On assumption that learning comprises more than formal instruction, this article investigates attitudinal impact of exposure to 1976 televised debates between American presidential candidates. Following Robinson's (1976) finding that exposure to bad decreases confidence in political system, study examines possibility that viewing first Carter-Ford debate contributed significantly to changes in respondents' sense of political efficacy, trust in government, level of cynicism, orientation to campaign, and intent to vote. Data from an experimental study indicate only a limited impact from viewing debate, which is attributed both to general problems of attitude change and specific content of debates. Kenneth D. Wald is Assistant Professor of Political Science at Memphis State University. Michael B. Lupfer is Professor and Acting Chairman in Department of Psychology at Memphis State University. authors want to thank graduate students from their departments who served as proctors and supplied several television sets for experiment. Public Opinion Quarterly ? 1978 by Trustees of Columbia University Published by Elsevier North-Holland, Inc. 0033-362X/78/0042-0342/$1.75 This content downloaded from 157.55.39.94 on Sat, 19 Nov 2016 04:36:18 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms THE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE AS A CIVICS LESSON 343 and McQuail, 1969; Klapper, 1960; Kraus and Davis, 1976; Mendelsohn and Crespi, 1970; Patterson and McClure, 1976) indicates to contrary that televised communication has at best a limited impact on political attitudes. V. 0. Key (1963:396) reflected academic consensus when he wrote that the major influence of media upon political attitudes is by and large a reinforcement of status quo. An impressive body of social psychological research, ably summarized by Zimbardo et al. (1977), specifies forces which limit impact of persuasive communication on preexisting attitudes: limited access, inattention, selective perception, incomprehension, distortion, etc. These factors, which combine to protect existing belief system from challenge posed by persuasive communication, seemed to be at work in 1960 televised debates between John Kennedy and Richard Nixon. Katz and Feldman's extensive literature review (1962) concluded that debates functioned primarily to reinforce partisan attitudes and commitments, not to change them. Yet there is some possibility that studies of media influence on political attitudes have failed to detect much influence because of their focus on kinds of attitudes most resistant to change. Most empirical studies have investigated extent to which television can influence voting patterns or candidate images. Given durability of partisan loyalty and impact of selective perception, it is not surprising that televised communication has a limited influence on voting patterns or candidate images. But might television have considerable power on more general orientations to political system? Michael Robinson (1976) reported recently that viewers of CBS documentary, The Selling of Pentagon, were highly critical of military after watching program. Using national survey data, Robinson argued further that a high level of exposure to national news broadcasts was associated with reduced confidence in many aspects of political system. He suggests that broadcast media have a considerable impact on national mood and his findings indicate that television is a potent agent of political learning. Carter-Ford debates of 1976 occurred at a time when national confidence was severely depressed. One of most striking trends in American politics since mid-1960s had been a spectacular erosion of public confidence in government, manifested in a variety of indicators (Ladd, 1976-77). presidential candidates were well aware of this trend and pitched their campaign messages to it. Gerald Ford, who began his presidency by asserting, Our long national nightmare is over, sought to portray himself as man who restored dignity and propriety to White House. challenger built his whole campaign around public disaffection, appealing for votes as candiThis content downloaded from 157.55.39.94 on Sat, 19 Nov 2016 04:36:18 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Read more
