CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 15Electoral Systems and Political ParticipationMedia Influence and PoliticsMedia Studies and Communication

The impact of electoral debate on public opinions: an experimental investigation of the 2005 New York City mayoral election

Mullainathan, Sendhil, Washington, Ebonya, Azari, Julia R.·2010·Political Representation
DOI 10.1017/cbo9780511813146.014
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Introduction Political debates have long been a part of the American polity. The early practice was aimed primarily at promoting parliamentary and elite deliberation, as well as informing the broader public about issues and candidates (Jamieson and Birdsell 1988: 37). Televised debates have altered this dynamic, structuring debate as a practice to educate the electorate. Yet the impact of televised debates on the quality of democracy has been somewhat controversial, with proponents casting debates as opportunities “to provide sustained analysis of issues and close comparison of candidates” (ibid.: 5), and others expressing the concern that the televised debates would increase the emphasis on image rather than substance (Druckman 2003). Whether debates influence opinions by showcasing candidate viewpoints or by simply presenting shallow cues of candidate image, conventional wisdom assumes that televised debates will somehow influence viewers' opinions regarding the candidates. Information in the electoral process is presumed to help voters make decisions more in line with their preferences (Lupia and McCubbins 1998). In light of the emphasis on the informative potential of debates, it is natural to pose the question of whether debates truly provide citizens with information that influences their opinions or choices. To this end, there is a large literature examining the impact of debates on citizens' political opinions and voting behavior. This research has concluded that deba…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/cbo9780511813146.014

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Information matters in shaping public perceptions and voting choices, but it cannot sit idle in a website; it must be delivered to citizens.

    “while information matters in shaping public perceptions and voting choices, that information cannot sit idle in a website but rather be delivered to citizens”

    From Transparency and Trust in Government. Evidence from a Survey Experiment (2021) · cites this paper as Mullainathan, Washington, & Azari, 2010

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Mullainathan, S., Washington, E., & Azari, J. R.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Yale University (US)
  • Marquette University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Political Representation
Publisher
Cambridge University Press
Published
2010-01-14
Pages
324-341
DOI
10.1017/cbo9780511813146.014
OpenAlex
W2280011728
Cited by
15
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
13.78
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified, 873 d)
Locations
Cambridge University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Media Studies and Communication
Keywords
television debates, election debates, public opinion, candidate image, information effects, voting behavior, candidate evaluation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review