Content-Type: text/html "You're No Jack Kennedy!" "You're No Jack Kennedy!" The Influence of Post-Debate Commentary on Candidate Evaluations Submitted to the Association for Journalism and Mass Communication Communication Theory and Methodology Division Washington, D.C. -- August 2001 By Jennifer L. Williams Ph.D. Student University of Minnesota and Christina L. Fiebich Ph.D. Candidate University of Minnesota Contact: Jennifer Williams University of Minnesota School of Journalism and Mass Communication 119 Murphy Hall 206 Church Street S.E. Minneapolis, MN 55455 Phone: (612) 627-9684 [log in to unmask] "You're No Jack Kennedy!" The Influence of Post-Debate Commentary on Candidate Evaluations Abstract This paper presents the results of a natural experiment conducted during a vice-presidential debate that occurred during the 2000 Election Campaign. It examines the effect of post-debate commentary on the criteria that subjects use when evaluating candidates. Subjects were assigned to one of four conditions, "debate only," "debate-plus CBS commentary," "debate-plus ABC commentary" and "debate-plus NBC commentary." After watching the debate, subjects completed a questionnaire which contained both close-ended and open-ended responses. This particular paper presents the results of an analysis conducted on the open-ended responses. The findings demonstrate that while post-debate commentaries influenced the criteria subjects used in their evaluations of the candidates at the categorical level (e.g., issue, trait or performance), they did not influence the specific issue, trait and performance dimensions (e.g., abortion, charisma, articulate). Additionally, although the findings r egarding framing effects were only partially supported, the results provide important insight into the weight that subjects assigned to each category when comparing the two vice-presidential nominees. "You're No Jack Kennedy" The Influence of Post-Debate Commentary on Candidate Evaluations Introduction Following the debate between presidential candidates John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon in 1960, televised debates have become an important source of political information for voters during a presidential campaign (Kraus 1988; Sears and Chaffee 1979). This is especially true among undecided voters who use these opportunities to learn about the presidential candidates and make vote choices (Chaffee and Choe 1980; Brydon 1985). While previous studies have consistently demonstrated the positive influence that debates can have on learning and attitude formation (Benoit, Webber and Berman 1998; Hullett and Louden 1998 ), very little is known about the effect of post-debate commentary on viewers. Among the studies that have examined the effect of post-debate commentary, findings demonstrate that they can reinforce and possible influence individuals' attitude toward political candidates (McKinnon, Tedesco and Kaid 1993; Lowry, Bridges and Barefield 1990; Steeper 1980), especially a mong undecided voters. However, it is still somewhat unclear what specific criteria individuals use in this evaluative process. Extant research in political communication has focused on the agenda-setting (Iyengar and Kinder 1987; McCombs and Shaw 1972), priming (Krosnick and Kinder 1990; Iyengar and Kinder 1987; Iyengar, Peters and Kinder 1982) and framing (Nelson and Kinder 1996) effects of mass media on individuals exposed to newscasts and televised advertisements. According to these studies, when individuals are exposed to news stories or political advertisements, the criteria emphasized in these messages can influence the criteria individuals use when evaluating political candidates. For example, after watching a political news story on the Gulf War, viewers might evaluate the president using his foreign policy accomplishments as the primary criteria (Iyengar and Simon 1993). Accordingly, this same type of effect could occur in response to post-debate commentaries. Specifically, after viewing a debate, audiences might use the criteria discussed by the commentators to evaluate the candidates along those same dimensions. To examine the potential priming and framing effect of post-debate commentary in more depth, a natural experiment was conducted to examine subjects responses to the vice-presidential debate during the 2000 presidential election campaign. This paper presents the one portion of the results from a larger study examining the effects of the post-debate commentary. Literature Review Debates Research has found that debates significantly influence voter learning (Benoit, Webber and Berman 1998; Drew and Weaver 1991; Lemert, Elliott, Nestrold and Rarick 1983; Miller and MacKuen 1979). Although these studies have concluded that debates have very little attitudinal or behavioral effects on strong partisans and individuals with pre-existing attitudes toward candidates (Hagner and Rieselbach 1978), they have found that among undecided voters, debates can serve as an important source of political information which audience members could eventually use when making a vote choice. Additionally, among undecided voters, Hullett and Louden (1998) found that issue and image perceptions are often integrated into individuals' judgments of candidate performance which, in turn, can influence attitudes and vote choice. Presidential debates, however, are often followed by post-debate commentary that summarizes and interprets the debate for viewers. Although very few studies have examined the impact of post-debate commentary on voters, Steeper (1980) demonstrated that after the 1976 Carter-Ford debate, Ford's mistake regarding the Soviet Union's domination of Eastern Europe did not influence audience perceptions until it was identified and interpreted by the news media following the