¹ See, for example, Katz, Elihu and Feldman, Jacob J. ‘The Debates in the Light of Research: A Survey of Surveys’Google Scholar, Lang, Kurt and Lang, Gladys Engel, ‘Reactions of Viewers’ both in Kraus, Sidney, ed., The Great Debates (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1962)Google Scholar; and Miller, Arthur H. and MacKuen, Michael, ‘Informing the Electorate: A National Study’, in Kraus, Sidney, ed., The Great Debates; Carter vs. Ford (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1976).Google Scholar

² See Lanoue, David J. and Schrott, Peter R., The Joint Press Conference: The History, Impact, and Prospects of American Presidential Debates (New York: Greenwood Press, 1991), pp. 131–4.Google Scholar

³ Kraus, , ed., The Great Debates: Carter vs. Ford.Google Scholar

⁴ Cheney, Richard B., ‘The 1976 Presidential Debates: A Republican's Perspective’, in Ranney, Austin, ed., The Past and Future of Presidential Debates (Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, 1979).Google Scholar

⁵ Kraus, , ed., The Great Debates: Carter vs. Ford.Google Scholar

⁶ Lesher, Stephan with Caddell, Patrick and Rafshoon, Gerald, ‘Did the Debates Help Jimmy Carter?’Google Scholar in Ranney, , ed., The Past and Future of Presidential Debates.Google Scholar

⁷ Katz, and Feldman, , ‘The Debates in the Light of Research’.Google Scholar

⁸ Key, V. O. Jr, The Responsible Electorate (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1966).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁹ Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E. and Stokes, Donald E., The American Voter (New York: Wiley, 1960).Google Scholar

¹⁰ Abramowitz, Alan, ‘The Impact of a Presidential Debate on Voter Rationality’, American Journal of Political Science, 22 (1978), 680–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bishop, George F., Oldendick, Robert W. and Tuchfarber, Alfred J., ‘The Presidential Debates as a Device for Increasing the “Rationality” of Electoral Behavior’ in Bishop, G. F., Meadow, R. G. and Jackson-Beeck, M., eds, The Presidential Debates (New York: Praeger, 1978).Google Scholar

¹¹ Meadow, Robert G. and Jackson-Beeck, Marilyn, ‘A Comparative Perspective on Presidential Debates: Issue Evolution in 1960 and 1976’Google Scholar in Bishop, , Meadow, and Jackson-Beeck, , eds, The Presidential Debates.Google Scholar

¹² Miller, and Mackuen, , ‘Informing the Electorate’.Google Scholar

¹³ Baker, Kendall L. and Norpoth, Helmut, ‘Candidates on Television: The 1972 Electoral Debates in West Germany’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 45 (1981), 329–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁴ Baker, Kendall L., Norpoth, Helmut and Schönbach, Klaus, ‘Die Fernsehdiskussionen der Spitzenkandidaten vorden Bundestagswahlen 1972 und 1976’, Publizistik, 26 (1981), 530–44.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Weiss, Hans-Juergen, Wahlkampf im Fernsehen: Untersuchung zur Rolle der großen Fernsehdebatten im Bundestagwahlkampf 1972 (Berlin: Verlag Volker Spiess, 1976).Google Scholar

¹⁶ Sears, David O. and Chaffee, Steven H., ‘Uses and Effects of the 1976 Debates: An Overview of Empirical Studies’Google Scholar, in Kraus, , ed., The Great Debates: Carter vs. Ford.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Kraus, , ed., The Great Debates: Carter vs. FordGoogle Scholar; Ranney, , ed., The Past and Future of Presidential Debates.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Katz, and Feldman, , ‘The Debates in the Light of Research’Google Scholar; Kraus, , The Great Debates: Carter vs. FordGoogle Scholar; Martel, Myles, Politicial Campaign Debates: Images, Strategies, and Tactics (New York and London: Longman, 1983)Google Scholar; Lanoue, David J., ‘One That Made a Difference: Cognitive Consistency, Political Knowledge, and the 1980 Presidential Debate’. Public Opinion Quarterly, 56 (1992), 168–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁹ New York Times, 8 10 1984.Google Scholar

