent voters may be more affected than partisans, and that lesser-known candidates have more to gain from debates in terms of image change.

Based on findings and methodologies from past image research, this study was guided by two primary research questions. The first recognizes that most viewers have



Luiza

Evidenţiere

Luiza

Evidenţiere

Luiza

Evidenţiere

Luiza

Evidenţiere

Luiza

Evidenţiere

Luiza

Evidenţiere

Luiza

Evidenţiere

Luiza

Evidenţiere

Warner et al. 235

preconceived ideas about the candidates based on information gained throughout the primary debates, conventions, pre-debate publicity, and overall media coverage:

Research Question 1: What were the pre-debate image evaluations of the presi-dential and vice presidential candidates?

Two common variables in political communication research are gender and political party affiliation. The former was important in this study because of the presence of a woman in the race and questions about the role women voters would play at the polls. The latter is commonly shown to influence the outcome of questions about “who won” because partisans typically believe their candidate has won. Thus, Research Question 1 had two subquestions:

Were there differences in perceptions based on viewers’ gender?Were there differences in perceptions based on viewers’ party affiliation?

Knowing that image perceptions are not static and that debates in the past had a mediating effect on image evaluations, we asked a second research question:

Research Question 2: Did the debates affect viewers’ presidential and vice pres-idential candidate image evaluations?

As with the first question, we also sought to determine the influence of gender and party affiliation by asking,

Did viewers’ sex mediate the role debates played in image evaluation?Did viewers’ political party affiliation mediate the role debates played in image

evaluation?

Because context is an important factor in establishing the baseline evaluations, the next section examines the 2008 race in light of context. A summary of key character issues and qualifications as reported in polling and media reports is provided.

The Context for the DebatesThe 2008 election was historic for many reasons. It featured two U.S. senators vying for the presidency for the first time since 1960. The contest featured the first African American on a major party ticket, and the first woman appeared on the Republican ticket in the Number 2 spot. The United States was facing a major financial crisis—the worst since the Great Depression—and the United States was fighting wars on two fronts, in Iraq and Afghanistan. Voter turnout was expected to increase in comparison with recent elections, and the youth vote was projected to mobilize in the highest numbers



Luiza

Evidenţiere


since 1992. Within this general landscape, the presidential and vice presidential races can be viewed with a specific eye to the trends that reflected image evaluations.

The Presidential CandidatesAlthough both Obama and McCain received poll boosts after their respective conven-tions, the horse race was a statistical dead heat in the weeks leading up to the first presidential debate on September 27, 2008 (“Rare Frontrunner McCain,” 2008). Pew polling 2 weeks before the first debate had Obama as the narrow front-runner with a lead of 46% to 44% against McCain (“McCain Gains on Issues,” 2008). Gallup’s daily tracking polls from September 24 to 26, the days leading up directly to the first debate, had Obama up in the polls against McCain 49% to 44% (“McCain Gains on Issues”, 2008).

Obama was viewed by many as a strong leader (Obama Boosts, 2008), although there was virtually no difference in the perceptions of which candidate would use better judgment in a crisis. Obama was viewed as a stronger candidate in dealing with an economic crisis, which was a significant issue prior to the first presidential debate, when Congress was forced to deal with collapsing financial markets (Obama Boosts, 2008).

In August, McCain held a 15-point lead against Obama on the question of leader-ship skills (Obama Boosts, 2008). This same poll indicated that although McCain once held a commanding lead in perceptions of candidate qualifications (almost twice as many voters viewed McCain as qualified to be president in August), the gap was lessening significantly (down to 49% for McCain and 35% for Obama) by the time of the first debate. When this poll factored political party into the question of candidate qualifications,

the share of Democrats who now say Obama is more personally qualified to be president rose from 55% to 69%, but has not risen at all among independents, who still see McCain as the more qualified by greater than two-to-one (56% to 24%). (Obama Boosts, 2008)

Prior to the first debate, McCain suspended his campaign and asked that the first debate be delayed so he and Obama could return to Washington to address the finan-cial crisis and a potential bailout of the financial sector. McCain’s request was not accepted and the debate went on as planned. Political writer E. J. Dionne (2008) opined that because Obama enjoyed a marginal lead in the polls entering the debate, because the tone of the campaign was likely to shift dramatically toward the econ-omy (an issue on which Obama enjoyed a lead in public opinion polling), and because this debate was to be on foreign policy (McCain’s perceived strength), some in the press were calling for McCain to deliver a game-changing performance or a knock-out punch.



Warner et al. 237

The Vice Presidential Candidates

Despite his long career in public service, Biden was not well known by the American public. More than half (51%) of voters said they did not know enough about him to have an opinion (Saad, 2008). Palin’s name identification was lower than any other recent vice presidential candidate when first announced, and more than 70% of Americans did not know enough about her to have an opinion. That is compared to only 51% who did not know enough about Biden to have an opinion. For those who did know Palin, initial opinions of her were overwhelmingly favorable, even more favorable than opinions of Biden’s when he was chosen (Newport, 2008).

McCain’s favorability ratings increased shortly after the Palin announcement. Palin’s importance to the ticket was evidenced by the popularity of her convention speech; 50% said her speech was the highlight of the Republican convention, compared to only 17% who said McCain’s speech was the highlight (“Palin Press Coverage,” 2008). Twenty-two percent of McCain supporters said they “almost wished” Palin were at the top of the Republican ticket (“Presidential Race,” 2008). As late as mid-September, the majority of independents (60%) held a favorable opinion of Palin, and McCain took the lead with this group. Biden was less popular with independents; only 47% had a favorable opinion of him (“Presidential Race,” 2008).