debate. Two more recent studies have found that post-debate commentary can influence viewers' perceptions of who won the debate as well as their evaluations of the political candidates. For example, Lowry, Bridges and Barefield (1990) examined the perceptions and attitudes of viewers following the 1988 Dukakis-Bush debate and found that the control group exposed to the debate only indicated that Bush had won the debate. However, the group exposed to ABC's post-debate special indicated that Dukakis had won the deba te, mirroring ABC's commentary and snap poll. Additionally, McKinnon, Tedesco and Kaid (1993) found that the commentary following the 1992 presidential debate between Clinton, Perot and Bush slightly lowered Clinton's ratings among their subjects. While these studies have provided important insights into our understanding of the effects of post-debate commentary, a number of areas still need to be explored. Specifically, although post-debate commentary might influence candidate perceptions and evaluations, it is not clear what criteria audience members use when forming their opinions. For example, during a debate, audiences are exposed to a large amount of information regarding candidates' issue positions and future promises. Research has demonstrated that individuals will often try to process this information by using cognitive shortcuts such as heuristics and schemas (Krosnick and Kinder 1999; Iyengar, Peters and Kinder 1982). Along these lines, post-debate commentary might assist with this type of processing by making some issues more salient than others thereby influencing the criteria that audiences use in their evaluations of the candidates. In other words, post-debate commentary could have an important priming effects that influence the vote choice of undecided voters viewing the debate. Priming and the Role of Agenda-Setting Research has demonstrated that during political campaigns, the mass media can have an agenda-setting effect on voters. Specifically, agenda-setting refers to the positive relationship between the media agenda and the audience agenda. The agenda-setting hypothesis, initially introduced by Cohen (1963) states that the media "may not be successful much of the time in telling people what to think, but is stunningly successful in telling its reader what to think about" (p. 13). Subsequent studies found that both newspapers and television news influence voters' perceptions of the most important issue facing the country (McCombs and Shaw). McCombs and Shaw (1972) operationalized issue salience as judgments about the perceived importance of issues. Perceptions of importance were replaced in later studies by awareness, attention or concern. Iyengar and Kinder (1987) took the agenda-setting effect one step further by examining issues and character traits emphasized in news stories that influence the criteria that individuals use when evaluating candidates. Along these lines, while agenda-setting refers to the impact of news coverage on an issue's importance, priming refers to the ability of the coverage to influence the criteria that individuals use in their evaluations of candidates. In other words, it is an extension of agenda-setting that addresses the effect of news coverage on the weight assigned to judgment-relevant information (Iyengar and Kinder 1987). Mendelsohn (1996) argues that the media provokes "opinion or behavior change not because individuals alter their beliefs or evaluations of objects, but because they alter the relative weight they give to various considerations that make up the ultimate evaluation" (p. 113). Primed concepts tend to dominate opinion because of enhanced accessibility of the criteria (Higgins, Bargh, and Lombardi 1985). According to research on priming, when the media focuses attention on an issue, that issue is more accessible and therefore exerts correspondingly greater effect on opinion. Research has shown that the media does have persuasive power, especially when questions are unfamiliar and the time span is short (Bartels 1993). For example, the media can influence vote determinants over the course of a campaign (Mendelsohn 1996). Political judgments are often made based on easily accessible information. Studies have demonstrated that priming can influence evaluations of political candidates and politicians (Iyengar and Kinder 1987). Mendelsohn (1996) suggests that because the media highlights candidates' personal qualities instead of issues, voters put more weight on candidate traits than party identification. Subjects who use the media more (high exposure), therefore believe that personality traits are more important than issues or parties. Talking about politics will prime the importance of issues in a campaign. Voters who discuss the campaign with others are more likely to use issue position to evaluate candidates than those who do not engage in political discussions (Mendelsohn 1996). Over the course of a campaign, media primes candidates and mutes partisanship, while discussion encourages issue-based voting. Priming studies treat agenda-setting as the independent variable and priming effects as the dependent variable -- the outcomes of agenda-setting. Agenda-setting and priming can be explained in the following manner: Elites/interest groups ( Media agenda ( Audience agenda ( Evaluations. Agenda-building occurs as the first step as the elites determine the media agenda. Agenda-setting occurs as the second step with the media agenda determining the audience agenda. Finally, priming occurs as the final step as the audience agenda influences evaluations. Individual differences occur during the priming stage. Framing Framing addresses the way in which message construction influences individuals' cognition by concentrating on certain constructs and downplaying or even discrediting