Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter Mouton September 10, 2022

The emotional valence of candidate ratings in televised debates

Pascal D. König EMAIL logo , Thomas Waldvogel , Uwe Wagschal , Bernd Becker , Linus Feiten and Samuel Weishaupt
From the journal Communications


It is well-established that party identity biases the processing of political information and the evaluation of political actors. This is presumed to avoid cognitive dissonance and achieve positive affect. What happens, however, when individuals diverge from this pattern and do make identity-inconsistent evaluations of political actors – how does this translate into positive and negative emotions toward the candidates? The paper addresses this question using large-N data from the main televised debate of the 2017 German national election by combining survey responses with viewer perceptions measured during the debate. The findings suggest that candidate ratings made during the debate have different valence depending on a person’s party identity. Strikingly, a stronger party identity does not mean a reduced impact of identity-inconsistent evaluations on emotional responses toward a candidate. Rather, only evaluations in accordance with one’s party identity, and hence with lower information value, show a reduced effect on emotional responses.


Benoit, W. L., & Hansen, G. J. (2004). Presidential debate watching, issue knowledge, character evaluation, and vote choice. Human Communication Research, 30(1), 121–144. in Google Scholar

Benoit, W. L., Hansen, G. J., & Verser, R. M. (2003). A meta-analysis of the effects viewing U.S. presidential debates. Communication Monographs, 70(4), 335–350.10.1080/0363775032000179133Search in Google Scholar

Bolsen, T., Druckman, J. N., & Cook, F. L. (2014). The influence of partisan motivated reasoning on public opinion. Political Behavior, 36(2), 235–262. in Google Scholar

Boydstun, A. E., Glazier, R. A., Pietryka, M. T., & Resnik, P. (2014). Real-time reactions to a 2012 presidential debate. A method for understanding which messages matter. Public Opinion Quarterly, 78(Special issue), 330–343.10.1093/poq/nfu007Search in Google Scholar

Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Cho, J. (2013). Campaign tone, political affect, and communicative engagement: Campaign tone and political discussion. Journal of Communication, 63(6), 1130–1152. in Google Scholar

Cho, J., & Choy, S. P. (2011). From podium to living room: Elite debates as an emotional catalyst for citizen communicative engagements. Communication Research, 38(6), 778–804. in Google Scholar

Cho, J., & Ha, Y. (2012). On the communicative underpinnings of campaign effects: Presidential debates, citizen communication, and polarization in evaluations of candidates. Political Communication, 29(2), 184–204. in Google Scholar

Damasio, A. (1994). Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. London: Penguin.Search in Google Scholar

Fahr, A., & Fahr, A. (2009). Reactivity of real-time response measurement: The influence of employing RTR techniques on processing media content. Real-time response measurement in the social sciences. Methodological perspectives and applications, 45–61.Search in Google Scholar

Fridkin, K., & Gershon, S. A. (2020). Nothing more than feelings? How emotions affect attitude change during the 2016 general election debates. Political Communication, 1–18. in Google Scholar

GLES (2019). Short-term campaign panel (GLES 2017) [Wahlkampf-Panel] (Version 7.0.0) [Data set]. GESIS Data Archive. in Google Scholar

Greene, S. (1999). Understanding party identification: A social identity approach. Political Psychology, 20(2), 393–403. in Google Scholar

Holbert, R. L., Hansen, G. J., Caplan, S. E., & Mortensen, S. (2007). Presidential debate viewing and Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9–11: A study of affect-as-transfer and passionate reasoning. Media Psychology, 9(3), 673–694. in Google Scholar

Huddy, L. (2018). The group foundations of democratic political behavior. Critical Review, 30(1–2), 71–86. in Google Scholar

Huddy, L., & Bankert, A. (2017). Political partisanship as a social identity. In L. Huddy & A. Bankert, Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. Oxford University Press. in Google Scholar

Huddy, L., Mason, L., & Aarøe, L. (2015). Expressive partisanship: Campaign involvement, political emotion, and partisan identity. American Political Science Review, 109(1), 1–17. in Google Scholar

Jacobson, G. C. (2010). Perception, memory, and partisan polarization on the Iraq War. Political Science Quarterly, 125(1), 31–56. in Google Scholar

Jarman, J. W. (2005). Political affiliation and presidential debates: A real-time analysis of the effect of the arguments used in the presidential debates. American Behavioral Scientist, 49(2), 229–242. in Google Scholar

Knobloch-Westerwick, S. (2008). Informational utility. In W. Donsbach (Hrsg.), The International Encyclopedia of Communication (S. wbieci030). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. in Google Scholar

Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498. in Google Scholar

Lanoue, D. J. (1992). One that made a difference: Cognitive consistency, political knowledge, and the 1980 presidential debate. Public Opinion Quarterly, 56(2), 168. in Google Scholar

Larrick, R. P., & Wu, G. (2007). Claiming a large slice of a small pie: Asymmetric disconfirmation in negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(2), 212–233. in Google Scholar

Lodge, M., & Taber, C. S. (2013). The rationalizing voter. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139032490Search in Google Scholar

