PUBLIC OPINION AND THE 1992 PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES: UPSETTING AND REINFORCING PREDISPOSITIONS

The Presidential debates continue to be disputed as an effective arena for candidates to share their ideas and personality directly with the American public. Often, the candidates hope that through this forum, they may have some impact on voters' decisions on election day. Through polls taken by Chilton Research Services for ABC News the nights before and immediately after the first presidential debate in St. Louis (October 11, 1992) and the last presidential debate in East Lansing (October 19, 1992), the study tested whether there was a change in candidate preference for both "predisposed', or those who have already selected a candidate, and "undecided" voters. In addition, this study raises the question of whether media pundits and news stories may also influence public opinion through their post-debate analyses, or might get their own cues from that public opinion. To do this, the media analyses following the first presidential debate were examined and then juxtaposed to polls which gauged "who won the debate. " Such polls were administered the night of and the night following the first debate. Past research reveals a fairly consistent effect regarding changes in candidate preference following a Presidential debate. Although some research shows that candidates can benefit from their performance in the debates (Joslyn, 1984), most attitude changes of the electorate are very slight, particularly among voters who have a predisposition (Abramowitz, 1978; Geer, 1988; Lanoue, 1991; Payne, Golden, Marlier, & Ratzan, 1989; Wall, Golden & James, 1988 ). Yet, even though candidate expectations tend to be reinforced, there can sometimes be "unexpected victories" in single debates, such as Gary Hart's performance in the Democratic debates of 1984, which gave him greater exposure, thus providing information, persuasion and strategy that are crucial to the candidate for public support (Popkin, 1991). Recent studies suggest that such "victories" may influence undecided voters, who appear to change their preferences as a result of the debate (Chaffee, 1978; Geer, 1988). But other data reveal that largely voters' opinions of the candidates did not change much (Newport & Gallup, 1992), revealing that debates are more confirmatory than persuasive (Payne et a1,1989). In examining the secondary issue of the effect on public opinion by news analysts, many researchers advocate the position that the media may influence voter knowledge and preferences (Becker, 1978, Lang & Lang, 1979, Chaffee, 1980, Marsh, 1984, Kinder & Sears, 1985, Jamieson, 1988). Reports of changing opinions can affect voters in a "bandwagon" effect (Marsh, 1984). However, Kraus found that the media primarily reinforce voting predispositions through their analyses (Kraus, 1988). Although the aforementioned studies have considered the question of debate impact, this study exploring the 1992 debates is unique. First of all, the methodology of interviews with randomly selected respondents allows for a closer approximation of the general population than any of the previous studies, which often used the subgroup of students as their base for comparison (Lanoue, 1991; Lanoue & Schrott, 1989; Payne et al, 1989; Wall et al, 1989). By questioning the general population in their own homes, the study preserves ecological validity. Second, the advantage of this particular study is its immediate reaction to the debates via a telephone call made within thirty minutes of the debate's finishing. This instantaneous data collection can isolate as much as possible the expected news coverage bias to reveal any shifts in the net outcome of public opinion toward those candidates involved with the election.