Abstract
Televised presidential debates, a communication form specifically designed to evoke meaningful clash of issue viewpoints, have been criticized for the lack of real clash and issue discussion for decades. Have the debaters made any improvement? This study investigates the evolution of this perennial paradox through the lens of mediatization using an instrument grounded in Moral Foundation Theory. As an outcome of mediatization, politicians have been seeking publicity to achieve authority through media, and therefore they have prioritized self-image building over issue discussion in their social actions. This study quantitatively describes this mediatization process by examining the moral divergence between each pair of presidential debaters with moral loading, an indicator for quantifying moral foundations via DDR, a computational method based on distributed representation. Our results reflect the mediatization process in politics, showing that Democrat and Republican candidates have been increasingly focusing on different moral judgments, and therefore their moral divergence has widened. This study sheds light on the development of ways to encourage more effective political communication by discovering mediatization as a potential determinant of a major challenge faced by televised presidential debates. Accordingly, it provides quantitative empirical evidence for mediatization theory. Moreover, it shows the potential of the distributed representation method, a milestone of machine learning, in future communication explorations.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability statement
The research data associated with this paper are available upon request.
References
Altheide, D. L., & Snow, R. P. (1979). Media logic. Sage.
Altheide, D. L., & Snow, R. P. (1988). Toward a theory of mediation. Annals of the International Communication Association, 11(1), 194–223.
Altheide, D. L., & Snow, R. P. (1991). Media worlds in the postjournalism era. Aldine de Gruyter.
Araque, O., Gatti, L., & Kalimeri, K. (2020). MoralStrength: Exploiting a moral lexicon and embedding similarity for moral foundations prediction. Knowledge-Based Systems, 191, 105184.
Bastien, F. (2020). Using parallel content analysis to measure mediatization of politics: The televised leaders’ debates in Canada, 1968–2008. Journalism, 21(11), 1743–1761. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884917751962.
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2014). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. ar**v preprint. ar**v:1406.5823.
Beck, C. S. (1996). “I’ve got some points I’d like to make here”: The achievement of social face through turn management during the 1992 vice presidential debate. Political Communication, 13(2), 165–180.
Benoit, W. L., & Wells, W. T. (1996). Candidates in conflict: Persuasive attack and defense in the 1992 presidential debates. University of Alabama Press.
Bilmes, J. (1999). Questions, answers, and the organization of talk in the 1992 vice presidential debate: Fundamental considerations. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 32(3), 213–242.
Blumler, J. G. (2014). Mediatization and democracy. In F. Esser & J. Stromback (Eds.), Mediatization of politics (pp. 31–41). Palgrave Macmillan.
Blumler, J. G., & Kavanagh, D. (1999). The third age of political communication: Influences and features. Political Communication, 16(3), 209–230.
Brants, K., & Voltmer, K. (2011). Political communication in postmodern democracy: Challenging the primacy of politics. Springer.
Carlin, D. B., Morris, E., & Smith, S. (2001). The influence of format and questions on candidates’ strategic argument choices in the 2000 presidential debates. American Behavioral Scientist, 44(12), 2196–2218.
Carlin, D. P. (1989). A defense of the “debate” in presidential debates. The Journal of the American Forensic Association, 25(4), 208–213.
Carlin, D. P. (1992). Presidential debates as focal points for campaign arguments. Political Communication, 9(4), 251–265.
Clifford, S., & Jerit, J. (2013). How words do the work of politics: Moral foundations theory and the debate over stem cell research. The Journal of Politics, 75(3), 659–671.
D’Angelo, P., Büchel, F., & Esser, F. (2014). Mediatization of campaign coverage: Metacoverage of US elections. In F. Esser & J. Stromback (Eds.), Mediatization of politics (pp. 156–180). Palgrave Macmillan.
Dayan, D., & Katz, E. (1992). Media events. Harvard University Press.
Ekström, M., Fornäs, J., Jansson, A., & Jerslev, A. (2016). Three tasks for mediatization research: Contributions to an open agenda. Media, Culture & Society, 38(7), 1090–1108.
Esser, F. (2013). Mediatization as a challenge: Media logic versus political logic. In H. Kriesi, S. Lavenex, F. Esser, J. Matthes, M. Bühlmann, & D. Bochsler (Eds.), Democracy in the age of globalization and mediatization (pp. 155–176). Palgrave Macmillan.
Esser, F., & Strömbäck, J. (2014). A paradigm in the making: Lessons for the future of mediatization research. In F. Esser & J. Stromback (Eds.), Mediatization of Politics (pp. 223–242). Palgrave Macmillan.
Fernandes, D. (2020). Politics at the mall: The moral foundations of boycotts. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 39(4), 494–513.
Garten, J., Hoover, J., Johnson, K. M., Boghrati, R., Iskiwitch, C., & Dehghani, M. (2018). Dictionaries and distributions: Combining expert knowledge and large scale textual data content analysis. Behavior Research Methods, 50(1), 344–361.