others. Frames can be live editorials by journalists and partisan commentators. Frames, which are invented by elites and disseminated by the media or constructed by the news organizations themselves, influence public opinion by defining the issues people take seriously. Entman (1993) suggests that frames identify the core of the problem, tell us how to think about it, and may even recommend what, if anything, should be done about it. In the same manner, Ball-Rokeach and Rokeach (1987) suggest that the mass media plays a critical role in establishing criteria by which social issues are constructed, debated and resolved. While framing could be similar to priming by enhancing schema accessibility, frames also alter the weight or importance attributed to an attitude object while making other equally accessible ideas seem less relevant (Nelson and Kinder 1996). Nelson, Clawson and Oxley (1997) also argue that frames influence opinions by making some considerations seem more important than others. Those considerations then have a greater affect on the final attitude. Nelson and Kinder (1996) suggest that frames amount to a specialized political form of schemata or cognitive structures that organize political debate within the minds of individual citizens (p. 1073). A distinction must be made, however, between media and audience frames. Media frames are central organizing ideas around which the story is based, while audience frames are the schema that guide how individual process information. Individual differences in framing can be illustrated similarly to the way they were for priming. Elites/interest groups ( Media frames ( Audience frames ( Attributions of causal/treatment responsibility. Frame-building occurs as elites influence media frames or as news organizations themselves construct frames to focus, summarize or animate stories. Frame-setting occurs when media frames determine audience frames. Finally, individual-level effects of framing occur when the audience frames influence attribution of responsibility (Iyengar 1991). Research Hypotheses Based on this review of previous literature, six predictions or hypotheses can be proposed. The initial five hypotheses address the priming effect. Specifically, individuals who are exposed to post-debate commentaries might use the criteria emphasized by the commentators to evaluate the candidates, while individuals who do not attend to the commentary could use different criteria. Therefore, the first hypothesis is: H1: The categories (e.g., issue, trait or debate performance) emphasized in the post-debate commentary will match the categories subjects use in their candidate evaluations. The review of literature on priming suggests that different post-debate commentary might emphasize some criteria more than others. For example, while one network might focus more on a candidates' debate performances, another network might focus more on the traits that the candidate exhibited or the candidate's issue position. Based on the research conducted on priming, these differences should be reflected in the criteria individuals use to evaluate the candidates. Therefore, the next set of hypotheses are: H2: Differences in the categories used by subjects in their evaluations of candidates will reflect the differences in the categories emphasized in each network's post-debate commentary. H3a: The specific issue dimensions emphasized in each network's post-debate commentary will match the specific issue dimensions subjects use in their candidate evaluations. H3b: The specific trait dimensions emphasized in each network's post-debate commentary will match the specific trait dimensions subjects use in their candidate evaluations. H3c: The specific debate performance dimensions emphasized in each network's post-debate commentary will match the specific debate performance dimensions subjects use in their candidate evaluations. Nelson and Kinder (1996) and Nelson, Clawson and Oxley (1997) found that media frames influence opinion by altering the weight or importance attributed to an attitude object thus making some considerations seem more important than others. For example, one of the frames that is often used in political discussion is the pro-con dimension (Kindel 1993). Following a debate, it is likely that commentators will discuss how well the candidates performed on certain dimensions and/or how they failed to perform on others. Therefore, the next prediction is: H4: Subjects will frame the issues, traits and performance of the candidates in the same way that the post-debate commentary frame these dimensions. Methods Overview and Subjects To examine the effects of debates and post-debate commentary on viewers, a natural experiment was conducted during the 2000 Presidential Campaign using the vice presidential debate. The debate was held on October 5, 2000 in Danville, Kentucky on Centre College campus. It was broadcast live on all three networks, CBS, ABC and NBC. Bernard Shaw, an anchorman from CNN, served as the moderator. The participants were former Defense Secretary, Richard B. Cheney, of Wyoming the vice presidential candidate for the Republican Party and U.S. Senator, Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, the vice presidential nominee for the Democrat Party. The candidates answered pre-determined questions posed by Shaw who alternated which candidate addressed each question first. The candidates were each given two minutes to respond. The subjects in the study were 130 undergraduate students enrolled in Mass Communication courses at a Midwestern University. The students were randomly assigned to one of four conditions, "debate-only," "debate-plus ABC commentary," "debate-plus CBS commentary" and "debate plus NBC commentary." Sixty percent (60%) of the subjects were female and forty (40%) were