²⁰ Katz, and Feldman, , ‘The Debates in the Light of Research’.Google Scholar

²¹ Schrott, Peter R., ‘Electoral Consequences of “Winning” Televised Campaign Debates’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 54 (1990), 567–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²² Martel, , Political Campaign Debates.Google Scholar

²³ Baker, and Norpoth, , ‘Candidates on Television’Google Scholar; Schönbach, Klaus, ‘Wahlprogramme und Wahlermeinung’, Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 19 (1977), 360–407.Google Scholar

²⁴ Baker, and Norpoth, , ‘Candidates on Television’.Google Scholar

²⁵ Klingemann, Hans-Dieter, ‘Standardcode zur Verschlüsselung der Einstellungen zu den Politischen Parteien in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland’ (mimeo, ZUMA, Mannheim, 1976).Google Scholar

²⁶ Schönbach, , ‘Wahlprogramme und Wählermeinung’.Google Scholar

²⁷ Baker, and Norpoth, , ‘Candidates on Television’Google Scholar; Baker, , Norpoth, and Schönbach, , ‘Die Fernsehdiskussionen’Google Scholar; Lanoue, David J. and Schrott, Peter R., ‘Voters' Reactions to Televised Presidential Debates: Measurement of the Source and Magnitude of Opinion Change’, Political Psychology, 10 (1989), 275–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lanoue, David J. and Schrott, Peter R., ‘The Effects of Primary Season Debates’ (paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, 1988).Google Scholar

²⁸ In all content analyses, intercoder reliability coefficients ranged between 0.8 and 0.9.

²⁹ These surveys were made available by the ICPSR (study numbers 7102, 7513, 7963), the Zentralarchiv für Empirische Sozialforschung, Universität Köln (ZA-Nr. 1275, 1276), and FORSA, Gesellschaft für Sozialforschung und statistiche Analysen, Dortmund.

³⁰ Baker, and Norpoth, , ‘Candidates on Television’.Google Scholar

³¹ See, for example, Lang, Gladys Engel and Lang, Kurt, ‘The Formation of Public Opinion: Direct and Mediated Effects of the First Debate’Google Scholar in Bishop, , Meadow, and Jackson-Beeck, , eds, The Presidential Debates.Google Scholar

³² Schrott, , ‘Electoral Consequences of “Winning”’.Google Scholar

³³ For a useful discussion of verbal styles and competence in the 1976 American debates, see Bitzer, Lloyd and Rueter, Theodore, Carter vs. Ford: The Counterfeit Debates of 1976 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1980).Google Scholar

³⁴ Lanoue, David J., ‘Debates That Mattered: Voters' Reaction to the 1984 Canadian Leadership Debates’, Canadian Journal of Political Science, 24 (1991), 51–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁵ The reason we run three separate equations here instead of specifying OPB, BTP and BTI in the same equation is the risk of collinearity. Specifically, since OPB = BTI + BTP, specifying all three in the same equation would create perfect multicollinearity.

³⁶ See, for example, Stewart, Marianne C., ‘Campaign Context and Partisan Change in Anglo-American Electorates’ (paper presented at the Role of Partisanship workshop of the European Consortium for Political Research Joint Sessions, Limerick, 1992).Google Scholar

³⁷ Because of the small number of cases, the residuals from each equation were closely scrutinized. No outliers were evident in any of the models and, although the data do not strictly constitute a time series, no evidence of serial correlation was found.

³⁸ We should also note that when our incumbency variable is specified in our models without the party identification measure, it does achieve significance. However, our relevant debate strategy variables remain significant as well.

³⁹ We also created a variable measuring candidate evaluations. This variable, too, is highly collinear with party identification. When this measure is specified alone or with party identification and incumbency, the appropriate debate strategy variables remain significant.

⁴⁰ Geer, John G., ‘The Effects of Presidential Debates on the Electorate's Preference for Candidates’, American Politics Quarterly, 16 (1988), 486–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴¹ Kraus, , ed., The Great Debates; Carter vs. FordGoogle Scholar; Kraus, , ed., The Great Debates.Google Scholar

⁴² Miller, Arthur H., Wattenberg, Martin P. and Malanchuk, Oksana, ‘Schematic Assessments of Presidential Candidates’, American Political Science Review, 80 (1986), 521–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴³ Schrott, , ‘Electoral Consequences of “Winning”’.Google Scholar