Despite her initial popularity, in the days leading up to the debate, Palin’s favor-ability was on a downturn. Thirty-eight percent said they had a less favorable view of her in recent days (“Continued Doubts,” 2008; “VP Debate,” 2008), and her unfavor-ability rating was up 8 points to 40% from a month earlier (“Growing Concerns,” 2008). Biden’s favorability ratings were virtually unchanged through the month of September; 52% viewed him favorably at the beginning of September, and 53% viewed him favorably at the end of the month (“Growing Concerns,” 2008).

During the 1st week of September, Palin dominated media coverage of the election. In 60% of the campaign stories, Palin was prominently featured; this figure was higher than that for McCain, who was featured in 52%, and it was significantly higher than that for Obama and Biden combined, who were featured in only 24% of stories. Heading into the debate, attention on Palin had fallen dramatically. After the conven-tion, 17% of Americans said Palin was the candidate they were hearing the most about, but in the days just before the debate, that number dropped to 5%. Biden never received as much attention as the other three candidates. Every week after his announcement, fewer than 1% said he was the most visible candidate (“VP Debate,” 2008).

Qualifications played an important role in views of Biden and Palin. Although Palin’s selection was popular and generated considerable favorable press, only 39% of Americans initially believed Palin was qualified to be president; however, 57% believed Biden was qualified when he was announced (Newport, 2008; Saad, 2008). Prior to the debate, 63% felt Biden was qualified, but 37% believed Palin to be qualified (“Growing Concerns,” 2008). Biden’s advantage held across party lines; the majority of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents believed him to be qualified. However, only Republicans (68%) believed Palin to be qualified, but this figure represented a




decrease from earlier in September, when 84% of Republicans thought she was quali-fied (“Growing Concerns,” 2008). Initially, there was no gender gap in views of Palin’s qualifications, but by the end of the September, women were more likely than men to view Palin as unqualified, with only 34% of women saying she was qualified in late September compared to 52% earlier in the month (“Growing Concerns,” 2008; “Palin Press Coverage,” 2008).

Given the context, the authors anticipated that there would be strong feelings for the candidates prior to the debates and that actual and expected performances had potential to alter image evaluations in either direction. Using a sample of potential voters in 2008, the study reported in this essay assessed perceptions of candidates’ images prior to and after the debates. The methods employed to do so were based on past studies incorporating image research.

MethodThis study was part of the national DebateWatch project sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). Members of the National Communication Association (NCA), a CPD voter education partner, participated in DebateWatch and conducted independent research. DebateWatch began in 1996 as a way to encourage viewers to discuss the debates with family, friends, neighbors, or community members to enhance the voter learning elements of debates (see Carlin et al., 2009). Originally, the com-mission compiled national data from the NCA groups, groups hosted by other partner organizations, and groups organized by citizens. For 2008, the CPD developed an interactive website through MySpace and received feedback via that vehicle but did not collect DebateWatch data in a survey format.

ParticipantsParticipants in the DebateWatch project were community and university volunteers or students in courses requiring research credit. Students for this study were recruited from a major public midwestern university and from a private university in the Northeast. Community members in each location learned about the program through media announ-cements. Participants watched either the first presidential debate (n = 71) or the vice presidential debate (n = 105).

Forty-eight percent of the presidential participants were male (n = 34), and 45% were female (n = 32); 87% (n = 62) were between 18 and 25 years old, 6% (n = 4) were between 41 and 55, and 7% (n = 5) were older than 65. Eighty-three percent (n = 59) reported their race as White, 6% (n = 4) as Black or African American, 3% (n = 2) as Hispanic or Latino, 4% (n = 3) as Pacific Islander, and 1% (n = 1) each as Asian, mul-tiracial, and international, respectively. Party identification broke down with 25% (n = 18) listing Republican, 45% (n = 32) Democrat, and 24% (n = 17) unaffiliated or independent. Eighty-six percent (n = 61) of the respondents indicated having a candi-date preference entering the first debate.



Warner et al. 239

Among those who watched the vice presidential debate, 37% (n = 39) of the partici-pants were male, and 63% (n = 66) were female. Ninety-two percent (n = 97) were between 18 and 25 years of age, 5% (n = 5) were between 26 and 40, and 1 person (1%) fell into each of the other cohorts: 41 to 55, 56 to 65, and older than 65. Eighty-two percent (n = 86) were White, 6% (n = 6) were Black or African American, 3% (n = 3) were Hispanic or Latino, 1% (n = 1) were American Indian or Alaskan Native, 4% (n = 4) were Asian, 2% (n = 2) were Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and 2% (n = 2) were multiracial. Results for party identification of participants who watched the vice presidential debate indicated that 24% (n = 25) were Republican, 45% (n = 47) were Democrat, and 27% (n = 28) were unaffiliated. Eighty-one percent (n = 85) of the participants indicated having a candidate preference at the start of the vice presi-dential debate.

ProceduresWhen participants arrived at the DebateWatch sites, they were given a written expla-nation of the project, approved by the institutional review board, that explained the voluntary nature of their participation, the study’s general intent, and their right to leave the study at any time. Participants were instructed to complete the first section of the questionnaire prior to the start of the debate. Details regarding the questionnaire are provided in the section on instruments. At the conclusion of the debate, the TV was turned off and the group was instructed to complete the post-debate portion of the survey. After a short break, participants were broken into smaller groups and were led in discussion by a trained moderator using a protocol developed by the researchers that was adapted from previous DebateWatch research. When the discussion ended, participants completed one more question on the survey and returned them to the researchers.