Graham, J., Haidt, J., Koleva, S., Motyl, M., Iyer, R., Wojcik, S. P., et al. (2013). Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. Advances in experimental social psychology, 47, 55–130.
Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 1029.
Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., & Ditto, P. H. (2011). Map** the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 366.
Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814.
Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion (1st ed.). Pantheon Books.
Haidt, J., & Graham, J. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20(1), 98–116.
Haidt, J., & Joseph, C. (2004). Intuitive ethics: How innately prepared intuitions generate culturally variable virtues. Daedalus, 133(4), 55–66.
Haidt, J., & Joseph, C. (2007). The moral mind: How five sets of innate intuitions guide the development of many culture-specific virtues, and perhaps even modules. In P. Carruthers, S. Laurence, & S. Stich (Eds.), The innate mind (Vol. 3, pp. 367–391). New York: Oxford.
Hjarvard, S. (2013). The mediatization of culture and society. Routledge.
Hoover, J., Johnson, K., Boghrati, R., Graham, J., & Dehghani, M. (2018). Moral framing and charitable donation: Integrating exploratory social media analyses and confirmatory experimentation. Collabra. Psychology, 4(1), https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.129.
Hoover, J., Portillo-Wightman, G., Yeh, L., Havaldar, S., Davani, A. M., Lin, Y., et al. (2020). Moral Foundations Twitter Corpus: A collection of 35k tweets annotated for moral sentiment. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(8), 1057–1071.
Jamieson, K. H., & Birdsell, D. S. (1990). Presidential debates: The challenge of creating an informed electorate. Oxford University Press on Demand.
Kepplinger, H. M. (2002). Mediatization of politics: Theory and data. Journal of Communication, 52(4), 972–986.
Koleva, S. P., Graham, J., Iyer, R., Ditto, P. H., & Haidt, J. (2012). Tracing the threads: How five moral concerns (especially Purity) help explain culture war attitudes. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(2), 184–194.
Kraft, P. W. (2018). Measuring morality in political attitude expression. The Journal of Politics, 80(3), 1028–1033.
Kriesi, H. (2013). Conclusion: An assessment of the state of democracy given the challenges of globalization and mediatization. In H. Kriesi, S. Lavenex, F. Esser, J. Matthes, M. Buhlmann, & D. Bochsler (Eds.), Democracy in the Age of Globalization and Mediatization (pp. 202–215). Palgrave Macmillan.
Kristensen, N. N. (2000). Journalistik som profession. In F. Henriksen (Ed.), Om journalistens rolleplacering i et professionssociologisk perspektiv. [Journalism as profession] (pp. 159–184). Sekvens.
Lewis, P. G. (2019). Moral foundations in the 2015–16 US Presidential primary debates: The positive and negative moral vocabulary of partisan elites. Social Sciences, 8(8), 233.
Lowry, D. T., Bridges, J. A., & Barefield, P. A. (1990). Effects of TV “Instant Analysis and Querulous Criticism:” following the first Bush–Dukakis debate. Journalism Quarterly, 67(4), 814–825.
Marcinkowski, F., & Steiner, A. (2014). Mediatization and political autonomy: A systems approach. In F. Esser & J. Stromback (Eds.), Mediatization of Politics (pp. 74–89). Palgrave Macmillan.
Matsuo, A., Sasahara, K., Taguchi, Y., & Karasawa, M. (2019). Development and validation of the Japanese moral foundations dictionary. PLoS One, 14(3), e0213343.
Mazzoleni, G. (2008). Mediatization of politics. In W. Donsbach (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of communication (Vol. 7, pp. 3047-3051). Malden, MA: Wiley/Blackwell.
Mazzoleni, G. (2014). Mediatization and political populism. In F. Esser & J. Stromback (Eds.), Mediatization of politics (pp. 42–56): Palgrave Macmillan.
Mazzoleni, G., & Schulz, W. (1999). “Mediatization” of politics: A challenge for democracy? Political Communication, 16(3), 247–261.
McKinney, M. S., & Carlin, D. B. (2004). Political campaign debates. In L. L. Kaid (Ed.), Handbook of political communication research (pp. 203–234). New York: Routledge.
McKinney, M. S., Dudash, E. A., & Hodgkinson, G. (2003). Viewer reactions to the 2000 presidential debates. In L. L. Kaid, J. C. Tedesco, D. G. Bystrom, & M. S. McKinney (Eds.), The millennium election: Communication in the 2000 campaign (pp. 43–58): Rowman & Littlefield.
McKinnon, L. M., & Tedesco, J. C. (1999). The influence of medium and media commentary on presidential debate effects. In L. L. Kaid (Ed.), The electronic election: Perspectives on the 1996 campaign (pp. 191–206): Erlbaum.
McKinnon, L. M., Tedesco, J. C., & Kaid, L. L. (1993). The third 1992 presidential debate: Channel and commentary effects. Argumentation and Advocacy, 30(2), 106–118.