male. Thirty-six (36%) of the subjects identified themselves as Democrats, nineteen percent (19%) identified themselves as Republicans, five percent (5%) as Green Party members, seven percent (7%) as another party and thirty-three percent (33%) did not affiliate with a party. Experience Subjects reported to a large room prior to the debate and received a number randomly assigning them to one of the four conditions. After the subjects had arrived, they were escorted to their assigned room and asked to complete an 18-item pre-test questionnaire containing close-ended questions. The subjects watched the entire vice-presidential debate live. Following the debate, the subjects assigned to the "debate-only" condition completed a 28-item post-test questionnaire that included five open-ended questions. After this was completed, they left the experiment sight. In the other three conditions, subjects watched a half-hour post-debate special. Immediately following the commentary, they completed the same post-test questionnaire. Measures The primary focus of this paper is the analysis of four open-ended questions that were randomly ordered on the post-test questionnaires. The questions were worded as follows: 1. Based on what you saw tonight and anything else you already knew, is there anything about [Candidate's Name] that might make you want to vote for him? If yes, please describe. 2. Based on what you saw tonight and anything else you already knew, is there anything about [candidate's name] that might make you want to vote against him? The subjects answered these two questions for each of the vice-presidential candidates, resulting in four questions. Analysis Responses to these four questions were qualitatively sorted into the categories of specific issue mentions, candidate trait mentions or debate performance mentions. This coding schema is used in the analysis. Issue: Twelve issue categories were identified in the data: abortion, economy, education, environment, equality, military, social security, taxes, social programs, working class, miscellaneous and overall issues. For example, comments regarding pro-life, pro-choice, RU-486 abortion pill and partial birth abortions such as "I ...like his view on abortion. He seemed very opened minded about it," were coded as "abortion." Additionally, the valence of subjects trait evaluations were also coded. Trait: Candidate trait categories identified by Johnston, Brady, Blais and Crete (1992) in their study on candidate image formation were used as categories for coding subjects' open-ended responses regarding the vice-presidential nominees' traits. They included, cares about people like me, charisma, compassion, humor, intelligence, leadership, morality, personable, trustworthy, experience and visionary. Additionally, the valence of subjects trait evaluations were also coded. For example, if a subject's response stated, "he lacks leadership," this was coded as leadership and "negative." If a statement included references to two or more traits, then the traits were coded as separate statements. Debate Performance: Subjects' responses that specifically addressed the candidates' performance in the debate were coded and separated under broader themes. These themes or categories included articulate, believable, composed, engaging, physical actions, straightforward and well-briefed. Similar to the coding schema for trait evaluations (see above), the valence of these evaluations was also coded. For example, if a subject stated, "He seemed to always get straight to the point of the questions," this was coded as straight-forward. Responses referring to physical actions of the candidate, such as looking into the camera or making faces at his opponent were coded under the category of "physical action." Summaries of Debate and Post-Debate Commentaries Although the primary focus of this study is on the open-ended responses of participants to provide context for the findings, a content analysis of the debate and the post-debate commentary was conducted by the researchers. The same coding schema used to evaluate subjects' open-ended responses was applied to the transcripts of the debate and post-debate commentaries. Although the data for the post-debate commentary is included in the findings section, following is a brief summary of the debate and post-debate commentaries. Summary of the Vice-Presidential Debate: In general, the debate questions focused primarily on issues. Specifically, the topics of the questions included budget surplus, public education, equitable pay for women, RU-486 (e.g., an abortion drug), the overthrow of Yugoslavia's Slobodan Milosevic, Foreign policy, Middle East Crisis, Saddam Hussein and Iraq, oil prices, Social Security, bipartisanship in politics, racial profiling, gay constitutional rights and qualifications for the job of vice president. Additionally, two questions were posed to Cheney that addressed potentially sensitive subjects for both candidates. On the one hand, Cheney was asked if he had noticed a shift in Lieberman's positions referring to his recent retreat from criticizing Hollywood and violent films. On the other hand, Cheney was asked why he had voted against a bill when he was in the U.S. Senate that supported drilling in Wyoming, but co-sponsored another bill that supported drilling in Alaska's Ar ctic National Wildlife Refuge. Although Cheney responded to both questions first, Lieberman responded to the question as well. The debate ended with two minute closing statements from both candidates. Overview of the Post-Debate Commentary: To understand the potential effect that the post-commentary debate had on subjects' responses, a content analysis was conducted so comparisons can be made. Specifically, the post-debate commentary for CBS, ABC and NBC was coded using the