InstrumentsEach participant filled out a pretest that included basic demographic questions in conjunction with questions about candidate preference, attentiveness to the campaign, and party affiliation. In both the pretest and posttest, participants were asked to describe each candidate’s image using a 7-point semantic differential on the following 10 items: qualified-unqualified, honest-dishonest, calm-excitable, persuasive-nonpersuasive, strong-weak, open to the world–not open to the world, ethical-unethical, warm-cold, thoughtful–not thoughtful and aggressive-nonaggressive. The scales were adapted from past semantic differential research consistent with Kaid (2004) and was consistent with subsequent research on candidate image (Kaid, 2004). The 10 items were summed to create an overall candidate image score ranging from 1 to 70. Reliability statistics for each scale are presented in Table 1.

In the vice presidential data, and to a lesser extent, in the presidential data, there was a problem with missing data. A number of respondents left a single item blank on




the image scale. No pattern seemed to emerge about what items were skipped, and the researchers assumed that it was random error caused by respondents’ unintentionally skipping one of the items. Nevertheless, mean substitution was used to impute missing data. All tests were run with both the original data files and the files with missing data imputed. The results did not differ in the imputed data file. Researchers concluded that missing data did not confound the findings and reported the results from the original data set with missing data.

ResultsThe first research question asked, What were the pre-debate image evaluations of the presidential and vice presidential candidates? Two related questions were included: Were there differences in perceptions based on audience gender? and Were there dif-ferences in perceptions based on audience party affiliation? To answer the questions, the scores for the 10 measures were combined, with a possible 70 points. Obama’s overall pre-debate candidate image score was 52.61 (SD = 8.39), with his highest scores being on the items on the 7-point measures for open to the world, (M = 5.89, SD = 1.21) and persuasive (M = 5.85, SD = 1.14). His lowest scores were for aggres-sive (M = 4.79, SD = 1.52), where 1 indicated highly aggressive and 7 indicated not aggressive, and for qualified (M = 4.7, SD = 1.71). Full mean scores on the other items for Obama as well as McCain and Biden are presented along with the semantic differ-ential tables. Prior to the debate, McCain’s overall image score was 44.98 (SD = 11.17), with his highest scores being on the items labeled qualified (M = 5.31, SD = 1.45) and aggressive (M = 5.27, SD = 1.52), an item where a higher score represents not aggres-sive. McCain’s lowest scores were on the items open to the world, (M = 3.79, SD = 1.8) and warm (M = 3.82, SD = 1.53).

Biden’s pre-debate overall image score was 53.1 (SD = 9.42), with his highest indi-vidual item scores being on the item labeled qualified (M = 5.63, SD = 1.16) and the lowest score on aggressive (M = 3.88, SD = 1.47), indicating that respondents perceived him to be more aggressive than nonaggressive. Prior to the debate, Palin’s overall image

Table 1. Reliability Statistics

Candidate image scale α

Obama pre-debate .81Obama post-debate .90McCain pre-debate .88McCain post-debate .93Biden pre-debate .92Biden post-debate .90Palin pre-debate .95Palin post-debate .94



Warner et al. 241

score was 37.7 (SD = 15.56), with her highest individual item scores being on the items labeled warm (M = 4.41, SD = 1.9) and calm (M = 4.38, SD = 1.59). Palin’s low-est score was on qualified (M = 3.12, SD = 1.95). Other scores were for as follows: honest (M = 4.14, SD = 1.77), persuasive (M = 3.62, SD = 1.86), strong (M = 3.61, SD = 1.93), open to the world (M = 3.38, SD = 1.96), ethical (M = 3.89, SD = 1.98), thoughtful (M = 3.85, SD = 1.94), and nonaggressive (M = 4.07, SD = 1.73).

The first research question also inquired as to whether there were differences in perceptions based on gender or political party affiliation. Results from an independent-sample t test indicated that there were no significant differences for McCain based on gender. The mean score for the 10 factors was 45.09 out of 70 (SD = 12.53) for male respondents and 43.59 (SD = 10.40) for female respondents. McCain’s mean score for the 10 factors by party were such that Republicans gave an average score of 56.06 (SD = 6.70); Democrats, 38.87 (SD = 10.59); and independent or unaffiliated voters, 42.00 (SD = 8.48). A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) concluded that these differences were significant, F(3, 64) = 14.06, p < .001. The results of a t test to deter-mine differences by gender for Obama also produced no significant differences. The mean score was 51.82 (SD = 8.91) for male respondents and 54.13 (SD = 7.69) for females. An ANOVA showed significant differences by party, F(3, 63) = 9.06, p < .001, with Republicans scoring him 46.00 (SD = 7.00); Democrats, 57.13 (SD = 6.37); and independents or unaffiliated respondents, 51.56 (SD = 8.94).