Mikolov, T., Sutskever, I., Chen, K., Corrado, G. S., & Dean, J. (2013). Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. In Paper presented at Neural Information Processing Systems.
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84(3), 231.
Sagi, E., & Dehghani, M. (2014). Measuring moral rhetoric in text. Social Science Computer Review, 32(2), 132–144.
Steeper, F. T. (1978). Public response to Gerald Ford's statements on Eastern Europe in the second debate. In G. F. Bishop, R. G. Meadow, & M. Jackson-Beeck (Eds.), The presidential debates: Media, electoral, and policy perspectives (pp. 81–101). New York, NY: Praeger.
Strömbäck, J. (2008). Four phases of mediatization: An analysis of the mediatization of politics. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 13(3), 228–246.
Strömbäck, J., & Esser, F. (2014). Mediatization of politics: Towards a theoretical framework. In F. Esser & J. Stromback (Eds.), Mediatization of politics (pp. 3–28): Palgrave Macmillan.
Strömbäck, J., Esser, F., & Lundby, K. (2009). Sha** politics: Mediatization and media interventionism. In K. Lundby (Ed.), Mediatization: Concept, Chages, Consequences. New York: Peter Lang.
Van Aelst, P., Thesen, G., Walgrave, S., & Vliegenthart, R. (2014). Mediatization and political agenda-setting: changing issue priorities? In F. Esser & J. Stromback (Eds.), Mediatization of politics (pp. 200-220): Palgrave Macmillan.
Weber, C. R., & Federico, C. M. (2013). Moral foundations and heterogeneity in ideological preferences. Political Psychology, 34(1), 107–126.
Wheatley, T., & Haidt, J. (2005). Hypnotic disgust makes moral judgments more severe. Psychological Science, 16(10), 780–784.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
We do not have any interests that might be interpreted as influencing the research, and APA ethical standards were adhered to in the research process.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix
Appendix
Multilevel regression of moral dimensions and partisanship on moral loadings
Variables | b | se | 95% CI |
---|---|---|---|
Intercept | 0.438 | 0.003 | [0.432, 0.443] |
Party (R) | − 0.014 | 0.003 | [− 0.02, − 0.008] |
Moral (betrayal) | − 0.112 | 0.003 | [− 0.117, − 0.106] |
Moral (care) | 0.027 | 0.003 | [0.021, 0.033] |
Moral (cheating) | − 0.083 | 0.003 | [− 0.089, − 0.078] |
Moral (degradation) | − 0.113 | 0.003 | [− 0.118, − 0.107] |
Moral (fairness) | − 0.012 | 0.003 | [− 0.018, − 0.007] |
Moral (harm) | 0.009 | 0.003 | [0.003, 0.015] |
Moral(loyalty) | − 0.014 | 0.003 | [− 0.019, − 0.008] |
Moral (sanctity) | − 0.117 | 0.003 | [− 0.122, − 0.111] |
Moral (subversion) | − 0.091 | 0.003 | [− 0.097, − 0.085] |
Party (R) × moral (betrayal) | 0.014 | 0.004 | [0.006, 0.022] |
Party (R) × moral (care) | 0.001 | 0.004 | [− 0.007, 0.009] |
Party (R) × moral (cheating) | 0.009 | 0.004 | [0.001, 0.017] |
Party (R) × moral (degradation) | 0.021 | 0.004 | [0.013, 0.029] |
Party (R) × moral (fairness) | 0.001 | 0.004 | [− 0.007, 0.009] |
Party (R) × moral (harm) | 0.009 | 0.004 | [0.001, 0.018] |
Party (R) × moral (loyalty) | − 0.002 | 0.004 | [− 0.01, 0.006] |
Party (R) × moral (sanctity) | 0.012 | 0.004 | [0.004, 0.02] |
Party (R) ×moral (subversion) | 0.011 | 0.004 | [0.002, 0.019] |
ICC (debate rounds) = 0.343 | |||
ICC (election years) = 0.173 | |||
N = 680 |
Regression of the moral divergence between Republican and Democratic presidential candidates over years
Variables | b | se | p value |
---|---|---|---|
Intercept | − 2.345 | 0.985 | 0.023* |
Election year | 0.005 | 0.002 | 0.017* |
R2 = 0.166 | |||
N = 34 |
Multilevel regression of the moral divergence between Republican and Democratic presidential candidates in different debate rounds
Variables | b | se | 95% CI |
---|---|---|---|
Intercept | 0.160 | 0.014 | [0.132, 0.188] |
Round 2 | − 0.035 | 0.013 | [− 0.059, − 0.011] |
Round 3 | − 0.012 | 0.015 | [− 0.040, 0.016] |
Round 4 | 0.056 | 0.037 | [− 0.128, 0.013] |
ICC (election years) = 0.629 | |||
N = 34 |
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Xu, M., Hu, L. & Cameron, G.T. Tracking moral divergence with DDR in presidential debates over 60 years. J Comput Soc Sc 6, 339–357 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42001-023-00198-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42001-023-00198-8