same criteria, categories and coding scheme used for the open-ended responses. While these findings appear in the next section, a few additional comments need to be addressed. First, after the debate and during the post-debate commentary, NBC and CBS went to breaking news regarding a crisis in Yugoslavia. Second, each of the post-debate specials included different segments. For example, ABC and NBC had a group of voters discuss their reactions to the debate as part of the post-debate special. Additionally, NBC devoted time to a "Truth Squad" where an analyst determined whether the candidates' promises were feasible and accurate. Findings Hypothesis 1 and 2 -- Priming Effects of Categories Hypothesis 1 which predicted that the post-debate commentary would influence the criteria subjects used to evaluate the vice-presidential candidates was supported. Table 1a shows the dominant focus of the commentary and the open-ended responses of the subjects. The results from the three stations for both the post-debate commentary and the open-ended responses of subjects in the debate plus commentary conditions were each collapsed and compared to the open-ended responses of the debate only condition. Out of 182 statements made by the commentators on the three networks combined, a majority (54%) focused on the vice-presidential candidates' performance during the debate, twenty-seven percent (27%) of the statements focused on the candidates' issue positions and only nineteen percent (19%) of the statements focused on the candidates' traits. On the one hand, when these percentages are compared to the open-ended responses of the subjects in the "debate-plus commentary" conditions, the data indicates that out of the 574 statements made by subjects, performance also was the most frequently mentioned statement (44%) followed by issues (37%) and traits (19%). On the other hand, the statements of subjects in the "debate only" condition focused more on issues (47%), followed by performance (35%) and traits (18%). The findings also provide support for Hypothesis 2 which predicted that the criteria emphasized in each network's post-debate commentary will match the criteria used by subjects to evaluate the candidates. Tables 1b shows the number of statements made by the anchors regarding issues, traits and debate performance. Table 1c shows the number of statements made by subjects in each condition regarding issues, traits and debate performance. According to the findings, CBS and ABC's post-debate commentary focused more on the candidates' debate performances while NBC's post-debate commentary focused more on the candidates' issue positions. When this is compared with the open-ended responses, the data, which is presented in Table 2c, shows that while subjects' statements in the CBS and ABC conditions focused more on performance, subjects' statements in the NBC condition focused more on issues. Hypothesis 3a Priming Effects of Specific Issue Dimensions Hypothesis 3a, which predicted that the specific issues emphasized in the post-debate commentary will match the specific dimensions used in subjects' evaluations of the vice-presidential candidates, was only partially supported. Table 2a shows the number of times a specific issue was mentioned in the three stations' commentaries and Table 2b shows the number of times the specific issues were identified by the subjects in their open-ended responses. It is interesting to note that while none of the stations discussed the vice-presidential candidates' position on abortion, this issue was frequently mentioned by the subjects in all four conditions. Additionally, there was a match between the most frequently mentioned issue dimension in the ABC and NBC commentary and the open-ended responses of subjects in those same conditions regarding the military and foreign policy. It should be noted, however, that the military also was the second most frequently mentioned criteria in the de bate only condition. In the CBS condition, education, equality and social security were discussed most frequently during the post-debate commentary. When this is compared to subjects' open-ended responses in the CBS condition, while equality was among the most frequently mentioned issues, education and social security were mentioned less. In the ABC condition, the only two issues mentioned other than the military were the environment and equality. When this is compared to subjects' open-ended responses in the ABC condition, the environment and equality were mentioned more frequently than the other issues, but less than taxes. Finally, in the NBC condition, taxes were discussed most frequently during the post-debate commentary and it was also mentioned most frequently behind abortion and the military. Hypothesis 3b Priming Effects of Specific Trait Dimensions Hypothesis 3b which predicted that specific trait dimensions emphasized in each network's post-debate commentary would match the specific trait dimensions subjects use in their candidate evaluations was partially supported. The data for the post-debate commentaries are presented in Table 3a and the data for subjects' open-ended responses are presented in Table 3b. In the ABC condition, there was a match between the frequency of statements regarding the candidates' morality. Specifically, while a majority, or eighteen percent (18%), of the statements in the commentary referenced morality, a majority, or forty percent (40%), of subjects' statements also referenced morality. In the NBC condition, there also was a match regarding the candidates' experience. Specifically, while a majority, or thirty-three percent (33%), of the statements made by the NBC commentators referenced experience, a majority, or twenty-three percent (23%) of subjects responses referenced experienced. However, in the CBS