An independent-sample t test revealed no significant differences by gender for Palin; male respondents scored her image at 41.54 (SD = 12.45), and female respon-dents scored it at 36.55 (SD = 16.82). Again, an ANOVA revealed significant differ-ences by party, F(4, 90) = 23.42, p < .001. Republicans gave her an average image score of 56.48 (SD = 9.82) compared to the average evaluation of Democratic respondents (M = 29.24, SD = 11.02) and independent or unaffiliated respondents (M = 28.96, SD = 12.44). An independent-sample t test showed significant differ-ences for Biden’s image score by gender, t(93) = –2.94, p < .01. The relationship was such that female participants evaluated him significantly higher (M = 50.97, SD = 9.47) than did male participants (M = 44.91, SD = 10.01). As with the other three candidates, an ANOVA test revealed significant differences by political party affiliation for Biden, F(4, 88) = 7.37, p < .001. Republicans gave him an average score of 40.95 (SD = 10.78); Democrats, 53.49 (SD = 9.36); and independent or unaffiliated, 47.26 (SD = 6.41).

Statistical Analysis of Pre- and Post-Debate ComparisonsThe second research question sought to answer the questions, Were there differences between pre- and post-debate image evaluations of the presidential and vice presiden-tial candidates? and Were there differences in perceptions based on audience gender or political party affiliation?

A repeated-measure ANOVA was conducted to evaluate the change in Obama’s image score after the debate. The dependent variable was candidate image score, and




the within-subjects factors were pre-debate and post-debate evaluations. Two between-subjects factors, gender and political party affiliation, were evaluated for interaction with the potential main effect. There was a significant interaction effect between party and the main effect of debate on Obama’s image score, F(3, 49) = 2.81, p < .05, η2 = .15, such that his score increased after the debate among Democrats and independents but decreased among Republicans. A second repeated-measure ANOVA was con-ducted to evaluate the change in McCain’s image score after the debate. There was also a significant interaction effect between party and the main effect of debate on McCain’s image score, F(3, 50) = 2.11, p < .05, η2 = .15, such that his score increased among Republicans, decreased among Democrats, and was stable among indepen-dents. Estimated marginal mean scores for all candidates are presented in Table 2.

Three paired-sample t tests were conducted to follow up each significant interaction. A Bonferroni adjustment was conducted to control for familywise error. Differences in image score for McCain were significant among Democrats, t(25) = 1.74, p < .017, such that McCain’s image score decreased after the debate. No significant results were found in any other post hoc analyses. Full results are presented in Table 3.

A repeated-measure ANOVA was conducted to evaluate change in Biden’s image score after the debate. The main effect of the debate on Biden’s image score was appro-aching significance, F(1, 79) = 3.63, p = .061, η2 = .04, such that his score increased after the debate. No significant difference was observed within Palin’s pre-debate and post-debate scores.

Ten paired-sample t tests were conducted each for Obama, McCain, and Biden to determine which items in the image measure experienced the most overall movement. As can be seen in Table 4, significant overall changes for Obama occurred on the items labeled qualified, honest, and aggressive. No overall differences on individual items were significant for McCain, as is displayed in Table 5. Biden experienced significant overall changes in 6 of the 10 individual items, as show in Table 6.

DiscussionThe study sought to determine whether the debates influenced previously held percep-tions of candidates’ leadership traits. Past research indicates that there is an interplay between image and perceptions of candidate’s ability to handle issues important to voters (Carlin et al., 2009; McKinney & Carlin, 2004). This study provides insight into the role of debates in affecting image traits that are most closely related to leadership on issues.

Candidate Images Before the DebatePrior to the debates, Obama’s overall image was significantly higher than McCain’s. In part, this should be attributed to the fact that almost half (45%) of our sample was composed of Democrats, whereas Republicans and unaffiliated voters—among whom Obama was polling well—composed the other half in almost equal proportions. National



Warner et al. 243

Table 2. Estimated Marginal Means for Overall Candidate Image (1–70 scale)

Between-subjects variable Pre-debate M (SE) Post-debate M (SE)

Obama 52.19 (1.15) 53.78 (1.29) Male 52.10 (1.68) 54.93 (1.88) Female 52.30 (1.49) 52.23 (1.67) Republican 45.52 (1.87) 43.23 (2.01) Male 46.20 (2.29) 46.60 (2.57) Female 44.83 (2.96) 39.83 (3.32) Democrat 56.58 (1.87) 58.82 (1.64) Male 55.36 (2.19) 58.64 (2.45) Female 57.79 (1.94) 59.00 (2.17) Independent 52.56 (2.02) 55.43 (2.26) Male 50.83 (2.96) 53.00 (3.32) Female 54.29 (2.74) 57.86 (3.07)McCain 45.35 (1.44) 44.49 (1.57) Male 44.33 (2.09) 44.69 (2.29) Female 46.72 (1.86) 44.21 (2.04) Republican 56.42 (2.37) 58.33 (2.60) Male 54.50 (2.91) 58.50 (3.19) Female 58.33 (3.75) 58.12 (4.12) Democrat 40.45 (1.93) 35.68 (2.12) Male 41.20 (2.91) 37.90 (3.19) Female 39.69 (2.55) 33.46 (2.80) Independent 41.13 (2.30) 40.69 (2.52) Male 40.13 (3.25) 40.36 (3.56) Female 42.13 (3.25) 41.00 (3.56)Biden 48.82 (1.65) 52.33 (1.57) Male 45.38 (1.54) 49.93 (1.46) Female 50.88 (2.47) 53.76 (2.35) Republican 41.85 (1.91) 44.86 (1.81) Male 39.13 (2.95) 45.25 (2.80) Female 44.58 (2.41) 44.50 (2.30) Democrat 52.37 (1.48) 56.84 (1.40) Male 48.91 (2.52) 54.36 (2.39) Female 55.83 (1.55) 59.31 (1.47) Independent 47.55 (1.68) 51.59 (1.60) Male 48.09 (2.52) 50.81 (2.39) Female 47.00 (2.23) 53.00 (2.12)Palin 41.08 (2.09) 41.65 (2.36) Male 42.41 (2.03) 39.22 (2.29) Female 40.29 (3.11) 43.10 (3.51) Republican 54.69 (2.47) 51.89 (2.79)

