Social Influence on Political Judgments: The Case of Presidential Debates

Abstract

Four experiments investigated the extent to which judgments of candidate performance in presidential debates could be influenced by the mere knowledge of others' reactions. In Experiments 1 and 2 participants watched an intact version of a debate or an edited version in which either "soundbite" one-liners or the audience reaction to those soundbites were removed. In Experiment 3 participants saw what was supposedly the reaction of their fellow participants on screen during the debate. Participants in Experiment 4 were exposed to the reactions of live confederates as they watched the last debate of an active presidential campaign. In all studies, audience reactions produced large shifts in participants' judgments of performance. The results illustrate the power of social context to strongly influence individuals' judgments of even large amounts of relevant, important information, and they support the categorization of presidential debates as ambiguous stimuli, fertile ground for informational social influence.

Who Says What About Whom: Young Voters' Impression Formation of Political Candidates on Social Networking Sites

“…That is, individuals are affected by several visible opinions of others available at the moment regardless of their representativeness. Individuals tend to regard others' reactions as a snapshot of the typical or predominant opinion and infer what the appropriate response to them might be (Fein, Goethals, & Kugler, 2007). This third-party reaction effect on an observer has been found even without their presence.…”

“Please Clap”: Applause, Laughter, and Booing during the 2016 GOP Presidential Primary Debates

“…Although not as substantial as contributions, audience response provides an audible, salient, and robust index of a party's unity, especially with larger more diverse crowds. However, the eff ect of these utterances on the media and the viewers watching at home remains unexplored (notwithstanding Fein, Goethals, and Kugler 2007 ). Future research needs to consider disaggregated audience response, as well as the strength and timing of such utterances and their diff erential eff ect on viewer impressions, emotional connections, attitudes, and expectations of the candidates and their political parties.…”

“…However, like applause, laughter is influenced by candidate status and likability as preferred candidates are often seen as funnier; in turn, their humorous comments lead them to being viewed more positively (Fein et al 2007 ;Stewart 2011 ). Thus candidates with lower standing are more likely to attempt to use humor to increase their likeability, whereas humorous comments by front running candidates are more likely to lead to contagious audience laughter.…”

“…These utterances not only indicate the level of support and prestige gained or lost by the candidates during their debate performance, they also potentially indicate opposing factions in an audience. Furthermore, these forms of group utterances can exert social infl uence over the attitudes toward and expectations of the presidential contenders by those watching at home (Fein, Goethals, and Kugler 2007 ).…”

Not all automatic associations are created equal: How implicit normative evaluations are distinct from implicit attitudes and uniquely predict meaningful behavior

“…Research by Fein, Goethals, and Kugler (2007) demonstrated that people's voting intentions can be influenced by an audience's reaction to a speech in a presidential debate. When the audience responded with cheers and laughter, participants reported being more likely to vote for the candidate than when the audience's reactions were removed.…”