commentary and condition, while charisma and experience were mentioned more frequently by the commentators, humor and trustworthiness were mentioned more frequently by subjects. Hypothesis 3c Priming Effects of Specific Debate Performance Dimensions Hypothesis 3c which predicted that specific debate performance dimensions emphasized in each network's post-debate commentary would match the specific debate performance dimensions subjects use in their candidate evaluations was not supported. The only condition in which the majority of statements made by the commentators matched the majority of statements made by the subjects referenced engaging and straight forward. Specifically, during the CBS post-debate commentary, seventeen percent (17%) of the statements referred to how engaging the candidates were during the debate and twenty-four percent (24%) of the statements referred to how straight forwardness of the candidates' answers. Similarly, a majority of the statements made by subjects in the CBS condition also referenced engaging (31%) and straight forward (21%). However, in the other two conditions, there weren't any clear matches between statements regarding the specific debate performance dimensions. Qualitative Analysis of the Post-Debate Commentary and Open-Ended Responses While the findings from the quantitative coding of the open-ended response partially support the presence of priming, a qualitative analysis provide more insight into the data that supports this prediction. Specifically, when comparing the commentary with subjects' open-ended responses, a number of similarities in content as well as in the specific words used were identified. For example, a subjects' evaluation of Cheney's views on the military mirrored the evaluations made by the commentators in condition. Specifically, in an exchange between two commentators regarding the issues emphasized by the Bush-Cheney campaign, Tom Brokaw stated: An on military preparedness, which the Bush campaign continues to come back to even though there's not much evidence out there that the public is responding to that... Tim Russert concurred with Brokaw stating: Dick Cheney presided over the end of the Cold War, he's passionate about that subject. A subject who watched this commentary listed one of the reasons he/she would not vote for Dick Cheney as follows: I don't think we need to devote so much money to military operations and salaries when our military is already second to none. There are much more important areas where that money could be better spent. Unfortunately for Cheney, this is the subject he is so passionate about. The subjects' statement suggests that he or she recalled the statements and even specific words (e.g., passionate), when responding to the question of why he or she would not vote for Cheney. The commentary influenced the individual to use this specific issue dimension as one of the main criteria in the candidate evaluation. The similarities between the specific statements made by the commentators and the subjects were found in many of the responses. For example, in the ABC condition, when George Stephanopoulos discussed the way that Joe Lieberman looked into the camera, many of subjects' comments also discussed this physical action. Hypothesis 4 -- Framing of Categories The fourth hypothesis, which predicted that subjects would frame the issues, traits and performance of the candidates in the same way that the post-debate commentary framed these dimensions, was partially supported. Tables 5a presents the results of the frames analysis for the post-debate commentaries. Table 5b presents the results of the frames analysis for the subjects' open-ended responses in the four conditions. The positive numbers reflect support for Cheney while the negative numbers reflect support for Lieberman. Although the findings do not fully support a framing effect, they do provide important insight into the specific dimensions that dominated evaluations of each candidates. For example, on the one hand, the evaluations of the commentators as well as the subjects evaluations in the CBS, NBC and debate only conditions tended to favor Cheney's performance in the debate. On the other hand, the evaluations of commentators and subjects in all of the conditions tended to favor Joseph Lieberman on the issues. Discussion This study had three limitations. First, the fact that subjects viewed a vice-presidential debate rather than a presidential debate could negatively influence their motivation to attend and learn. However, since the 2000 presidential campaign was a very close race, involvement might have been somewhat higher among individuals who do not typically vote. More importantly, while individuals might have obtained information about the presidential candidates, relatively less was known about the vice-presidential candidates. This, in turn, could have influenced subjects to pay more attention to the debate. The vice-presidential debate was chosen specifically due to the fact that not many people had obtained a great deal of knowledge about Lieberman and Cheney. These low levels of knowledge enabled us to examine what type of effects occur when individuals are in the process of learning about candidates. Additionally, if there was a lower level of interest among subjects, this would lead to more conservative results which serve as a more stringent test for predictions. The second limitation is one that typically occurs when student subjects are used for research. While the findings are not generalizable, this particular age group is worthy of study because there tends to be a larger number of independent voters among its members. Since independent voters comprise part of the "swing voters" candidates target during election campaigns, understanding the salient criteria their candidate