(continued)




Table 3. Post Hoc Analyses of Scores by Party

PartyPre-debate

M (SD)Post-debate

M (SD) df t p95% confidence

interval

Obama Republican 45.69 (7.10) 44.06 (11.11) 15 1.06 .307 [−1.65, 4.90] Democrat 57.29 (6.04) 28.89 (6.27) 27 −1.43 .163 [−3.91, 0.69] Independent 51.50 (9.61) 54.14 (8.88) 13 −2.13 .053 [−5.33, −2.13]McCain Republican 55.94 (6.78) 58.38 (6.39) 15 −1.72 .106 [−5.46, 0.58] Democrat 39.58 (10.77) 35.42 (10.72) 25 2.74 .011 [1.03, 7.27] Independent 42.00 (8.48) 42.18 (11.78) 16 −0.10 .918 [−3.77, 3.42]

Between-subjects variable Pre-debate M (SE) Post-debate M (SE)

Male 51.00 (3.98) 48.00 (4.50) Female 58.39 (2.92) 55.77 (3.30) Democrat 29.88 (1.85) 27.61 (2.09) Male 32.82 (3.18) 27.55 (3.59) Female 26.94 (1.89) 27.68 (2.14) Independent 39.24 (2.18) 38.57 (2.46) Male 43.40 (3.33) 42.10 (3.76) Female 35.07 (2.82) 35.07 (3.18)

Table 2. (continued)

polling prior to the debate had the candidates nearly tied in their horse race numbers (Obama Boosts, 2008). Although these numbers are distinct from the image percep-tions we measured with our semantic differentials, it is not unreasonable to assume that a sample more balanced by party would reflect a trend more similar to national polling data. In our sample, there were significant differences in respondents’ evalu-ations of Obama and McCain based on political party preference. Republicans showed as much enthusiasm for McCain as did Democrats for Obama. However, Obama’s image perception was substantially higher than McCain’s among independents, a trend consistent with national polling at the time. Pew, Gallup, and the Real Clear Politics average all had the horse race virtually tied, with Obama enjoying a slight edge, helped largely by his support among independent voters (“Gallup Daily: Obama,” 2008; “McCain Gains on Issues,” 2008; “Rare Frontrunner McCain,” 2008). When we divided the sample by gender, Obama appeared to enjoy a slight advantage among female respondents, but the difference was not statistically significant.

Among the vice presidential candidates, perhaps the most striking finding is that Palin’s numbers were low across traits. Palin’s initial foray into the race was met with



Warner et al. 245

enthusiasm among Republicans, and she received considerable initial positive media. Although Palin had some less-than-stellar media interviews between the convention and the vice presidential debate, she was still drawing large and enthusiastic crowds on the campaign trail. Although the sample did have a Democratic skew, more than half of the respondents were not Democrat, and Palin’s numbers were low even rela-tive to McCain’s. Her overall score was nearly half the possible total of 70 points. No other candidate had such high negative perceptions, and the perceptions were dramatically

Table 4. Semantic Differentials, Obama

Image traitPre-debate

M (SD)Post-debate


interval

Qualified 4.71 (1.71) 5.03 (1.62) 64 −2.15 .036 [−0.62, −0.02]Honest 5.03 (1.52) 5.35 (1.46) 65 −2.96 .014 [−0.57, −0.07]Calm 5.21 (1.68) 5.18 (1.61) 65 0.14 .890 [−0.41, 0.47]Persuasive 5.65 (1.26) 5.8 (1.15) 65 −0.88 .381 [−0.49, 0.19]Strong 5.42 (1.16) 5.63 (1.37) 65 −1.53 .1.32 [−0.49, 0.07]Open to

the world5.86 (1.21) 5.73 (1.23) 65 1.29 .201 [−0.07, 0.35]

Ethical 5.37 (1.38) 5.51 (1.44) 64 −1.03 .309 [−0.41, 0.13]Warm 5.4 (1.25) 5.41 (1.47) 65 −0.103 .918 [−0.31, 0.28]Thoughtful 5.44 (1.24) 5.65 (1.23) 65 −1.34 .184 [−0.53, 0.1]Aggressive 4.73 (1.55) 5.23 (1.29) 63 −2.96 .004 [−0.81, −0.16]

Table 5. Semantic Differentials, McCain


M (SD)Post-debate


interval

Qualified 5.25 (1.46) 5.07 (1.76) 65 1.05 .296 [−0.16, 0.52]Honest 4.16 (1.66) 4.10 (1.86) 65 0.375 .709 [−0.26, 0.38]Calm 4.48 (1.66) 4.28 (1.69) 65 0.829 .410 [−0.27, 0.67]Persuasive 4.13 (1.51) 4.04 (1.69) 65 0.475 .637 [−0.29, 0.47]Strong 4.78 (1.81) 4.59 (1.68) 65 1.01 .315 [−0.19, 0.58]Open to the

World3.81 (1.76) 3.86 (1.92) 65 −0.258 .797 [−0.39, 0.30]

Ethical 4.24 (1.75) 4.25 (1.72) 65 −0.101 .920 [−0.31, 0.28]Warm 3.85 (1.57) 3.68 (1.71) 63 1.00 .321 [−0.17, 0.51]Thoughtful 4.30 (1.57) 4.09 (1.75) 64 0.918 .362 [−0.25, 0.68]Aggressive 5.32 (1.49) 5.41 (1.23) 64 −.419 .676 [−0.53, −0.34]




different from those of the previous month. There was no significant difference based on gender, but the party differences were substantial. Republicans gave her high scores, consistent with how they scored McCain.

