Beyond learning and persona: extending the scope of presidential debate effects

By William L. Benoit, M. McKinney, Lance Holbert. 2001

98 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Communication, Political Science and International Relations, Philosophy

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6dfc6e724aedd9274ca3b75050662b25b7648b96

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Communication

1. Glenn J. Hansen
2. Rebecca M. Verser
3. William L. Benoit

In Political Science and International Relations

1. Glenn J. Hansen
2. Rebecca M. Verser
3. William L. Benoit

In Philosophy

1. Glenn J. Hansen
2. Rebecca M. Verser
3. William L. Benoit

Citations in the corpus

• A meta-analysis of the effects of viewing U.S. presidential debates (2003, methodology): “…DEBATES Author(s) Year r N Ss1 Design2 Debate # Days3 Kraus & Smith, 1962 1960 0.206 131 N P 1 37 Abramowitz, 1978 1976 0.006 139 N P 1 41 Becker, Sobowale, Cobbey, 1976 0.124 297 N V all n/a & Eyal, 1978 Benoit et al., 2001 2000 0.355 58 S P 1 29 Mean weighted effect size, total N 0.136 625 Notes.”