evaluations is beneficial both practically and empirically. The third limitation of this study is the use of qualitative data which limited the researchers' ability to conduct inferential statistical analysis. However, qualitative data, such as the open-ended response provided by the subjects in this present study, has important advantages over close-ended responses. Specifically, open-ended responses enable researchers to examine the underlying justifications that comprise subjects' attitudes and decision rules. Although the systematic coding of the responses did not provide robust support for every hypothesis, the qualitative analysis clearly demonstrated examples of priming effects. The fact that subjects' used commentators' evaluations in their own judgments could have easily been overlooked by close-ended questions. Therefore, the qualitative data provides an important component to studies measuring priming and framing effects. With these limitations in mind, the results still offer interesting insights regarding the influence of post-debate commentary on viewers. Specifically, although not conclusive, the findings lend support to the idea that post-debate commentary can have priming and framing effects. For example, the first two hypotheses that addressed the categorical effects of priming were supported by the data. After watching a debate, an individual might not be certain what issues, performance or trait dimensions are important. Additionally, the individual is bombarded with a great deal of information that he or she must somehow synthesize. Post-debate commentaries not only provide cues for viewers regarding the salience of different dimensions, but as the findings demonstrate, they also might influence the criteria that individuals use when evaluating candidates. Although the findings support priming at the categorical level (e.g., issues, traits, performance) they provided ambiguous support at the dimensional level (e.g., specific issues, traits and debate performance criteria). For example, on the one hand the findings demonstrated that the focus on the military and foreign affairs during the debate as well as in the post-debate commentary when anchors reported the events in Yugoslavia could have primed subjects to evaluate the candidates on their foreign policy more than, for example, their stances on education. However, on the other hand, the findings also indicated that although very little was discussed regarding the candidates' positions on abortion, subjects used this dimension more frequently than other issues. While these results could be due to the fact that abortion is a sensitive subject that has always served as a source of differentiation between the two parties, they also reveal the effect that individual-level differen ces can have on the priming effect. Although the findings regarding framing were only partially supported, they provided interesting insights into the weight that commentators and subjects' assigned to the different dimensions in their evaluations of the candidates. For example, both commentators and subjects tended to favor Cheney's performance more than Lieberman. This could be due to the fact that prior to the debate, relatively less was known about Cheney compared to Lieberman. Additionally, leading up to the debate, there was some skepticism expressed by the media regarding Cheney's ability to debate. Following the debate both the commentators and the subjects in this study expressed surprise over Cheney's performance. Although they did not discredit Lieberman's performance, this surprise might have influenced them to express more feelings toward Cheney. The findings regarding framing also indicated that subjects tended to favor Lieberman on the issues. This was especially true with regard to abortion. In fact, many of subjects reported in their open-ended responses that although they felt Cheney performed well during the debate, his position on abortion made them favor Lieberman more. In general, the findings of this present study suggest that post-debate commentaries could have an important influence on the criteria voters use when evaluating candidates. This is especially true among voters who are undecided and/or nonpartisan ties and who have very little information about the candidates. Since debates often bombard individuals with a great deal of information in a relatively short period of time, the post-debate commentary can play an important role in the learning process among voters through priming and framing. Appendix A Tables Table 1a: Categories x Collapsed Conditions TV Post-Debate Commentary Open-Ended Responses Debate Plus Commentary Conditions Open-Ended Responses Debate Only Condition Issues 27% 37% 47% Traits 19% 19% 18% Perform 54% 44% 35% TOTAL 100% (N=182) 100% (N=574) 100% (N=164) Table 1b: Post-Debate Commentary -- Categories x Condition CBS ABC NBC Issue 27% 9% 43% Trait 15% 21% 21% Performance 58% 70% 36% TOTAL 100% (N=73) 100% (N=53) 100% (N=56) Table 1c: Open-Ended Responses -- Categories x Condition CBS ABC NBC Debate only Issue 35% 31% 42% 47% Trait 17% 22% 19% 18% Performance 48% 47% 39% 35% TOTAL 100% (N=210) 100% (N=215) 100% (N=234) 100% (N=164) Table 2a: Post-Debate Commentary -- Specific Issue Evaluations x Condition CBS ABC NBC Abortion 10% -- -- Economy 10% -- 13% Education 20% -- 13% Environment -- 20% -- Equality 15% 20% 8% Military 5% 40% 21% Social Programs -- -- 4% Social Security 15% -- 17% Taxes 10% -- 21% Working Class 10% -- -- General Issues 5% 20% 3% TOTAL 100% (N=20) 100% (N=5) 100% (N=24) Table 2b: Open-Ended Responses -- Specific Issue Evaluations x Condition Debate only CBS ABC NBC Abortion 22% 26% 24% 31% Economy 1% 4% 3% 6% Education 7% 6% 3% 6% Environment 3% 6% 10% 10% Equality 7% 22% 10% 4% Military 21% 14% 24% 15% Social Programs 3% 