However, independent and Democratic respondents’ image perceptions of Palin were lower than any other mean scores for any of the other candidates. This finding is con-sistent with the overall media narrative about Palin leading up to the vice presidential debate. Following some highly publicized poor performances in interviews with Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson, expectations for Palin in the debate were relatively low (Alberts, 2008; Goldenberg, 2008; Nagourney, 2008). These findings certainly dem-onstrate that among independents and potential Democratic crossovers, Palin needed to accomplish a great deal of image improvement during the debate. Going into their respective debates, then, both Palin and McCain arguably needed these forums to improve their images—Palin to recover from her negative press and McCain to take advantage of the few remaining chances to score points versus Obama. However, nei-ther accomplished that with independents, nor did they move Democrats, especially women, something that was stated as a goal with Palin’s addition to the ticket.

Neither Biden’s overall mean nor his split by party is particularly remarkable, with the possible exception that independents were fairly close to Democrats in how they evaluated him (though neither score was notably high). What is noteworthy is that there was a significant gap in how female and male respondents scored him. Women evaluated his image substantially higher than men (with a mean score of 51 vs. 45). This was the only significant difference in pre-debate image scored by gender and was counter to national polling that showed no gender gap in Biden’s favorability ratings; however, significantly more males (35%) than females (25%) gave Biden an unfavor-able rating in one Pew study (“McCain Gains on Issues,” 2008).

Table 6. Semantic Differentials, Biden


M (SD)Post-debate


interval

Qualified 5.64 (1.12) 6.08 (1.07) 99 −4.9 .000 [−0.62, −0.26]Honest 4.96 (1.12) 5.25 (1.36) 98 −2.4 .019 [−0.54, −0.05]Calm 4.71 (1.5) 5.16 (1.48) 98 −2 .053 [−0.89, 0.01]Persuasive 4.98 (1.2) 5.58 (1.2) 97 −5.6 .000 [−0.82, −0.39]Strong 5.24 (1.27) 5.8 (1.27) 95 −4.7 .000 [−0.8, −0.33]Open to the

world5.42 (1.17) 5.62 (1.19) 97 −1.9 .065 [−0.42, 0.01]

Ethical 4.87 (1.37) 5.42 (1.29) 94 −5 .000 [−0.77, −0.33]Warm 4.54 (1.36) 4.76 (1.53) 94 −1.7 .084 [−0.51, 0.03]Thoughtful 4.88 (1.34) 5.4 (1.32) 95 −3.9 .000 [−0.79, −0.25]Aggressive 3.92 (1.45) 3.64 (1.63) 96 1.6 1.21 [−0.08, 0.63]



Warner et al. 247

Image Scores After the Debate

Finding an interaction between the influence of the first presidential debate and party identification for both Obama and McCain supports past research on presidential debates that has demonstrated the role of partisanship in people’s reactions to the debate (McKinney & Carlin, 2004, p. 210). Our post hoc analyses of the interaction effect found that the only statistically significant change was for McCain among Democrats. Although he probably needed to impress independent voters and win over a few “leaning” Democrats to improve his election chances, post-debate polling indicated that McCain simply did not do this. In fact, on two of the key qualities that indepen-dent voters might find most persuasive—leadership and qualifications—McCain’s numbers dipped dramatically from just a few weeks before the debate (Growing Doubts, 2008; Obama Boosts, 2008). Republicans in our sample were impressed by his performance, but by this time in the election, he had already won the support of his base (“Rare Frontrunner McCain,” 2008; Saad, 2008). The fact that his numbers were stable among independents is evidence that he was not able to deliver the kind of game-changing performance that the media were asking for (Dionne, 2008; Sherwell, 2008). That his image scores decreased significantly among Democrats is particularly important in light of what some analysts had speculated about McCain’s ability to draw Democrats and independent voters with his reputation as an inde-pendent-minded Republican (Silver, 2008). Although his initial image may have carried this advantage, his message in the debate failed to win support from across the aisle. Quite the contrary, he further alienated Democratic participants in our sample with his debate performance.

McCain lost Democratic support, and Obama had no success improving his image among Republican respondents in our DebateWatch groups. However, his numbers trended upward among both Democratic and independent participants. Combined with McCain’s inability to win additional support in these groups, one can begin to see why the press were quick to argue that in “tying,” Obama had earned a major victory in the overall campaign (Dionne, 2008; Sherwell, 2008).