Maier, J., & Faas, T. (2011). ‘Miniature campaigns’ in comparison: The German televised debates, 2002–09. German Politics, 20(1), 75–91. in Google Scholar

Maier, J., Faas, T., & Maier, M. (2014). Aufgeholt, aber nicht aufgeschlossen: Ausgewählte Befunde zur Wahrnehmung und Wirkung des TV-Duells 2013 zwischen Angela Merkel und Peer Steinbrück [Making up leeway but not catching up: Selected findings on the perception and impact of the 2013 TV duel between Angela Merkel and Peer Steinbrück]. Zeitschrift für Parlamentsfragen, 45(1), 38–54.10.5771/0340-1758-2014-1-38Search in Google Scholar

Maier, J., Hampe, J. F., & Jahn, N. (2016). Breaking out of the lab measuring real-time responses to televised political content in real-world settings. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(2), 542–553.10.1093/poq/nfw010Search in Google Scholar

Marcus, G. E. (2002). The sentimental citizen: Emotion in democratic politics. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Marcus, G. E., Valentino, N. A., Vasilopoulos, P., & Foucault, M. (2019). Applying the theory of affective intelligence to support for authoritarian policies and parties. Political Psychology, 40(S1), 109–139. in Google Scholar

McKinney, M. S., Rill, L. A., & Gully, D. (2011). Civic engagement through presidential debates: Young citizens’ attitudes of political engagement throughout the 2008 election. In M. S. McKinney & M. C. Banwart (Eds.), Communication in the 2008 U.S. election: Digital natives elect a president (pp. 121–141). New York: Peter Lang.Search in Google Scholar

McKinney, M. S., & Warner, B. R. (2013). Do presidential debates matter? Examining a decade of campaign debate effects. Argumentation and Advocacy, 49(4), 238–258. in Google Scholar

Nagel, F. (2012). Die Wirkung verbaler und nonverbaler Kommunikation in TV-Duellen: Eine Untersuchung am Beispiel von Gerhard Schröder und Angela Merkel (1st ed.) [The impact of verbal and nonverbal communication in TV duels: An investigation using the example of Gerhard Schröder and Angela Merkel]. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.10.1007/978-3-531-93497-6Search in Google Scholar

Nagel, F., Maurer, M., & Reinemann, C. (2012). Is there a visual dominance in political communication? How verbal, visual, and vocal communication shape viewers’ impressions of political candidates. Journal of Communication, 62(5), 833–850.10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01670.xSearch in Google Scholar

Otto, L. P. (2018). Beyond simple valence: Discrete emotions as mediators of political communication effects on trust in politicians. Studies in Communication | Media, 7(3), 364–391. in Google Scholar

Petersen, M. B., Skov, M., Serritzlew, S., & Ramsøy, T. (2013). Motivated reasoning and political parties: Evidence for increased processing in the face of party cues. Political Behavior, 35(4), 831–854. in Google Scholar

Poortinga, W., & Pidgeon, N. F. (2004). Trust, the asymmetry principle, and the role of prior beliefs. Risk Analysis, 24(6), 1475–1486. in Google Scholar

Redlawsk, D. P., Civettini, A. J. W., & Emmerson, K. M. (2010). The affective tipping point: Do motivated reasoners ever “get it”? The affective tipping point. Political Psychology, 31(4), 563–593. in Google Scholar

Sharot, T., & Garrett, N. (2016). Forming beliefs: Why valence matters. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(1), 25–33. in Google Scholar

Sigelman, L., & Sigelman, C. K. (1984). Judgments of the Carter-Reagan debate: The eyes of the beholders. Public Opinion Quarterly, 48(3), 624. in Google Scholar

Storbeck, J., & Clore, G. L. (2007). On the interdependence of cognition and emotion. Cognition & Emotion, 21(6), 1212–1237. in Google Scholar

Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755–769. in Google Scholar

Taber, C. S., Lodge, M., & Glathar, J. (2001). The motivated construction of political judgments. In J. H. Kuklinski (Hrsg.), Citizens and Politics (S. 198–226). Cambridge University Press. in Google Scholar

Thibodeau, P., Peebles, M. M., Grodner, D. J., & Durgin, F. H. (2015). The wished-for always wins until the winner was inevitable all along: Motivated reasoning and belief bias regulate emotion during elections: Elections bias reasoning. Political Psychology, 36(4), 431–448. in Google Scholar

Waldvogel, T. (2020). Applying virtualized real-time response measurement on TV-discussions with multi-person panels. Statistics, Politics and Policy.10.1515/spp-2018-0013Search in Google Scholar

Waldvogel, T., & Metz, T. (2020). Measuring Real-Time Response in Real-Life Settings. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 32(4), 659–675. in Google Scholar

Warner, B. R., McKinney, M. S., Bramlett, J. C., Jennings, F. J., & Funk, M. E. (2019). Reconsidering partisanship as a constraint on the persuasive effects of debates. Communication Monographs, 1–21.10.1080/03637751.2019.1641731Search in Google Scholar

Westen, D. (2008). The political brain: The role of emotion in deciding the fate of the nation. New York: PublicAffairs.Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2022-09-10
Published in Print: 2022-09-07

© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 6.12.2022 from
Scroll Up Arrow