1% 2% 2% Social Security 10% 6% 5% 4% Taxes 13% 10% 12% 13% Working Class 1% 3% 5% 2% General Issues 12% 2% 2% 7% TOTAL 100% (N=77) 100% (N=73) 100% (N=67) 100% (N=99) Table 3a: Post-Debate Commentary -- Specific Trait Evaluations x Condition CBS ABC NBC Cares -- -- -- Charisma 18% 18% -- Compassion 10% -- -- Experience 36% 9% 33% Humor -- -- -- Intelligence -- -- 8% Leadership -- 9% 17% Morality 9% 18% 17% Personable 9% -- 8% Trustworthy -- -- -- Vision -- -- -- General Traits 18% 46% 17% TOTAL 100% (N=11) 100% (N=11) 100% (N=12) Table 3b: Open-Ended Responses -- Specific Trait Evaluations x Condition Debate Only CBS ABC NBC Cares -- 11% 6% 5% Charisma -- 5% -- 1% Compassion 7% 14% 6% 9% Experience 28% -- 13% 23% Humor -- 19% 2% -- Intelligence 17% 3% 6% 5% Leadership -- 8% 6% 21% Morality 4% 3% 40% 12% Personable -- 3% 4% 5% Trustworthy 17% 16% 13% 5% Vision 3% 11% 4% 12% General Traits 24% 7% -- 2% TOTAL 100% (N=29) 100% (N=37) 100% (47) 100% (43) Table 4a: Post-Debate Commentary -- Specific Performance Evaluations x Condition CBS ABC NBC Articulate 10% 5% 30% Believable 10% 5% 10% Composed 2% 11% -- Engaging 17% 14% -- Physical Action 5% 5% 5% Straight Forward 24% 30% 30% Well-briefed 10% 3% -- Didn't Attack 14% 24% 25% General Performance 8% 3% -- TOTAL 100% (N=42) 100% (N=37) 100% (N=20) Table 4b: Open-Ended Responses -- Specific Performance Evaluations x Condition Debate Only CBS ABC NBC Articulate 12% 14% 13% 13% Believable 17% 18% 28% 17% Composed 2% 7% 3% 13% Engaging 31% 19% 18% 15% Physical Action 3% 2% 11% 14% Straight Forward 21% 20% 14% 15% Well-briefed 9% 12% 12% 9% Didn't Attack -- 5% -- 3% General Perform. 5% 3% 1% 1% TOTAL 100% (N=58) 100% (N=100) 100% (N=101) 100% (N=92) Table 5a: Post-Debate Commentary Frames x Categories* CBS ABC NBC Total Issue Mentions Issues 0 - 3 - 2 33 Traits +5 - 1 +3 23 Performance +3 +2 +4 39 * (Negative signs = Pro Lieberman Statements; Positive signs = Pro-Cheney Statements) Table 5b: Open-Ended Response Frames x Categories* CBS ABC NBC Debate Only Total Issue Mentions Issues - 31 - 19 - 59 - 17 316 Traits - 9 - 19 - 5 +11 156 Performance +46 - 5 +18 +30 351 * (Negative signs = Pro Lieberman Statements; Positive signs = Pro-Cheney Statements) References Benoit, William L., David J. Webber and Julie Berman (1998), "Effects of Presidential Debate Watching and Ideology on Attitudes and Knowledge," Argumentation and Advocacy, (Spring), 34(4), 163-173. Brydon, S.R. (1985). The two faces of Jimmy Carter: The transformation of a presidential debater. Central States Speech Journal, 36, 138-151. Bystrom, D., Roper, C., Gobetz, R., Massey, T., & Beall, C. (1991). The effects of a televised gubernatorial debate. Political Communication Review, 16, 57-80. Chaffee, S.H. and Choe, S.Y. (1980). Time of decision and media use during the Ford-Cater campaign. Public Opinion Quarterly, 44, 53-69. Cohen, A. (1976). Radio vs. TV: The Effects of the Medium. Journal of Communication, 26, 29-35. Domke, D., Shah D.V. and Wackman, D.B. (1998). Media Priming Effects: Accessibility, association and activation. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 10 (1), 51-74. Druckman, James. 2000. "The Power of Image: The Kennedy-Nixon Debates 40 Years Later," presented at the University of Minnesota's Political Psychology Proseminar on October 20. Drew, D., & Weaver, D. (1991). Voter Learning in the 1988 Presidential Election: Did the Debates and the Media Matter. Journalism Quarterly, 68, 27-38. Hullett, Craig R. and Allan D. Louden (1998), "Audience recall of issues and image in Congressional debates," Argumentation and Advocacy, (Spring), 34(4), p. 189-202. Iyengar, S. and Kinder, D. R. (1987). News that Matters. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Johnston, R., Brady, H.E., Blais, A. and Crete, J. (1992). Letting the People Decide: Dynamics of a Canadian Election. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Iyengar, Shanto and Adam Smith (1993), "News Coverage of the Gulf Crisis and Public Opinion: A Study of Agenda-Setting, Priming and Framing," Communication Research, 20(3), June, 365-383. Kraus, S., (1988). Televised Presidential Debates and Public Policy. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Krosnick, J.A., & Kinder, D. R. (1990). Altering the Foundations of Support for the President through Priming. American Political Science Review, 84, 497-512. Lanoue, David J. (1992), "One That Made a Difference: Cognitive Consistency, Political Knowledge and the 1980 Presidential Debate," Public Opinion Quarterly, (Summer), 56(2), 168-184. Lemert, J., Elliott, W., Nestvold, K., & Rarick, G. (1983). Effects of Viewing a Presidential Primary debate. Communication Research, 10, 155-173. Lowry, D. T., Bridges, J. A., & Barefield, P. A. (1990). Effects of TV "Instant Analysis and Querulous Criticism": Following the First Bush-Dukakis Debate. Journalism Quarterly, 68, 814-825. McCombs, M. and D.L. Shaw (1972), "The Agenda-Setting Function of the Mass Media," Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176-187. McKinnon, Lori Melton, John C. Tedesco and Lynda Lee Kaid (1993), The Third 1992 Presidential Debate: Channel and Commentary Effects," Argumentation and Advocacy, (Fall), 30(2), p. 106-118. Sears, David O. and Steven Chaffee (1979) in S. Kraus (ed.) The Great Debates: Carter vs. Ford, 1976, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Sears, D., Freedman, J., & O'Connor, E. (1964). The effects of anticipated debate and commitment on the polarization of audience opinion. Public Opinion Quarterly, 28, 615-627. Steeper, F. T. (1980). Public response to Gerald Ford's statements on Eastern Europe in the second debate. In G. F. Bishop, R. G. Meadow, & M. Jackson-Beeck (Eds.), The presidential debates: Media, electoral, and policy perspectives (pp. 81-101). New York: Praeger.