Given what our findings demonstrated about candidate images before the debates, one would expect that Palin had the most ground to cover. However, our results dem-onstrated that the only candidate for whom the debates influenced image evaluation directly was Biden. Although this effect was only approaching significance, it was close such that we feel there is room to infer that respondents changed their evaluation of Biden on the basis of his performance in the debate above and beyond the variance explained by party and gender. Furthermore, our post hoc analyses found that a major-ity of the items in the image measure improved significantly after the debate. Although this indicates that our participants were impressed with Biden’s debate performance, we also speculate that it reflects a misjudgment by members of the media about the audience’s prior knowledge of Biden. Because he had been such a high-profile mem-ber of the Senate for such a long time, it is easy for the well-informed members of the news media to view him and his qualifications as familiar. In contrast to Palin, who




was a relative unknown even in media circles, it seemed that there was little more to say about Biden. However, the average American voter does not follow the everyday practices in the Senate or even the early stages of the presidential primary election (when Biden was still running). In fact, Pew data found that after the announcement of Biden as the vice presidential pick, 51% of voters said they did not know enough about the candidate to have an opinion (Saad, 2008).

The vice presidential debate is likely the first time many voters paid close attention to Biden. We speculate that his improvement in image score after the debate should be attributed not only to a strong performance in the debate but also to an oversight by members of the news media to cover Biden in the same way they saturated the head-lines with information about Palin. This provides a lesson espoused by Ed Fouhy (2005), producer of the 1988 and 1992 presidential debates, that

when people are generally listening, when people are curious about the candi-dates, political journalists will meet their curiosity with the most derisive of all newsroom remarks, “We already did that story. . . .” Unfortunately, they didn’t do the story when voters were paying attention. (p. 244)

Just as the change in Biden’s numbers suggests that our participants did not expect what they saw in his performance, the complete lack of movement in Palin’s image score likely indicates that people’s perceptions of her were confirmed by what they saw in the debate. This challenges a somewhat dominant perspective in the media that by meeting her lowered expectations, Palin would succeed and possibly “win” the debate (Balz, 2008; Healy, 2008). People likely did have low expectations after events such as the interviews with Katie Couric. This is consistent with the dramatically low image scores before the debate among Democrat and independent participants. However, rather than earning a small victory by meeting her lowered expectations, Palin failed to improve her image score at all. By refusing to answer questions, by reverting back to past questions that addressed issues with which she felt more comfortable, and by invoking the “maverick” moniker half a dozen times, she confirmed the already low opinions non-Republican voters had going into the debate.

Implications, Limitations, and ConclusionsAlthough there were few changes between pre- and post-debate evaluations, the study confirmed past research that partisanship and pre-debate vote choice are two major factors in determining how information is processed by debate viewers. More than 80% of the participants had a pre-debate choice; thus, it is not surprising that there were few shifts in ratings for three of the candidates among members of the opposite party. The dominance of Democrats and independents in the study was a limitation in that it contributed to the low scores for Palin; however, the theory that lowered expec-tations will affect perceptions of debate performance even if they do not affect vote



Warner et al. 249

choice was not substantiated by this study. The combination of Palin’s inexperience and media mishaps were simply too much to overcome. Biden’s ratings, however, went up irrespective of party affiliation. This result further demonstrates that with candidates who are lesser known among the general public—and Biden has to be con-sidered one, given the sparse media coverage he received in the late stages of the campaign—the debates do help alter or form perceptions.

The participants were primarily students. In many studies, the dominance of stu-dents would be considered a negative and unrepresentative of the majority of voters. In 2008, however, this limitation was less severe because the 18-to-30 demographic turned out in larger numbers than usual and were instrumental in determining the out-comes in Indiana and North Carolina. They favored Obama by large margins nationally; thus, these results reflect national trends with that demographic.

One of the more important implications of the study and the polling data that reported on familiarity with Joe Biden is that the media cannot make assumptions about the public’s knowledge of “well-known, experienced” candidates. The fact that Biden ben-efited from the debate across the board is another indicator of the importance debates play for lesser-known candidates. Obama’s positive movement among Democrats also indicates the importance of debates in confirming previous leanings. In a close elec-tion, confirmation can be an important factor among the base.

Researchers investigating candidate image face the challenge of determining an appropriate set of images to include. There are dozens of terms that form the con-structs of personal characteristics and competence. In this study, the choices were based on those that were most consistent with terms being used in the media or in polls to describe the candidates. The choice was made to limit the choices to 10 bipo-lar pairs. In doing so, it is possible that other important characteristics were omitted and that some of those terms might have produced significant results. The authors are confident that the terms that were used, however, were appropriate for this set of candidates.

In many ways, this research confirms what is already known about debates. Prior to the first debate, most voters had already formed opinions about the candidates, and the debates served largely to reinforce their opinions. Our research also supports the con-ventional wisdom that Obama used this crucial phase of the election to gain ground in perceptions of qualification and character and that McCain failed to use his last remaining opportunities to appeal to independent and conservative Democratic voters and women. However, our research challenges some of the major “common sense” media narratives about the 2008 campaign. Merely meeting her already low expecta-tions was not a victory of sorts for Palin. Rather, her performance confirmed the already low image evaluations held by Democrats and independents. It was also short-sighted to assume that the American public was as familiar with Biden as were the Washington press corps. This study further confirms the important function of debates in helping reinforce candidate images among some voters and in forming image evalu-ations among others who are still unsure or have limited exposure to or information




about candidates. It provides valuable insights into the 2008 campaign and adds to a vibrant body of research on presidential debates.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

References

Alberts, S. (2008, October 2). Americans eager for Joe Biden vs. “Joe Six-Pack” clash. National Post, p. A14.

Balz, D. (2008, October 3). Palin delivers, but doubts linger. The Washington Post, p. A01.Benoit, W. L., Webber, D. J., & Berman, J. (1998). Effects of presidential debate watching and

ideology on attitudes and knowledge. Argumentation and Advocacy, 34(4), 163-172.Carlin, D. B., & McKinney, M. S. (1994). The 1992 presidential debates in focus. Westport,

CT: Praeger.Carlin, D. B., Vigil, T., Buehler, S., & McDonald, K. (2009). The third agenda in U.S. presi-

dential debates: DebateWatch and viewer reactions, 1996-2004. Westport, CT: Praeger.Continued doubts about financial bailout [Press release]. (2008, October 6). Washington, DC:

Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. Retrieved from http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/459.pdf

Dionne, E. J. (2008, September 29). McCain’s lost chance: Obama holds his own on foreign policy. The Washington Post, p. A19.

Fouhy, E. M. (2005). Presidential debates help voters find the information they need, when they need it. In M. S. McKinney, L. L. Kaid, D. G. Bystrom, & D. B. Carlin (Eds.), Communicating politics: Engaging the public in democratic life (pp. 241-245). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Gallup daily: Obama holds 5-point lead; Momentum in his favor going into debate. (2008, September 27). Princeton, NJ: Gallup Organization. Retrieved from http://www.gallup .com/poll/110737/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Holds-5Point-Lead.aspx

Goldenberg, S. (2008, September 30). US: Race for White House. Palin begins three-day cram-ming course for crucial TV showdown; McCain’s aides rehearse running mate at his ranch; More experienced Biden also faces risks in debate. Guardian, p. 19.

Growing concerns about Palin’s qualifications [Press release]. (2008, October 1). Washington, DC: Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. Retrieved from http://people-press .org/reports/pdf/456.pdf

Growing doubts about McCain’s judgment, age and campaign conduct; Obama’s lead widens: 52%-38%. (2008, October 21). Washington, DC: Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. Retrieved from http://people-press.org/report/462/obamas-lead-widens

Hacker, K. L. (2004). Presidential candidate images. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Healy, P. (2008, October 3). Cordial but pointed: Palin and Biden face off. The New York Times,

p. A01.



Warner et al. 251

Kaid, L. L. (2004). Measuring candidate images with semantic differentials. In K. L. Hacker (Ed.), Presidential candidate images (pp. 231-236). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Katz, E., & Feldman, J. J. (1962). The debate in the light of research: A survey of surveys. In S. Kraus (Ed.), The great debates: Kennedy vs. Nixon, 1960 (pp. 173-223). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

McCain gains on issues, but stalls as candidate of change [Press release]. (2008, September 18). Washington, DC: Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. Retrieved from http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1375

McKinney, M. S. & Carlin, D. B. (2004). Political campaign debates. In L. L. Kaid, Handbook of political communication research (pp. 203-234). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Nagourney, A. (2008, September 30). Concerns about Palin’s readiness emerge as major test nears. The New York Times, p. A016.

Newport, F. (2008, August 30). Palin unknown to most Americans. Princeton, NJ: Gallup Organization. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/109951/Palin-Unknown-Most-Americans.aspx

Obama boosts leadership image and gains significant lead over McCain: Growing concerns about Palin’s qualifications. (2008). Washington, DC: Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. Retrieved from http://people-press.org/report/456/obama-regains-lead

Palin press coverage: Fair and important [Press release]. (2008, September 10). Washington, DC: Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. Retrieved from http://people-press .org/reports/pdf/449.pdf

Presidential race remains even [Press release]. (2008, September 18). Washington, DC: Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. Retrieved from http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/450.pdf

Rare frontrunner McCain has lofty hurdles ahead. (2008, September 12). The New Zealand Herald. Retrieved from Lexis Nexis Academic Database.

Saad, L. (2008, August 23). Biden does no harm, but may not help much. Princeton, NJ: Gallup. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/109783/Biden-Does-Harm-May-Help-Much.aspx

Sheckels, T. F., & Bell, L. C. (2003). Character versus competence: Evidence from the 2000 presi-dential debates and election. In L. L. Kaid, J. C. Tedesco, D. G. Bystrom, & M. S. McKinney (Eds.), The millennium election: Communication in the 2000 campaign (59-71). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.

Sherwell, P. (2008, September 28). Round one to Obama, as neither fighter able to land knock-out blow. Sunday Telegraph, p. 30.

Silver, N. (2008, August 4). Why McCain is still in it. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-silver4-2008aug04,0,2423895.story

U.S. VP debate most-watched in history. (2008, October 3). CBS News. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/world/usvotes/story/2008/10/03/us-debate-polls.html

Zakahi, W. R. (2004). Presidential debates and candidate image formation: 1992, 1996, 2000. In K. L. Hacker (Ed.), Presidential candidate images (pp. 151-175). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.




Bios

Benjamin R. Warner is a PhD student in the Department of Communication Studies at the University of Kansas. He received his MA in communication studies in 2006 from Missouri State University.

Diana B. Carlin is a professor of Communication Studies at the University of Kansas. She has published extensively on the subject of political debates. She is the creator of DebateWatch.

Kelly L. Winfrey is a PhD student in the Department of Communication Studies at the University of Kansas. She received her MA in communication studies at Missouri State University in 2007.

James M. Schnoebelen is a PhD student in Communication Studies at the University of Kansas. He received his MA from Central Missouri State University in 2001. He currently teaches at Washburn University.

Marko Trosanovski is a Fulbright visiting researcher in the School of Journalism and Mass Communications at the University of Kansas. He received his MPhil in communication studies at the Ss. Cyril and Methodius University of Skopje in Macedonia.



Documents

American Behavioral Scientist 2011 Warner 232 52